Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NanuqoftheNorth

You Are A Job Creator (If You Are Part Of The Middle Class)

26 posts in this topic

I was going to post this in your other thread, but figured this is the one it will be discussed in. TED chose not to publish this speech and a lot of people didn't like that. They got creamed on a bunch of websites, I saw it on Reddit. The curator, Chris Anderson, posted this as a response to criticism, so I'll pass it along so people can hear both sides of the argument.

TED in my opinion is pretty open to different ideas and like Chris said in the link, if they would have just published it a lot less people would have seen or cared about it.

http://tedchris.post...s.com/131417405

What should be unconvincing to the American Public is that the massive redistribution of wealth in our society from the middle class to a relatively minuscule portion of population is in anyone's long term best interests.

Economists have known for hundreds of years that this type of imbalance in wealth is dangerous, including the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.

The way our society's wealth has been intentionally stolen through the manipulation of our country's laws and tax regulations over the last 40 years is not in the best interests of anyone that believes in a healthy economy or a healthy democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the real reason why it wasn't published, but is it that hard to believe it just didn't make the cut? They don't publish every talk on their website. The dude, in my opinion, isn't a great public speaker. There is nothing ground breaking in the talk, he is just talking about supply and demand. Plus some of it is a little "disingenuous" as he likes to say. His final point was that a lot of wealthy people pay about 15% because of capital gains and the such, but real Americans pay a 35% income tax. Well, most of the people who qualify for the 35% bracket (over 372,000/year) are probably investing and not by any stretch of the imagination "average" Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the real reason why it wasn't published, but is it that hard to believe it just didn't make the cut? They don't publish every talk on their website. The dude, in my opinion, isn't a great public speaker. There is nothing ground breaking in the talk, he is just talking about supply and demand. Plus some of it is a little "disingenuous" as he likes to say. His final point was that a lot of wealthy people pay about 15% because of capital gains and the such, but real Americans pay a 35% income tax. Well, most of the people who qualify for the 35% bracket (over 372,000/year) are probably investing and not by any stretch of the imagination "average" Americans.

Some good points. Nick is not the best speaker and the way he utilized the 35% tax bracket was somewhat disingenuous. Having said that, his point about the financial elite paying a smaller percent of their income than many middle class workers still rings true.

In more moderate times, say 40 years ago, what he is saying would have been considered a given by most Americans.

Today, with the 1% Job Creator and Class Warfare, mantra being constantly put forward by the Plutocrats and the GOP, Nick Hanauer's views are considered, heresy, radical or at least unconventional by many.

Including this little gem:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TED is a rather liberal gathering (as any erudite crowd is going to be) and has had just as biased talks as this one. I don't have any reason to believe they just didn't post it because it wasn't popular or good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of articles that touch on why the video was not released to the general public until now.

http://business.time...-article-latest

TED curator Chris Anderson referenced the Gates talk in an e-mail to colleagues in early April, which was also sent to Hanauer, suggesting that he didn't want to release Hanauer’s talk at the same time as the one on contraception.

Hanauer’s talk “probably ranks as one of the most politically controversial talks we've ever run, and we need to be really careful when” to post it, Anderson wrote on April 6. “Next week ain't right. Confidentially, we already have Melinda Gates on contraception going out. Sorry for the mixed messages on this.”

In early May Anderson followed up with Hanauer to inform him he’d decided not to post his talk.

There is more here...

http://www.nationalj...uality-20120516

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who spends money is a job creator. I just recently did some upgrades on my house and hired a contractor to do the work. He hired a couple of people to help him. Created about two weeks worth of work. Therefore, I am a job creator. Same guy also did some work for the retired airline pilot that lives behind me. That guy has a lot more money than I do, and he had a couple of months worth of upgrades, so he created more jobs, or at least jobs that lasted longer. It doesn't bother me a bit that he has more money than me, because he earned it. He is a bigger job creator, because he has more money. Nothing earth shattering about any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several ways to look at job creation as it pertains to leaving money in the private sector. The investment portion is one of the items overlooked. Many have a great idea and need investors to get them started. If the gov takes a bigger portion of this money and "blows" it, then there is obviously less to invest in small ventures.

common sense that companies don't just one day decide to hire more people unless something like demand, or long term tax benefit changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several ways to look at job creation as it pertains to leaving money in the private sector. The investment portion is one of the items overlooked. Many have a great idea and need investors to get them started. If the gov takes a bigger portion of this money and "blows" it, then there is obviously less to invest in small ventures.

common sense that companies don't just one day decide to hire more people unless something like demand, or long term tax benefit changes

That guy has a lot more money than I do, and he had a couple of months worth of upgrades, so he created more jobs, or at least jobs that lasted longer. It doesn't bother me a bit that he has more money than me, because he earned it. He is a bigger job creator, because he has more money. Nothing earth shattering about any of this.

Warning: Rant On/

There are very few Americans who begrudge those that worked hard and were fortunate enough to realize their dreams. So please already, stop the GOP straw-man rhetoric about people envying the rich. That is not what this is about. Nick Hanauer is likely richer than anyone most of us know and has started dozens of businesses. I doubt he envies anyone, at least not financially.

Here is the problem as I see it:

In the 1970s the average CEO earned around twenty times what his average worker did and paid a higher rate of taxes. He lived a very good life, if not a privileged one.

Today the average CEO earns hundreds of times what his average worker earns and pays a historically low tax rate, often lower than his employees.

This isn't because the CEOs are 100s of times smarter than they were 40 years ago or the average worker is somehow less productive.

It is simply that corporate executives at the top of the food chain decided to elevate their own compensation through incestuous corporate boards that give each other raises, bonuses and golden parachutes, while eliminating meaningful raises for their employees to make the bottom line look better and justify more raises and stock options for themselves. See Bain Capital for more details.

The result is many average Americans that would have had a living wage and been able to purchase a car or home to improve their own lives and stimulate the economy or pay more taxes to reduce the federal debt, are just barely making enough to stay off food stamps, if they are even able to do that.

These people are not lazy, many are working harder each day than the CEOs that are spending time on the golf course making deals and scheming with lobbyist on how to create a new loop hole in the tax code to evade contributing to the United States of America that provided these same CEOs with all the opportunities they now seem to take for granted.

This is about a system that has become so perverted that a very small percentage of our society (Anointed "The Job Creators" by the GOP and FOX) has decided to keep the vast majority of wealth our workers generate for themselves (The real Class Warfare is against the 99 per-centers and it has been going on for decades) while denying our country the resources it needs to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Note: See the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights for more information.

/Rant Off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning: Rant On/

Here is the problem as I see it.

In the 1970s the average CEO earned around twenty times what his average worker did and paid a higher rate of taxes. He lived a very good, if not a privileged life.

Today the average CEO earns hundreds of times what his average worker earns and pays a historically low tax rate, often lower than his employees.

I don't think its true that the AVERAGE CEO earns hundreds of times what the average worker earns. . According to Salary.com, the median salary for a CEO is about $700,000 per year. Perhaps you mean the average fortune 500 CEO or something along that line.

I am not sure what a good CEO is worth, but since I worked for Wachovia, I saw what a bad one can do. Wachovia had a bad one, and he destroyed the company, cost thousands of jobs, not to mention hundreds of millions in lost stock value for people who had held wachovia stock for a long time. I wish that Wachovia would have paid a Jamie Dimon or a John Stumpf a huge salary so that the company would still exist and a lot of my friends would not have lost their jobs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its true that the AVERAGE CEO earns hundreds of times what the average worker earns. . According to Salary.com, the median salary for a CEO is about $700,000 per year. Perhaps you mean the average fortune 500 CEO or something along that line.

I am not sure what a good CEO is worth, but since I worked for Wachovia, I saw what a bad one can do. Wachovia had a bad one, and he destroyed the company, cost thousands of jobs, not to mention hundreds of millions in lost stock value for people who had held wachovia stock for a long time. I wish that Wachovia would have paid a Jamie Dimon or a John Stumpf a huge salary so that the company would still exist and a lot of my friends would not have lost their jobs.

Here you are injecting facts again. What, you want to screw up the rants?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites