Archived

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

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

26 posts in this topic

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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?

First off, sorry about Wachovia. I am truly sad for all the workers that lost their jobs due to the greed and incompetence at the highest levels of that organization. I really hated to see that happen. If it had been a NY Bank, I am pretty sure the outcome would have been more favorable.

Good point, these numbers do apply more so to the Fortune 500. However, (I am trying to be a little more selective in my wording here, than I was in my rant) executive compensation encompasses, as I’m sure you know, much more than a simple salary.

400px-CEO_pay_v._average_slub.png

Source: Economic Policy Institute. 2011

Executive pay (also executive compensation), is financial compensation received by an officer of a firm. It is typically a mixture of salary, bonuses, shares of and/or call options on the company stock, benefits, and perquisites, ideally configured to take into account government regulations, tax law, the desires of the organization and the executive, and rewards for performance.[1] Over the past three decades, executive pay has risen dramatically relative to that of an average worker's wage in the United States

Here is a liink to the rest of the disscusion about executive pay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_pay#cite_note-Herald_Tribune-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

Salary/pay statistics can be horribly skewed to enforce people's biases and liberals do it a lot more than conservatives imo. But you also have to look at how top executives are often given other forms of compensation, like stock options, mostly because it makes sense for them to have a stake in the companies they run, but also because at that level of wealth capitol gains gets you more bang for your buck. All in all I don't think straight up salary comparison is fair, but people do tend to gravitate towards the most extreme cases when it helps their arguments.

Surely you can see the point of the video was not about income equality but how republicans have used the 'job creator' terminology to get and maintain the lower taxes they want(I realize you were just responding to a particular post though). That kind of ties into the TED stuff. I think they were weary of it because it was an obvious jab at republicans and, although TED is mostly liberal and supportive of democrats, they still like to have themselves perceived as non-partisan. The speaker could have been more eloquent and not deliberately thrown stones at republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

First off, sorry about Wachovia. I am truly sad for all the workers that lost their jobs due to the greed and incompetence at the highest levels of that organization. I really hated to see that happen. If it had been a NY Bank, I am pretty sure the outcome would have been more favorable.

Good point, these numbers do apply more so to the Fortune 500. However, (I am trying to be a little more selective in my wording here, than I was in my rant) executive compensation encompasses, as I’m sure you know, much more than a simple salary.

400px-CEO_pay_v._average_slub.png

Source: Economic Policy Institute. 2011

Executive pay (also executive compensation), is financial compensation received by an officer of a firm. It is typically a mixture of salary, bonuses, shares of and/or call options on the company stock, benefits, and perquisites, ideally configured to take into account government regulations, tax law, the desires of the organization and the executive, and rewards for performance.[1] Over the past three decades, executive pay has risen dramatically relative to that of an average worker's wage in the United States

Here is a liink to the rest of the disscusion about executive pay:

http://en.wikipedia....erald_Tribune-4

No doubt that CEO's get pay in different ways. And again, no doubt that their pay has risen dramatically. But there are a lot of CEO's, some of which manage companies with only a handful of employees. Their salaries don't come anywhere close to the numbers that the fortune 500 guys make. But of course, the fortune 500 guys really skew the average quite a bit. :)

But to be honest, I am not really concerned about CEO pay. Their pay is high, and it makes them a target, but imo their pay is largely irrelevant irt the economy and how americans as a whole are doing. In a fortune 500 company, CEO pay makes up a very small percentage of the payroll.

Instead of talking about CEO pay, tell me how much average pay has risen compared to inflation. That is a far better indication of how the middle class is doing (and how many jobs it can create) than doing a comparison of CEO versus the average worker. Better yet, tell me how many hours the average worker has to work to afford the basics of life (food, clothing, shelter). There was an article I posted here some time ago (wish I could find it now) that showed the amount of hours that a laborer had to work to purchase things like milk, or gas, or some of the other basics of modern day life. In effect, the amount of labor hadn't changed. On average, people are doing about the same now as then. Of course, the big problem is that we have more debt, and less savings, but thats for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Salary/pay statistics can be horribly skewed to enforce people's biases and liberals do it a lot more than conservatives imo. But you also have to look at how top executives are often given other forms of compensation, like stock options, mostly because it makes sense for them to have a stake in the companies they run, but also because at that level of wealth capitol gains gets you more bang for your buck. All in all I don't think straight up salary comparison is fair, but people do tend to gravitate towards the most extreme cases when it helps their arguments.

Surely you can see the point of the video was not about income equality but how republicans have used the 'job creator' terminology to get and maintain the lower taxes they want(I realize you were just responding to a particular post though). That kind of ties into the TED stuff. I think they were weary of it because it was an obvious jab at republicans and, although TED is mostly liberal and supportive of democrats, they still like to have themselves perceived as non-partisan. The speaker could have been more eloquent and not deliberately thrown stones at republicans.

I generally don't watch video's that are posted here, in part because so many of them are conspiracy stuff (I realize this one isn't), and in part because my computer is old and slow and I am a tightwad who refuses to get a new one until I absolutely have to. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites