> But the general idea is that investment by the rich (not all investment mind you) is the primary source of jobs for the poor.
It's business that gives jobs, not rich people. Not all rich people give jobs and not all jobs are given by rich people. In fact, the biggest employer is the small and mid size companies.
As such, the primary source of jobs "for the poor" is the deli round your corner, the small farm outside town and the shoe manufacturer down south. Sorry, but you are mistaken.
I skim far too much these days, but I believe I best heard part of this discussion summarized like this:
How many poor people have you ever worked for?
I take offense at the fact you you missed to mention the thousands of victims, especially jews.
I also take offense at the fact that I missed to mention the other victims that weren't jews.
I also take offense at the fact that I took offense at something I said.
You insensitive clod!
Let's talk about religion ;)
Whenever a politician is talking about "creating jobs" and they aren't talking about helping the rich or helping businesses, they are flat out lying or stupid.
Well I like this discussion. Keep in mind, I'm not asking rhetorical questions, I'm asking real questions...ultimately I feel that economy is something I do not really understand that well. Also, I've had an almost impossible time putting forth my questions/comments without making a huge number of assumptions.
A) If there exists a scenario where it is undisputed that the rich are plenty rich, but still choosing to hire foreign workers because it is cheaper at the time, is it ok for the Government to step in to put up legal barriers to such activity?Quote:
Aside from government jobs, it is the only place that jobs come from. Hating the rich and wanting to tax them relentlessly is not economically helpful.
B) Assuing creating jobs in another country helps that country's economic development, is it possible that market economics would naturally resolve the situation stated in A; namely that as the other country's economy expands, it becomes less economically attractive to send jobs there (due to increased cost of living, the equalizing of the two currencies, etc). And, if you agree with the first part of B, if it's determined that expanding the other country's economy is not in the best interests of your country, e.g. due to military/political reasons, should your Government step in and put up legal barriers to such activity.
How far do you think Government regulation should go? e.g. was the Government's hand in punishing Microsoft (which I believe was about breaking up their monopoly) a good idea?
After reading The World is Flat by Friedman, I got the feeling that the globalization of our markets may actually be the best mechanism for a couple of important things: spreading wealth worldwide and preventing epic conflicts on the scale of the world wars (due to the increasingly interconnected nature of the world markets where any disruption could prove disastrous to each side's economies).
I guess in fairness, the other view is that capitalism is the cause of much of the pain and misfortune in the world, and a cause for many wars. I just think that spurring economic development in, say, China, where roughly 1/6th of the world population lives has probably brought more people out of poverty than, say, charities being sent to Africa.
It is pretty clear that employment is spread fairly well across all business sizes.
Even so, it doesn't matter because nearly ALL business is driven by investment. Investment is a function of people with money trying to make more money (sounds so evil doesn't it?). But that is where jobs come from.
True, my bad.Quote:
that's a whole other can of worms.. hope it doesn't derail the discussion
Any books on economics that you'd suggest? I'm not interested in reading something that necessarily argues for or against a particular kind of economic system, rather just something to help understand how economics works. Like I said, I read 'The World is Flat' by friedman, which has helped understanding globalization, but when I go to read about all of the cause/effect relationships of, say, the proposed bailout, I quickly get lost.
dunno. people rave about the Undercover Economist and Freakonomics. Haven't read them myself. I read a couple of Jim Cramer's books though. I like him, but he's more of a stock market guy than an overall economist. And he's a bit less serious.
So... erm... where did you see what you say you saw? Because everything in that census says the contrary of your the-rich-save-the-world rethoric:
Do look at table 2c again and fill me in with what you don't understand in those numbers. Also do the math on table 2a. And for good measure compare the growth rates between tables 2a and 2b.
Please, don't let a Portuguese tard teach you how to read an american census.
2c doesn't say what you think it says. It shows the percentage of the firms in each category, not the percentage of people. It is comparable to the "firms" column of 2a and 2b. Not helpful for discussion.
The "paid employees" column is the one that's relevant here as the discussion is about what type of company employs more, not how many of those types of company there are. Of course there are less large companies!
The cutoff point is approximately at the 500 employee mark. Half of employed people are in companies above that size, half below.
The text agrees with Mario.Quote:
Small Business versus Big Business
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation, and meets certain standards of size in terms of employees or annual receipts [ ... ]. A small business is considered "small" only in relation to other businesses in its industry. A wholesaler may sell up tp $22 million and still be considered a small business by the SBA. In manufacturing, a plant can have 1,500 employees and still be considered small.  Lets look at some interesting statistics about small businesses: 
- There are over 20 million full- and part-time home-based businesses in the United States.
- Nearly 750,000 tax paying employee-hiring businesses are started every year.
- Small businesses create over 75 percent of the new jobs in the United States.
- Of all nonfarm businesses in the United States, almost 97 percent are considered small by SBA standards.
- Small businesses account for more than 50 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).
[ ... ]
- About 80 percent of Americans find their first jobs in small businesses.
I'm not sure if I agree that investment is one of the most important stakeholders in all business the way that you say they are, either. I've learned that small businesses and sole-proprietors alike don't necessarily need huge piles of money to start operation. For example, I could start a word processing service right now with zero investment. Success is another story but the fact remains.
 Gwendolyn Bounds, "SBA Reconsiders What Small Means," The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2005, and "Small Businesses," Business Wire, June 2, 2005.
 Martin Wolk, "Snall Business Having Big Impact on Jobs," MSNBC Interactive, August 2005; U.S. Census Bureau; and SBA Office of Advocacy.
Excerpted from Understanding Business, Eighth Edition from McGraw-Hill.