1. Education
Jodi Beggs

A Very Earnest Message From a "Job Creator" to the Senate...

By June 10, 2013

Follow me on:

I was told a number of years ago that Harvard Kennedy School professor Rob Stavins is always very careful to point out to his students that a job created is a cost, not a direct benefit. (Of course, the benefits to the company of hiring another worker may outweigh this cost, but that doesn't make the cost not exist.) It shouldn't be surprising, then, that many of the so-called "job creators" in our society aren't so down with that label unless it's politically convenient.

Recently, entrepreneur Nick Hanauer got the chance to essentially say as much to the U.S. Senate. A few points in the remarks are worth noting:

  • I'm not sure that I entirely buy the supposed direct relationship between taxes and hiring, if for no other reason than labor costs are an expense to a business and thus not part of its taxable income. It is, however, possible that higher corporate taxes make it less attractive to produce on the margin and therefore companies might not expand as much, but even this argument is challenging since the taxes wold affect all businesses that people put their resources into. (This isn't even considering the fact that much of the "job creators" talk focuses on personal rather than business taxes.)
  • The argument that Hanauer makes perfectly characterizes the demand versus supply debate that exists in macroeconomics. Clearly, an economy needs both demand and supply to function, but which comes first? This is basically the macroeconomic equivalent of the chicken and egg problem. (On the other side of the argument from Hanauer you have Say's law, which was sarcastically co-opted by John Maynard Keynes as "supply creates its own demand.") I'm inclined to take Hanauer seriously on this point, since he is clearly speaking from experience.
  • I think the statement "the goal of every business--profit-- is largely a measure of our relative ability to not create jobs compared to our competitors" is one of the best parts of the speech. Really, how many companies can you think of that will certainly try everything to get more work out of existing employees (and existing salaries) before bringing in new people?
  • From a policy perspective, fiscal stimulus (read, tax cuts that increase the deficit) are attractive because they get people to consume more. Like Hanauer, I've often wondered if policy makers realize that rich guys often don't use but a small portion of their money for consumption. (Talking to you, Waren Buffett. Also, I think the term Hanauer is looking for is "low marginal propensity to consume.") In some cases, there could still be aggregate demand benefits to tax cuts for rich people if they put their extra income into savings, since savings ultimately funds investment. At the present time, however, interest rates (i.e. the cost of borrowing to invest) are already so low that these effects would be greatly muted.
  • It's important to understand that the lower tax rate on capital gains as opposed to income is at least partially a result of the fact that the profits causing the capital gains are already taxed at the corporate level whereas labor is a pre-tax expense for companies. (In other words, just because somebody's not physically writing a check doesn't mean that he's not paying a tax.)

You can take or leave Hanauer's normative statements on inequality, but, either way, the guy makes some decent and realistic economic points and highlights some areas that require more nuanced thinking.

Comments

June 11, 2013 at 8:47 am
(1) Macrocompassion says:

At last there is some sensible talk about job creation! If the job is “created” from government taxes, then the money that would otherwise be used by those being taxed is now being given to the new employees. But what about the loss of employment due to the reduced purcheses and investments by the rest whose taxes have risen to provide the new jobs?

Obviously the net result is nil. In other words a government CANNOT CREATE JOBS without taking work from somebody else.

When a company is encouraged to employ more workers it could possibly take advantage of this and as a result of the new labor force might lower its production costs. However this is a small effect of which the company was no doubt already aware and would most likely have introduced by itself had it been thought to be worthwhile.

March 18, 2014 at 2:24 am
(2) fitness program for women says:

Searching reddit.com I noticed your web site book-marked as:
A Very Earnest Message From a “Job Creator” to the Senate….
I’m assuming you book marked it yourself and wanted to ask if social
bookmarking gets you a bunch of site visitors? I’ve been thinking about doing some bookmarking for a few of my sites but wasn’t certain if it would yield any positive results.
Many thanks.

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.