If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Job creators destroying more jobs than they're creating   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 61
    More: Ironic, employees  
•       •       •

3279 clicks; posted to Business » on 06 May 2014 at 3:28 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 12:27:11 PM
Did you know you can save 15% in 15 minutes by switching to GEICO?
 
2014-05-06 12:33:28 PM
It's all because of the current Regime's policies of crushing small businesses through draconian regualteions ane terxes and ... Benghazi!!!!
 
2014-05-06 12:47:00 PM
Self-employment taxes were doubled under Reagan.  If we rolled them back to where they were, perhaps more entrepreneurs would find themselves succeeding instead of failing.
 
2014-05-06 12:57:50 PM
The comments are a scream.
 
2014-05-06 02:20:53 PM
Put a face on corporations - have the CEO and the Board of Directors personally liable for any criminal and financial shenanigans of their corporation. They want to rape, I mean, reap the rewards  - let the face the consequences.

Instead of raising minimum wage, have a minimum rate for job descriptions.  Any company over 100 employees are required to classify positions according to federal guidelines and pay individuals fitting said guidelines at least that much.  Have a grievance process for employees and heavy penalties for the employers who try to scheme around it.  Burger flippers still won't make dick, but then again - those positions are not meant to be career aspirations.

Level the playing field a bit between corporations and small businesses.  We MIGHT just see a change in the economy.
 
2014-05-06 03:27:45 PM
I blame the internet.
 
2014-05-06 03:31:39 PM
Blah blah Fartbama blah blah blah Communism blah blah John Galt blah.
 
2014-05-06 03:41:40 PM

K3rmy: Put a face on corporations - have the CEO and the Board of Directors personally liable for any criminal and financial shenanigans of their corporation. They want to rape, I mean, reap the rewards  - let the face the consequences.
Instead of raising minimum wage, have a minimum rate for job descriptions.  Any company over 100 employees are required to classify positions according to federal guidelines and pay individuals fitting said guidelines at least that much.  Have a grievance process for employees and heavy penalties for the employers who try to scheme around it.  Burger flippers still won't make dick, but then again - those positions are not meant to be career aspirations.
Level the playing field a bit between corporations and small businesses.  We MIGHT just see a change in the economy.


They'll just find ways to subfranchise or subcontract their workforces.

I'd rather see the Japanese regulatory model adopted - cap the total value of executive compensation packages at a set multiple (say 100x-200x) of their lowest-paid employee's total compensation package.
 
2014-05-06 03:44:30 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Self-employment taxes were doubled under Reagan.  If we rolled them back to where they were, perhaps more entrepreneurs would find themselves succeeding instead of failing.


If there was one thing I could change about the political conversation in this country it's that I would force everyone to have a basic understanding of the "ordinary and necessary" business expense deduction.

Well, let me back up: I'd start by making sure everyone understood that we have a net income tax in the US and that you have to make money to owe taxes.
 
2014-05-06 03:46:52 PM
Technically wouldn't all jobs be created by job creators?
 
2014-05-06 04:00:05 PM
Did the Ironic tag mercilessly destroy the Obvious tag?
 
2014-05-06 04:01:45 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Self-employment taxes were doubled under Reagan.  If we rolled them back to where they were, perhaps more entrepreneurs would find themselves succeeding instead of failing.


That's their solution to everything!
 
2014-05-06 04:03:49 PM

clkeagle: K3rmy: Put a face on corporations - have the CEO and the Board of Directors personally liable for any criminal and financial shenanigans of their corporation. They want to rape, I mean, reap the rewards  - let the face the consequences.
Instead of raising minimum wage, have a minimum rate for job descriptions.  Any company over 100 employees are required to classify positions according to federal guidelines and pay individuals fitting said guidelines at least that much.  Have a grievance process for employees and heavy penalties for the employers who try to scheme around it.  Burger flippers still won't make dick, but then again - those positions are not meant to be career aspirations.
Level the playing field a bit between corporations and small businesses.  We MIGHT just see a change in the economy.

They'll just find ways to subfranchise or subcontract their workforces.

I'd rather see the Japanese regulatory model adopted - cap the total value of executive compensation packages at a set multiple (say 100x-200x) of their lowest-paid employee's total compensation package.


And they'll just subfranchise or subcontract those workers instead. You'll see companies that are all executives and no grunts, just overseeing the management of work contracted to what used to be the lower levels of the company.
 
2014-05-06 04:04:22 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Self-employment taxes were doubled under Reagan.  If we rolled them back to where they were, perhaps more entrepreneurs would find themselves succeeding instead of failing.



yea, that's it.

and we need to cut the Wealthy's taxes too.  they've been struggling far too long.

you need to lay off the bong for a few weeks.
 
2014-05-06 04:05:49 PM
 
2014-05-06 04:08:08 PM

GoldSpider: Marcus Aurelius: Self-employment taxes were doubled under Reagan.  If we rolled them back to where they were, perhaps more entrepreneurs would find themselves succeeding instead of failing.

That's their solution to everything!



the truth is that is the problem.  that is one of the reasons why the wealthiest 2% in 'murica are richer now than they've been since the Industrial Revolution.

the Wealthy, nor big business, do not create jobs.  that is just reagan/GOP propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g&list=PLfLRo1Q-oUY2BA6oGSL G- cse5KDR-HkrA   (SFW)
 
2014-05-06 04:11:28 PM

Linux_Yes: the truth is that is the problem.  that is one of the reasons why the wealthiest 2% in 'murica are richer now than they've been since the Industrial Revolution.

the Wealthy, nor big business, do not create jobs.  that is just reagan/GOP propaganda.


Well I for one am not going to risk making millions of dollars in a successful self-start business venture only to have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes!
 
2014-05-06 04:12:05 PM
Last time I went into a relatively new business that was struggling, the owner gave me to understand that the reason guys like him are having a hard time is that since the recession started it's become extremely difficult to get new-business financing from banks.

Frankly, I think he has a point. Wonder if there's any way to get data on requests and denials for small-business loans.
 
2014-05-06 04:12:20 PM

GoldSpider: Linux_Yes: the truth is that is the problem.  that is one of the reasons why the wealthiest 2% in 'murica are richer now than they've been since the Industrial Revolution.

the Wealthy, nor big business, do not create jobs.  that is just reagan/GOP propaganda.

Well I for one am not going to risk making millions of dollars in a successful self-start business venture only to have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes!



hear ye!!   Stand up for what's Right!   Stand up for Freedom!    lol
 
2014-05-06 04:13:13 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Did you know you can save 15% in 15 minutes by switching to GEICO?


Actually, it's "up to 15% or more".

Which is a value that falls anywhere on an infinite number line.
 
2014-05-06 04:13:25 PM

MrBallou: It's all because of the current Regime's policies of crushing small businesses through draconian regualteions ane terxes and ... Benghazi!!!!



Sozialsisms!!   ahhhh!
 
2014-05-06 04:16:42 PM

pdieten: Last time I went into a relatively new business that was struggling, the owner gave me to understand that the reason guys like him are having a hard time is that since the recession started it's become extremely difficult to get new-business financing from banks.

Frankly, I think he has a point. Wonder if there's any way to get data on requests and denials for small-business loans.



the Bank's new job is to take in/steal money.  not loan it out.   and when the bank does make bad loans, it demands that the tax payer bail it out.

so either way, the banks win.

statement Thomas Jefferson made in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. He wrote, "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
 
2014-05-06 04:19:14 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: I blame the internet.



you should be blaming ObamaNet.  ((:
 
2014-05-06 04:23:32 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Self-employment taxes were doubled under Reagan.  If we rolled them back to where they were, perhaps more entrepreneurs would find themselves succeeding instead of failing.


When I think about dropping the day job I worry far more about health insurance costs than taxes.

I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if they covered health care.
 
2014-05-06 04:32:30 PM

K.B.O. Winston: Marcus Aurelius: Self-employment taxes were doubled under Reagan.  If we rolled them back to where they were, perhaps more entrepreneurs would find themselves succeeding instead of failing.

When I think about dropping the day job I worry far more about health insurance costs than taxes.

I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if they covered health care.


mine would be feeding the black hole that is my basketball playing son


4 more years till he's 18
 
2014-05-06 04:36:24 PM
I know the answer to why fewer new businesses are started:

Because larger businesses are becoming more efficient over time; IE, economies of scale are becoming more important.

Example: Walmart.  Walmart (and Target, and other large chain stores) put a lot of small businesses out of business, because their selection is better and their prices are lower than the mom and pop stores.

Bad if you own a small store competing with Walmart.  Good if you buy stuff that Walmart sells (IE, everybody else).

Even from an employee perceptive, Walmart is better-small general goods stores don't exactly pay their employees top notch wages; Walmart typically pays better, believe it or don't.
 
2014-05-06 04:38:43 PM

loonatic112358: mine would be feeding the black hole that is my basketball playing son


As someone who got hungry one morning at age 12 and was not sated until my early 20s, keep large stocks of food on hand, and teach the kid how to cook. And watch your fingers at mealtimes. And don't wait for him to start clearing off the dinner table.

Good luck. We're all counting on you.
 
2014-05-06 04:39:43 PM
This chart is a great example of how to mislead with graphics. It starts with the zero point on the x axis set to 6%. This is a big no no in data display and is done to make changes in the data look bigger than they are. If you notice that and then look closely at the numbers, the BIG DROP (which started with the recession, shockingly it's hard to start a business in a recession) is about 3%. The share of firms dissolving is up about 2% over that period, but down about 1% from the beginning of the chart. For anyone that falls into the "look at the big upswing under Bush" category.. it's an upswing of 1%.

Has there been a decline? Yes. Is it as big as this chart tries to make it look? No. Does it mirror changes in demographics and a recession? Yup. Can we tell anything about causation from this article? Nope.
 
2014-05-06 04:40:26 PM

Linux_Yes: pdieten: Last time I went into a relatively new business that was struggling, the owner gave me to understand that the reason guys like him are having a hard time is that since the recession started it's become extremely difficult to get new-business financing from banks.

Frankly, I think he has a point. Wonder if there's any way to get data on requests and denials for small-business loans.


the Bank's new job is to take in/steal money.  not loan it out.   and when the bank does make bad loans, it demands that the tax payer bail it out.

so either way, the banks win.

statement Thomas Jefferson made in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. He wrote, "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."


Of course, one could blame the government for this.  Things like Basel III require higher leverage ratios; IE, they require the bank to have more money on hand (as a percentage of outstanding loans).  This makes the bank less likely to fail due to a bank run, but it also discourages them from making new loans.
 
2014-05-06 04:44:44 PM
img.fark.net

the authors stressed to me that their data don't answer the questions of why or how just yet. But they will be looking into that in the months ahead.

Could be anything then.

It could something small such as a change in the fees that deterred some people from registering a website as a new business.

Could be a change in the tax code.

The big innovation banner is just to subtext that we are losing "innovatiness".
 
2014-05-06 04:45:19 PM
Wait!  Is somebody just realizing this?
 
2014-05-06 04:48:03 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Did you know you can save 15% in 15 minutes by switching to GEICO?


Everybody knows that.
 
2014-05-06 04:57:36 PM
Wahl, President Romney wouldn't have been susprised.

This business uncreation is needed for the needs of the leveraged buyer outers.
 
2014-05-06 04:57:45 PM

dryknife: Gecko Gingrich: Did you know you can save 15% in 15 minutes by switching to GEICO?

Everybody knows that.


excoboard.com
OF COURSE WE DO, SIR!

// saved ~58% by switching to GEICO last November (ya rly; monthly dropped from ~$170 to ~$70)
 
2014-05-06 05:04:51 PM

Geotpf: Linux_Yes: pdieten: Last time I went into a relatively new business that was struggling, the owner gave me to understand that the reason guys like him are having a hard time is that since the recession started it's become extremely difficult to get new-business financing from banks.

Frankly, I think he has a point. Wonder if there's any way to get data on requests and denials for small-business loans.


the Bank's new job is to take in/steal money.  not loan it out.   and when the bank does make bad loans, it demands that the tax payer bail it out.

so either way, the banks win.

statement Thomas Jefferson made in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. He wrote, "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Of course, one could blame the government for this.  Things like Basel III require higher leverage ratios; IE, they require the bank to have more money on hand (as a percentage of outstanding loans).  This makes the bank less likely to fail due to a bank run, but it also discourages them from making new loans.



but once you look behind the curtain and realize who owns the government (not the electorate), then you are, in effect, blaming the banks themselves, since they prefer to write their own regulations and present them to the CONgress to sign/vote on.  wall street likes to write their own 'regs' too.
 
2014-05-06 05:08:47 PM

Geotpf: but it also discourages them from making new loans.


stop all the tricks. the CDS, the borrowing from uncle at zero and then using that for fed fund requirements. make banks do a george baliy instead of the crap they are doing. no more whales.

iirc there was a move not to long ago to split banks and their investing arms. it should have happened.

and btw a couple of links down is another reason we are hosed. mergers. great for the CEO and the board and those with stock options but more often that not crap for the workers. see romney and his little group for what can go wrong.

companies, especially big ones, talk about their social responsibilities but they don't mean what we do by that.
 
2014-05-06 05:27:58 PM

Curious: Geotpf: but it also discourages them from making new loans.

stop all the tricks. the CDS, the borrowing from uncle at zero and then using that for fed fund requirements. make banks do a george baliy instead of the crap they are doing. no more whales.

iirc there was a move not to long ago to split banks and their investing arms. it should have happened.


I think you're referring to the Glass-Steagall Act.  This was actually a federal law that was part of the banking reform that was passed starting in 1933 in the wake of the 1929 crash and the great depression. The short version is that it limited the securities investment activities of banks that took consumer deposits. The banks lobbied for 30 years to get those regulations repealed and succeeded in the 1990s.  That led directly to the 2008 crash (and some would say to the 2002 crashes as well, which led to Sarbanes-Oxley).

What's the point?  After having barely survived two market crashes and a world war, the US passed reasonable banking reform in the 1930s.  The nature of capital markets is that he with the most capital has the most influence over the market, and thus his profits.  Regulation of this sort seeks to limit the risk caused by market manipulation (intended or not) and the risk that banks will take your money and invest it in hookers, blow and junk bonds issued by their college roommate's company.  It's reasonable and it's proportionate to the risk involved.  

At this point I truly believe that the main reason that Glass-Steagall was repealed was that America's investment bankers wanted the opportunity to have fun with the huge investment funds available after companies shifted from defined benefit pension plans to the 401k regime.  Why? Because the only people truly harmed when 401k money is lost are working people.  Investment banks, broker-dealers, and even the companies whose stock tanks don't really suffer.  Who suffers? Mom and dad who lose their entire 401k a year before they can retire (see, they've had to wait because they need the insurance until their old enough to use Medicare).  Banks don't need to loan money anymore to make money, and they got their hand slapped a little for taking on "risk".  So, they'll limit the risk by choking the economy - not by stopping the roulette wheel.

.....the Aristocrats!!!
 
2014-05-06 05:39:17 PM

pdieten: Last time I went into a relatively new business that was struggling, the owner gave me to understand that the reason guys like him are having a hard time is that since the recession started it's become extremely difficult to get new-business financing from banks.

Frankly, I think he has a point. Wonder if there's any way to get data on requests and denials for small-business loans.


Compounded by the number of small businesses that failed in the 2007-2009 recession. None of those people will ever be able to start a new business or restart their old one. Historically, most jobs were created by small companies.
 
2014-05-06 05:44:37 PM
The obvious tag was sold out, I see.
 
2014-05-06 06:02:41 PM

jmcgeathy: This chart is a great example of how to mislead with graphics. It starts with the zero point on the x axis set to 6%. This is a big no no in data display and is done to make changes in the data look bigger than they are. If you notice that and then look closely at the numbers, the BIG DROP (which started with the recession, shockingly it's hard to start a business in a recession) is about 3%. The share of firms dissolving is up about 2% over that period, but down about 1% from the beginning of the chart. For anyone that falls into the "look at the big upswing under Bush" category.. it's an upswing of 1%.

Has there been a decline? Yes. Is it as big as this chart tries to make it look? No. Does it mirror changes in demographics and a recession? Yup. Can we tell anything about causation from this article? Nope.


That, and the study covers 2009-2011. Things have picked up a bit since then.
 
2014-05-06 06:03:34 PM
Creative destruction: fire the guy who might someday take your job.
 
2014-05-06 06:14:06 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Self-employment taxes were doubled under Reagan.  If we rolled them back to where they were, perhaps more entrepreneurs would find themselves succeeding instead of failing.


But if we do that how are we suppose to exempt the oil companies from paying any corporate taxes?
 
2014-05-06 06:17:32 PM

jmcgeathy: This chart is a great example of how to mislead with graphics. It starts with the zero point on the x axis set to 6%. This is a big no no in data display and is done to make changes in the data look bigger than they are. If you notice that and then look closely at the numbers, the BIG DROP (which started with the recession, shockingly it's hard to start a business in a recession) is about 3%. The share of firms dissolving is up about 2% over that period, but down about 1% from the beginning of the chart. For anyone that falls into the "look at the big upswing under Bush" category.. it's an upswing of 1%.

Has there been a decline? Yes. Is it as big as this chart tries to make it look? No. Does it mirror changes in demographics and a recession? Yup. Can we tell anything about causation from this article? Nope.


you heard it there folks. Rmin and rmax are republican conspiracies to keep people poor and dumb and didn't 3xist until Obama came along.
 
2014-05-06 06:40:14 PM
 jmcgeathy: This chart is a great example of how to mislead with graphics. It starts with the zero point on the x axis set to 6%. This is a big no no in data display and is done to make changes in the data look bigger than they are. If you notice that and then look closely at the numbers, the BIG DROP (which started with the recession, shockingly it's hard to start a business in a recession) is about 3%. The share of firms dissolving is up about 2% over that period, but down about 1% from the beginning of the chart. For anyone that falls into the "look at the big upswing under Bush" category.. it's an upswing of 1%.

Has there been a decline? Yes. Is it as big as this chart tries to make it look? No. Does it mirror changes in demographics and a recession? Yup. Can we tell anything about causation from this article? Nope.


Mrbogey: you heard it there folks. Rmin and rmax are republican conspiracies to keep people poor and dumb and didn't 3xist until Obama came along.


You seem to take pointing out bad data display practices very personally. You'd think you created this graph as it's almost like I called your baby ugly or something. Are you the guy that "un-skewed" polls?
 
2014-05-06 07:09:08 PM
The middle class is the largest class of buyers who support businesses.  Since '78, the middle class has been shrinking.  What else could possibly be the outcome of our fiscal policy of enriching the top end whilst bleeding everyone else?  Less money for all means less business done.
 
2014-05-06 07:47:36 PM
Subby, the only way that tag applies is the Obvious tag stabbed the Asinine, FAIL, Sick tags to death and is in custody.
 
2014-05-06 07:47:52 PM
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-05-06 08:02:52 PM

jmcgeathy: jmcgeathy: This chart is a great example of how to mislead with graphics. It starts with the zero point on the x axis set to 6%. This is a big no no in data display and is done to make changes in the data look bigger than they are. If you notice that and then look closely at the numbers, the BIG DROP (which started with the recession, shockingly it's hard to start a business in a recession) is about 3%. The share of firms dissolving is up about 2% over that period, but down about 1% from the beginning of the chart. For anyone that falls into the "look at the big upswing under Bush" category.. it's an upswing of 1%.

Has there been a decline? Yes. Is it as big as this chart tries to make it look? No. Does it mirror changes in demographics and a recession? Yup. Can we tell anything about causation from this article? Nope.

Mrbogey: you heard it there folks. Rmin and rmax are republican conspiracies to keep people poor and dumb and didn't 3xist until Obama came along.

You seem to take pointing out bad data display practices very personally. You'd think you created this graph as it's almost like I called your baby ugly or something. Are you the guy that "un-skewed" polls?


As if you're a graphing expert. Just because you read a comment in a Kos diary on how graphs that show relative minimums and maximums are flawed doesn't make it so. Any value on a graph for starting and ending is relative to the information being digested. When there's nothing to show on a graph there's no need to show it so it amounts to derp to complain that it didn't start and end on 0 and 100 respectively.

You've literally given the worst criticism of these stats possible and you should feel bad.
 
2014-05-06 08:25:03 PM
I bet a round of tax cuts would fix this.
 
2014-05-06 08:57:37 PM

Rapmaster2000: I bet a round of tax cuts would fix this.


You always think that. I think all those Diff EQs have fried your other synapses.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report