TED Talk - Nick Hanauer on Job Creation

[Kasz216]

spaceguy said:

Kasz216 said:

richardhutnik said:

Zappykins said:
I really thought it would be more controversial.

 

What's missed is the reason TED originally didn't want to post it was because well... it was full of a lot of cherrypicking statistics and poorly made arguements.

Worth noting the guy who didn't want to release it actually agrees with the guy who made the video.  He just thinks his arguements in argueing the point were full of hugeass holes.

http://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405

 

It's the kind of arguement/presentation that is so poor it actually hurts the point it's trying to facilitate bought only by those who have already "bought in" and couldn't be convinced otherwise no matter how poor it was.

Here is the real deal. Your arguments are always poorly constructed and most don't even take you seriously. So you points have been disproven so many time in the past, that really I think your the cherry picker and always use bad statistics. 1980 we started giving tax breaks to the  rich. This is factual data. your whole argument proven wrong. However talking to a right winger that can't see facts is like talking to a wall. Never going to happen. 

When I present facts I present entire statistical databases more often then not.... like I just did.

Showing the entire databse is the exact opposite of cherrypicking.

We didn't start giving tax breaks to the rich in 1980.

We started giving Tax Breaks to the Rich in 1964.  1980 didn't have a tax cut... 1981 did... though it was very marginal.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

feel free to combine that database with the previously provided database to come to your own conclusions. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html if your lazy)

They would point to a "cut taxes = more growth more often then not" conclusion if you want to base your arguements on a graph involving just those two.

Which, like I said, is a stupid arguement considering Participation rates.

and the unmentioned fact that taxes mostly only get messed with when there is trouble with the economy anyway.

PERSONALLY, I'm of the belief that tax cuts DON'T lead to job growth unless such tax cuts are guranteed to be long term. (not conditional like the Bush cuts) and even then such job growth is fairly minor and not worth it.   Tax cuts lead to a minor bump in jobs that normalizes over time.   Tax raises lead to a decent hurting in hiring, which normalzies back to base levels at time.

 

If you were to buy into his methods of what does or doesn't define a job creator though... he would statistically and demonstratably be wrong.

 

That said the rich create jobs, products and value.  They'd do it in just about any tax enviroment though.... Once they're used to it.

It is because of that adjustment time however that it's dumb to raise taxes during a recession.

Consumers DON'T do this... because generally companies that create jobs are usually NEW companies which require money from venture capitalists. (Like the recently maligned Bain Capital.)

Without said venture capitalists the products never get to the consumers in the first place.