Nick Hanauer, self-described "super-rich" entrepreneur, gave a pretty compelling TED Talk about how the middle class—not the super-rich—are the real job creators. But TED, which has released over 100 different political videos in the past, thought this one was too partisan and chose not to release it. We didn't notice any flaming partisanship in it. We normally love TED, and were surprised they didn't think this talk was TEDworthy.

Under pressure from the Internets, TED finally relented and released the video. Watch it and decide for yourself if it's really all that controversial to say that the "super-rich are not job creators." Then share it like crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI&feature=player_embedded

Funny no one wants to comment on the facts.

Great talk, and it could well be true imo

It's pretty silly.

It ignores the fact that consumer demand is mostly driven by products.

And the statistics he uses are that of the flawed "Household" income versus "Personal Income"

His unemployment rate graph numbers are... just wrong. Which is confusing. He has unemployment going straight up... never down Which isn't true. It went down at points.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

He also starts his numbers in 1995 because well... any number before that would make him look bad.

He also doesn't seem to understand that if the average household income increased... so would inflation. Resulting in well... basically no change.

So I can see why the TED originally didn't want to release it.

Data cherrypicked, and even then just factually wrong to make an unsound economic point.

They may as well relase a Ben Stein talk about Intellegent Design.

To further the point earlier about the 1995 starting date.

In 1987 the Tax rate dropped. Unemployment dropped as well. 7.0 to 6.2.

1988, another tax drop. Another unemployment drop. 6.2 to 5.5

Tax increase in 1993. Unemployment? Increased of course. 6.8 to a 7.5... of the course of the years, this trend is more prevelent then the one he tried to show, though oddly didn't because his graphs didn't seem to get the numbers right.

Additionally his numbers don't take into account that the particpation rate INCREASED. 

Particiaption rate being the number of people that are in the economy and that have jobs.  Account for participation rate, and unemployment very well could have increased.

As an example.  We currently have an 8.1 unemployment rate.   We had an 8.1 Unemployment Rate when Obama was in office.  The participation rate however has dropped tons of people have given up on finding jobs.

If the participation rate was equal to what it was when he entered office it would be 11.1% unemployment.

Bush cuts taxes, private sector job creation flatlined last decade.  The cutting of taxes didn't lead to new jobs.  The bulk of job creation during last decade was due to government hiring.  If you can figure out how the heck cutting taxes leads to public sector job creation, and express it, that would be interesting to hear.

This article from Business Week, goes into it:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html

Job creation under Clinton was better, with higher tax rates.

The reallity is that the economy is an ecosystem.  If it gets unhealthy, by fallout from overleveraging, you can derail everything.  But, the part of saying it is an ecosystem isn't to just say that wealth needs to be spread around.  What is fundamental to the economy is goods and services get produced in order to justify money flowing somewhere.  It is also possible that money can flow in a manner that is counter-productive and leads to standards of living declining.

Thing is that productivity gains merely free up labor for other things.  It is important, and critical, that this labor find other things to do that are constructive.  But it isn't the job of business to do job creation, it is the job of business to make sure resources get allocated in society in the best possible manner, through a properly run market.  Anything else, really is the realm of other areas, including proper governance, and civic organizations to fill in the gaps and have people reevaluate their lives on what they are doing.  In this, government can play a role to help make things so.  What that role is, is subject to very LONG debates.

I didn't say those tax cuts created jobs.  I said his facts were wrong... which they were.

Jobs created by goverment hiring... further disproves his point.

Government jobs are a negative because they have to draw from the private economy to fund them and don't really create real value on their own.

Job Creation before was MOSTLY due to rich people... in the form of IPOS.  Ideas created by creators of all income groups.  Backed by the rich.  Which were killed by government regulation. 

Tax cuts are really pointless... a roll back on IP regulation is what would create jobs at this point.  Right now IPO legislation unfairly tips the markets to established big companies, who buy up any decent IPO unless it's TOO huge like facebook or GM or the owners specifically want an IPO rather then fast easy money.

It's true. The problem is greed and no one wants to do there fair share. We need to sink money into infrastructure like no other and yet mitt romney pays 13.9% tax's while I pay 25%.

Your full of it.