When will people realize that jobs are the result of a demand in the market, not from giving ridiculous tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.
I don't know what idea you are attempting to express by "the result of a demand in the market," but I do know what a "job" is:
1) Somebody is attempting to do something.
2) He needs/wants help doing it.
3) He asks for such help and offers, in exchange, something of value (e.g. - money) to the person whom he is asking for help; the help that is requested, is called a "job," and the money paid in exchange, is called a "wage."
The obvious implication of this, is that, in order for an employee to have a job, the employer
must have money that he can pay as a wage. Every unit of money that is taken, as a tax, from an enterprise, is a unit of money that the enterprise will then
not have, to pay as a wage, to an employee. Could anything be more obvious?
Taxing an enterprise, increases its cost of doing business. Such an increase in the cost of doing business, will mean either:
1) The enterprise will produce less product (or service)
2) The price, to customers, for the product (or service), will be higher
3) The enterprise will have less money to pay its employees (thus, employees will necessarily be paid lower wages, or there will necessarily be fewer employees)
Of course, the government will then have the tax money, to spend. However, unless it is buying something for itself, that it needs, then its expenditures, as economic interventions, will likely constitute economic inefficiency, since (e.g.) a government is
not capable of understanding the economy as a whole. This is simply due to the fact that an overall economy is
extremely complex, and dynamic. Attempting to manage an economy, as a whole, would be analogous to a person's attempting to manage all the details of his physiological processes, with his conscious will; even medical doctors are not so foolish as to believe that they can do this, and no doctor would likely want to try to do this wrt himself. Nations that try to exemplify a "command economy," wherein the government attempts to manage all the details of economic activity, have been shown, historically, to be horrific failures, with great suffering among their peoples.
A free market is characteristically the most efficient economic mechanism. This is because each person best knows what he needs/wants, and the generalized economic behaviors of persons, are quickly recognizable to the particular aspects, of the economy, that depend upon such behaviors (such generalized customer behavior, available to be so recognized, is called a "market signal," and it is much more quickly noticed and responded to, by the pertinent aspect of the market, itself - as if a reflex, or feedback mechanism - than it could be, by some general manager of an overall economy, such as would be a government). "Efficiency," btw, is not such an inhuman/mechanistic concept as it might be alleged to be. Economic efficiency means that people get what they want, at the lowest realistic price, and materials and effort are not wasted in the process.
Anyway, it is a disgustingly common occurence, to hear politicians crow about how
they "created jobs" (or intend to do so). Governments can only "create jobs" insofar as hiring governmental employees. Otherwise, "jobs" are created by enterprises that hire people to do things. Governments can help this, by making it easier for enterprises to pursue such doing of things; or they can hurt this, by making it more difficult. Taxation of enterprises, is a way of making it more difficult. The imposition of burdensome regulations, is another.
I am tired of[...]A culture that thinks it's ok that the big boys have armies of trained negotiaters, but that each individual employee must negotiate on their own?
I have never observed
anyone to propose such a thing, as a general policy. Labor unions are quite an acceptable way for workers to negotiate wrt their concerns. However, the concept of a labor union has a
natural basis, which is the natural strength of "collective bargaining."
a) Governments should do nothing to interfere with the process - including, for example, prohibiting enterprises from replacing their employees. If employees believe that their collective value to their employer, is such that they deserve to be paid more, or whatever, then this is fine. However, if other persons will do the job for less money (or whatever), then it is recognizable that the employees are,
as a natural fact,
not that valuable, and government should not corrupt the negotiation, by requiring the employer to
pretend that the employees are irreplaceable.
b) Persons should be
free, to choose whether they want to participate in a labor union, or not.
This is what is meant by "right to work laws": a person may seek and gain employment,
whether or not he is a member of a union. Furthermore, employees should be free from coercion - either by their employer, that the employee may not join a labor union, or by the labor union, that the employee must join.
It's almost funny how everyone bought the idea that "You too can be rich. So make sure you don't let those commies interfere with absolute unregulated free market." The funny part is that like with hollywood and pro sports, only a very few make that.
Economist Thomas Sowell has several times written that there is quite a lot of economic mobility in the USA. Evidence is that a large fraction of persons who are in the lowest 20%, wrt wealth (or income; I forget which), tends not to remain there; and a large fraction of persons who are in the highest 20%, tends not to remain
there. I don't know what this says about whether one can "be rich," but I also don't care.
It is funny how much everyone wanted absolute free market when they thought they were going to get rich, but are now screaming "save us".
Well, I'm guessing that you are referring to the current "mortgage crisis." It is, in fact, not a result of a free market. The principal cause of the current situation (which is quite complex, overall, but I'm referring to how it began), was a set of political regulations (Community Reinvestment Act) imposed upon lending institutions, to require them to demonstrate that they were not "discriminating against" persons whom they regarded as unlikely to repay a loan. Their response was to offer "subprime loans" - loans provided at (temporarily, since subprime interest is below the cost to the lender) abnormally low interest rates, to enable persons with very little money, to buy a home. Among the results, was a "housing bubble" - an artificially increased demand, and thus increase in prices, for houses. The artifice eventually met reality, and the "bubble" burst, leaving a lot of buyers (and lending institutions) with unpayable loans and an accompanying proposal that the government should provide a whole lot of money, to repair the mess.
This concept tends to be represented too simplistically. Certainly, rich and corporate types tend to get an audience among government types, but unless the government guy is fundamentally corrupt (explicitly bribable), I think that they do not really have so much political power as is alleged. Government people want to get (re-)elected, and while campaign money helps, it is not a substitute for actual votes. "Corporate Welfare" tends, generally, to be regarded by politicians as "public service;" they are not so concerned with benefitting the rich guy, as they are with making sure that enterprises with lots of employees, or that provide a product or service upon which a lot of people depend, don't go out of business - thereby producing a whole lot of unhappy, unemployed or unserved voters. This was the case with the "General Motors bailout" and the "Airline bailouts," and it seems to be so wrt the current "mortgage bailout" proposal.
Of course, government's interventions tend to have unpredictable and often adverse consequences. It seems that you have experienced that, and I'm sorry that it is so.
Bush is the stupid elitist construct son of a lucky and disgusting family that together with Cheney and the rest of their cronies, are gulity of murder and the rape of our economy and its taxpayers.
Zzzzzz...
Zzzzzz...
