heydude
1-26-11, 10:00pm
It seems the political world splits between:
1. Give tax cuts and benefits to businesses so that they have more money available to create jobs.
2. Give benefits to people / government services so people spend causing businesses to create jobs.
(fund education so people may improve employment opportunities/be able to compete in the world, fund government so property taxes, sales taxes, etc. do not increase on the individual causing them to spend less, fund police forces, etc. so no jobs are cut just adding to the problem, fund unemployment benefits and safety net programs so people continue to spend, which would in turn divert money to businesses so they can hire more people).
Does anyone have any insight as to any real evidence on whether or not any of these idealogies actually work? I am thinking that both have their potential to work or not to work and that a solution for creating jobs is probably a combination of both as well as other things that are not a part of these two choices.
For number 1, just because businesses have money, does not mean they'll dish it out in the form of salaries for more workers. Many companies seem to be cutting jobs and shipping their jobs over seas even in the midst of record profits. Businesses want to make money period. They don't want to make money JUST SO they can hire more people. They will always try to do with less and less. If there is no need to actually hire more people, then they won't (more profits does not automatically equal a need to hire). They'll keep the tax cut money and use it for something else (bonsues, buying out other companies to in turn slash more jobs with the merger, etc. etc.).
But of course, if they are doing well, they would be more likely to expand things and hopefully in turn expand jobs. And, a corporation is certainly not going to hire more people if they are not making any money or have no new money. Tax cuts could provide some money. In theory, you would think it would work, but I don't believe it is as cut and dry as tax breaks automatically equals more hiring.
As for 2, more education does not necessarily mean more jobs, funding services so property taxes, etc. do not go up, etc. to free up money for individuals does not automatically equal more spending (especially as people, LIKE ALL OF US HERE, choose to own less and down-size). Although squeezing individuals will certainly cause them to spend less even if they will spend less if they were not squeezed so much.
Thoughts? Insights? Opinions?
1. Give tax cuts and benefits to businesses so that they have more money available to create jobs.
2. Give benefits to people / government services so people spend causing businesses to create jobs.
(fund education so people may improve employment opportunities/be able to compete in the world, fund government so property taxes, sales taxes, etc. do not increase on the individual causing them to spend less, fund police forces, etc. so no jobs are cut just adding to the problem, fund unemployment benefits and safety net programs so people continue to spend, which would in turn divert money to businesses so they can hire more people).
Does anyone have any insight as to any real evidence on whether or not any of these idealogies actually work? I am thinking that both have their potential to work or not to work and that a solution for creating jobs is probably a combination of both as well as other things that are not a part of these two choices.
For number 1, just because businesses have money, does not mean they'll dish it out in the form of salaries for more workers. Many companies seem to be cutting jobs and shipping their jobs over seas even in the midst of record profits. Businesses want to make money period. They don't want to make money JUST SO they can hire more people. They will always try to do with less and less. If there is no need to actually hire more people, then they won't (more profits does not automatically equal a need to hire). They'll keep the tax cut money and use it for something else (bonsues, buying out other companies to in turn slash more jobs with the merger, etc. etc.).
But of course, if they are doing well, they would be more likely to expand things and hopefully in turn expand jobs. And, a corporation is certainly not going to hire more people if they are not making any money or have no new money. Tax cuts could provide some money. In theory, you would think it would work, but I don't believe it is as cut and dry as tax breaks automatically equals more hiring.
As for 2, more education does not necessarily mean more jobs, funding services so property taxes, etc. do not go up, etc. to free up money for individuals does not automatically equal more spending (especially as people, LIKE ALL OF US HERE, choose to own less and down-size). Although squeezing individuals will certainly cause them to spend less even if they will spend less if they were not squeezed so much.
Thoughts? Insights? Opinions?