Reason.com
Letters
The Small Business Myth
As a small-business owner and chair of the National Small Business Association (NSBA), I strongly disagree with Veronique de Rugy’s “The Small Business Myth” (November). In this article, De Rugy continues her nearly decade-long rant against U.S. small business. Refusing to use dynamic job growth data that incorporate job growth and job cuts (as the Bureau of Labor Statistics has done), De Rugy offers merely a snapshot of an issue that deserves a more complex view.
Among the article’s failures is
its claim that small businesses aren’t looking for capital. That’s
dead wrong. According to NSBA data, only 59 percent of small
businesses as of July 2010 are able to obtain adequate financing.
According to a recent survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, among the 59 percent of small businesses that applied for
credit in the first half of 2010, only half received any
funding.
Also dead wrong: De Rugy’s claim that money directed toward government-backed loan programs has been fruitless. Using stimulus funds, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010 processed more than twice the number of 7(a) loans as it did in the same quarter of 2009. In June 2010, when the stimulus funding ran out, the SBA approved just $647 million in lending, down two-thirds from the $1.9 billion it approved in May, forcing more than 1,000 small businesses into a loan queue.
Between 1993 and the third quarter of 2008, firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 64 percent of net new jobs. Thirty-two percent of those gains came from the creation of new, small firms. According to the SBA’s Small Business Economic Indicators for 2003, when the economy gained momentum after the previous downturn in the early 1990s, firms with fewer than 500 employees increased their net employment in the first year after the recession, while large firms continued to shrink.
The role small business has played in driving past recoveries hasn’t been repeated yet, and unemployment continues to be high. Surely even De Rugy must see some correlation here.
Larry Nannis, NSBA Chair
Framingham, MA
Veronique de Rugy replies: Small businesses are an important element of the U.S. job landscape. But it is wrong to argue that they deserve preferential treatment because they promote growth or that they should have access to capital because they ask for it.
The government defines firms with fewer than 500 employees as “small.” According to the SBA, 99.7 percent of U.S. firms are “small.” And while they hire 50 percent of the workforce, so do the remaining 0.3 percent of U.S. firms. That’s hardly an argument for giving special treatment to small firms (or large firms). Moreover, if small firms were creating more net new jobs than larger firms, small businesses’ share of total employment would increase over time rather than remaining at 50 percent. But it doesn’t.
Statistical misinterpretation often lies behind the belief that there is an inverse relationship between net job creation and firm size. Firm size alone says nothing about job creation; in 2010 the National Bureau of Economic Research released findings showing that age matters, not size.
Finally, SBA lending must be placed in context. According to the Government Accountability Office, roughly 1 percent of small-business loans are SBA loans. Because the private sector finances most loans without a government guarantee, fluctuations in the level of SBA lending are largely irrelevant in the capital market. The fact that small firms didn’t all get access to capital upon request doesn’t say anything about the unfairness of lending, or about the economic impact of government lending. Not everyone who wants capital deserves it. Nor does it benefit the economy for every would-be borrower to receive funds. Low taxes and light regulation would do more for all firms than the current system, which doles out favors based on unsubstantiated beliefs about small businesses.
How to Slash the State
I’m a California state employee. If I survive to retirement, I will receive a defined-benefit pension for which I’m exceedingly grateful. Contrary to Tim Cavanaugh’s view that we California state employees don’t fund our plan (“How to Slash the State,” November), I’ve paid into mine through hefty deductions for more than 20 years. I fund part of it, the plan’s investments fund much of it, and the taxpayers fund the rest.
Cavanaugh proposes to end such plans because “public servants,” “like the rest of us,” should bear the responsibility of “manag[ing] their own retirement nest eggs.” That is not a core libertarian position—at least not a sound one—nor does it make economic sense.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|2.4.11 @ 2:47PM|#
Ted Stroll: "Contrary to Tim Cavanaugh’s view that we California state employees don’t fund our plan (“How to Slash the State,” November), I’ve paid into mine through hefty deductions for more than 20 years. I fund part of it, the plan’s investments fund much of it, and the taxpayers fund the rest."
Cavanaugh is right - you don't fund your plan. Don't forget that the taxpayer funds your wage. So if you use some portion of your wage to fund your defined benefit plan through deductions the taxpayer has funded that portion of your retirement as well.
nike shoes UK|8.5.11 @ 11:37PM|#
is good
discount mbt|12.15.11 @ 9:43PM|#
perfect
topsbdunksale|12.27.11 @ 1:36AM|#
perfect
Cheap adidas shoes|12.27.11 @ 1:48AM|#
perfect
wubai|3.3.12 @ 11:23PM|#
How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.
qiaofeng|3.4.12 @ 2:15AM|#
outlet
xiaofeng|3.5.12 @ 9:43AM|#
outlet
jiusuan|3.6.12 @ 1:25AM|#
outlet
cajia|3.8.12 @ 6:06AM|#
outlet
fantasy|4.27.12 @ 1:43AM|#
impairment" that corresponds to a probability nike shox tl3 of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 are "impaired" in terms of those tests, oakely sunglasses but these people do not have a higher accident rate. Older people develop compensatory driving habits