Job Creators Fight Back

Tired of being pushed around, a group of CEOs are speaking out.

Some politicians claim that politicians create jobs.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says, “My job is to create jobs.”

What hubris! Government has no money of its own. All it does is take from some people and give to others. That may create some jobs, but only by leaving less money in the private sector for job creation.

Actually, it’s worse than that. Since government commandeers scarce resources by force and doesn’t have to peddle its so-called services on the market to consenting buyers, there’s no feedback mechanism to indicate if those services are worth more to people than what they were forced to go without.

The only people who create real, sustainable jobs are in private businesses—if they’re unsubsidized.

Some CEOs are upset that people don’t appreciate what they do. So they formed a group called the Job Creators Alliance.

Brad Anderson, former CEO of Best Buy, joined because he wants to counter the image of businesspeople as evil. When he was young, Anderson himself thought they were evil. But then he “stumbled into a business career” by going to work in a stereo store.

“I watched what happens in building a business. (My store,) The Sound of Music, which became Best Buy, was 11 years (old) before I made a dollar of profit.”

In 36 years, he turned that store into a $50 billion company.

Tom Stemberg, founder of Staples, got involved with the Job Creators Alliance because he’s annoyed that the government makes a tough job much tougher.

He complains that government mostly creates jobs—that kill jobs.

“They’re creating $300 million worth of jobs in the new consumer financial protection bureau,” Stemberg said, “which I don’t think is going to do much for productivity in America. We’re creating all kinds of jobs trying to live up to Dodd-Frank...and those jobs don’t create much productivity.

Now, Stemberg runs a venture capital business. “I helped create over 100,000 jobs myself," he said. "Pinkberry and City Sports and J. McLaughlin are growing and adding employment.”

To do that, he had to overcome hurdles placed in the way by government.

“All that we get is grief and more hoops to jump through and more forms to fill out and more regulations to comply with,” complained Stemberg. “Fastest-growing investment segment in venture capitalism: compliance software.”

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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Some politicians claim that politicians create jobs.

    K Street agrees.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sneering contempt for supposed liberal shibboleths is not actually a well-considered political philosophy.

    Sneering contempt for supposed libertarian shibboleths is not a well-considered political philosophy. Please tell your leftist (and conservative) pals.

    I’d say it’s nice to have a libertarian presence on television regularly, but there are I believe more libertarians on television regularly in 2011 than there are morally ambiguous antiheroes on premium cable dramas.

    Did he send that sentence to extraordinary rendition? Because it's brutally tortured.

  • ||

    I can think of three off the top of my head - Stossel, Napolitano, and Ron Paul (reading "regularly" broadly to include the sporadic Ron Paul appearances that leak through the blockade).

  • anon||

    Gillespie's made quite a few appearances in the last year, but I'd hardly consider it regular. Penn & Teller are back on TV too.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I would expect Pareene has a very different definition of "libertarian" than any non-troll who regularly comes to this site.

  • ryan||

    Notice that he conveniently fails to make a comparison (of the regularity of libertarian presence on TV) to any relevant category. I suppose one must make irrelevant, convoluted comparisons when one's ideas are completely lacking in significant content.

  • Richard||

    If "libertarian" means "GOP shill giving lip service to the Tea Party during the 2010 election buildup," then there were a lot of libertarians on FOX News for about six months.

  • ||

    You know, I was always inclined to believe that a "hack" is someone producing reporting or commentary based on innuendo and substanceless arguments for which there was not enough fact, logic or reason to give a cogent counterpoint to. Salon and, judging by this bit of tripe, Pareene, seem to specialize in that medium far more than John Stossel.

  • ||

    “They’re creating $300 million worth of jobs in the new consumer financial protection bureau,” Stemberg said, “which I don’t think is going to do much for productivity in America. We’re creating all kinds of jobs trying to live up to Dodd-Frank...and those jobs don’t create much productivity.

    This. Boasting about jobs that the government created is misplaced, because those jobs don't create value--they reduce it.

  • ||

    They aren't creating jobs, anyway. At the very best, they are shifting jobs from the private sector to the government.

  • VJ||

    Trying to explain to my liberal friends that regulations only end up hurting consumers and small businesses was akin to talking to a 5 year old. And then he had the gall to use rape as an allegory to discredit what I said.

  • ||

    I've had the same experience with friends/family, and I can even explain it to them in very personal terms because we own two small businesses (one service, one manufacturing). We just go round in circles, me trying to explain ways regulations/compliance have made it more difficult for us to grow ... and them stubbornly insisting that any success we have is only due to luck so therefore regulations cannot have any impact on our success. It's maddening AND insulting.

  • VJ||

    Yeah, I had a very interesting conversation with my mom about why I refuse to work for the government and would prefer working for the private sector and she replied that government jobs are easier to keep and you make more money. And replied to her that she did not see something wrong with this and she replied "So what". Ugh, I have decided to stop discussing politics/economics with family and friends or lest I want to be isolated. Sucks

  • ||

    Anybody who writes majored in English and b/c they did they don't know anything of relevance.
    Seriously, as I ask my English major friends: did you already speak English b/f you majored in it?
    So what did you learn? They don't ever have an answer.

  • GILMORE||

    Something I noticed (again) today, which I find odd,...for some strange reason*, financial publications tend to be as often infested with lefty-rhetorical apologists as do the mainstream broadsheets....

    ...you'd expect them to be at least vaguely pro-capitalism, but you'd be shocked at how many pubs have latched on the OWS movement, or the 'lynch the bankers'! rhetoric that dominates popular discussion.

    I think its possibly just a strategy to sell themselves to the popular masses who tend to feel money=evil. Jacobin-chic?

    example from today:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs.....3QD;_ylv=3

    ...entrepreneurs and investors, when incented by low taxes, build companies and create millions of jobs.

    And these entrepreneurs and investors, therefore, the argument goes, can solve our nation's huge unemployment problem — if only we cut taxes and regulations so they can be incented to build more companies and create more jobs.

    Now, there have long been many problems with this argument starting with

    1.Taxes on rich people (capital gains and income) are, relative to history, low, so raising them would only begin to bring them back in line with prior prosperous periods, and
    2.Dozens of rich entrepreneurs have already gone on record confirming that a modest hike in capital gains and income taxes would not have the slightest impact on their desire to create companies and jobs, given that tax rates are historically low.

    So this argument, which many people regard as fact, is already flawed.

    What follows is a chicken-egg conflating argument, where a tree dropping acorns is in fact dependent on the dirt and rain and clean air, and therefore it is in fact the *environment that permits capitalism* responsible for entrepreneurialism, not the actual entrepreneurs themselves

    (...insert 'the government invented the internet'! argument here)

    The argument includes an actual anecdote from an actual super rich person who doesn't pay very much tax *but totally thinks he should* to validate the specious claim that accumulation of capital in fact has no role in economic growth...

    If a case is to be made to raise taxes on the very wealthy, you won't necessarily see me care particularly, as I happen to be pretty darn broke... but for fucks sake, do you have to make rhetorical oatmeal out of cause-effect and how capitalism works in order to justify soaking the rich?? Just fucking do it and shut the fuck up about your bullshit economic rationalizations!

    Some other SERIOUS ASSHOLE** also recently wrote an article claiming Steve Jobs Created No Jobs...

    http://articles.businessinside.....ich-people

    *(I used to write for financial publications, which purged me of most economic ignorance - what shocks me is that there are many career financial writers still insisting upon their 'everyone gets a pony' idea of economics)

    ** Serious Asshole in charge = Henry Blodget, former Merrill analyst who violated every ethical guideline related to securites-analysis imaginable, and now has the gall to position himself (again) ...as a lowly financial jounalist. As someone who has worked in both professions, I've always reviled him as complete scum...yet am shocked that the world doesn't seem to remember what a total-bullshit-slinger the guy is...

    Its pretty much like Elliot Spitzer doing talk shows about ethical governance.

  • ||

    "Popular" as in "many people will pay to read it"? Jeez, who'da thunk a business man would do something like that?

  • GILMORE||

    You're suggesting Yahoo Finance et al turn to a Pay-For-Service model, as opposed to a "come and get it! Free!~! just look at the ads while using our commoditized service! PLEASE! BEFORE WE GET BOUGHT!"

    Please explain your point if there is one.

    My point was simply that even "financial" journalists are fucking economically/financially illiterate in many cases.

    Case in point = this nutjob... whose piece is titled (apropos) "Financial literacy is a big, fat Wall Street hoax"

    http://www.marketwatch.com/sto.....2011-11-08

    I think he's there purely as catnip for the other financial-conspiracy-theorists...

  • ||

    Well, yeah, a little OT.

    Generating page hits bumps up ad revenues. My larger point was that these financial journalists are writing what gets attention - which often has little to do with the truth - and why anyone could be surprised at that. The link is a great example of that. Who'd stay glued to someone who just says "everything's peachy"? Paranoid fantasies sell and generate traffic (they got you to link it an get a few more hits, didn't they?). Big schemes and nasty rumors also poll well. Nuts and bolts economic issues from are, let's face it, very boring. Not many people are gonna come back for more and that ain't good for business.

  • GILMORE||

    \Nuts and bolts economic issues from are, let's face it, very boring. Not many people are gonna come back for more and that ain't good for business.

    point taken - but professionals actually do "come back for more" when there's a legitimate source of good financial news.

    Bloomberg & Reuters & FT kind of own the game. But Marketwatch, yahoo finance, The Street etc... they're more like what you're describing = populist investing news hype-channels.

  • GILMORE||

    \Nuts and bolts economic issues from are, let's face it, very boring. Not many people are gonna come back for more and that ain't good for business.

    point taken - but professionals actually do "come back for more" when there's a legitimate source of good financial news.

    Bloomberg & Reuters & FT kind of own the game. But Marketwatch, yahoo finance, The Street etc... they're more like what you're describing = populist investing news hype-channels.

  • Major Johnson||

    I kind of like the sound of a bill about to be proposed in California, no person holding public office may accept any government payment for services for some number of years (I believe it's 5) after leaving office. That would at least force these people to have to be in the private workforce for some small period of their lives if they lose/quit office, and it would prevent them from quitting or being fired from one job and running for or being appointed to another. If they knew they may have to live with the rules they create they may be a bit more cautious in creating them.

  • ||

    Imagine Harry Reid creating a job. The guy looks like he was shuttled in from a retirement home.

  • Richard||

    This is basically Economics In One Lesson For Dummies, which is all fine and good.

    But "job creators" is an obnoxious GOP buzzterm. And Stossel sucks.

  • Tony||

    The problem is "job creators" is invariably a euphemism for megarich investment bankers and such who create very few jobs but do make a lot of money for themselves. If we're going to live by this euphemism then shouldn't figuring out tax policy entail studying whether the beneficiaries of massive un-offset cuts actually create jobs? Currently the country is laying off teachers and firefighters in order to fund these tax cuts--that is the opposite of job creation.

    I think if you're going to advocate for a certain policy you should use real words and not GOP poll tested bullshit. Say you want taxes lower for billionaire investment bankers and that them making money for themselves has more social utility than people teaching children and putting out fires. That way you can be ignored like the dogmatic rubes you are.

  • GILMORE||

    Tony|12.15.11 @ 2:36PM|#

    The problem is "job creators" is invariably a euphemism for megarich investment bankers and such who create very few jobs but do make a lot of money for themselves
    ...

    Yes, because investment banking is *magic*...

    You do know that the money has to be invested in *something*? (usually a growing enterprise)... and that *something* has to actually be economically productive in order to reward such fat-cat selfish bankers? who... out of their evil selfishness, do things like fund startups, provide large capital-intensive industry liquidity to actually grow, pour money into emerging markets to enable their economies to evolve, developing ports, utilities, agriculture... etc.

    Yeah, but other than that, they *don't do anything*. The world would be so much better if there were no such thing as *investment*

    p.s. i'd call you a fucking moron, but everyone knows already.

  • Tony||

    Good for them, but their primary job is not to increase employment and economic stability in the US, which is the claim that justifies their historically low tax rates. Their job is to make money for themselves. Ridiculous self-serving free market fairy tales to the contrary, that is not the same thing.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.15.11 @ 2:58PM|#
    "Their job is to make money for themselves."
    Exactly, shithead. One gold start.

    "Ridiculous self-serving free market fairy tales to the contrary, that is not the same thing."
    Ignorant lefty shitheads to the contrary, that's what happens.

  • GILMORE||

    Good for them, but their primary job is not to increase employment and economic stability in the US, which is the claim that justifies their historically low tax rates....

    No, idiot, the thing that justifies the "low tax rate" (e.g. dividends and capital gains) is that they're not sitting on their money in a bank account, they're putting it to work.


    And of course their job is to make money for themselves. What the fuck do YOU do? Like you yourself are some kind of net boon to society?

  • Tony||

    I'm not saying it's my job to create the environment for strong job creation. The only thing that can do that is government.

    The fact is that among the people who benefit from these tax cuts only a tiny proportion create any jobs. So we shouldn't make our tax policy based on a lie, that's all I'm saying.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.15.11 @ 3:27PM|#
    "I'm not saying it's my job to create the environment for strong job creation. The only thing that can do that is government."
    Yes, shithead, by getting out of the way.

    "The fact is that among the people who benefit from these tax cuts only a tiny proportion create any jobs."
    Cite, shithead. You just made that up.

  • GILMORE||

    Tony|12.15.11 @ 3:27PM|#

    ...The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ......The only thing that can do that is government.
    ...

    Tony, in a nutshell.

  • Blacksmithing||

    Ok, cool, it's a lie then. Why raise tax rates at all, though, given that Congress will take the new revenue and spend, what, 140% of it on nest feathering?

    Do you really believe the new revenue will be spent wisely, or do you think that tax rates should be higher just to "get even" with the idle, possibly evil rich?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "the only thing"

    Yeah. Only government can create jobs. Thanks for setting us straight.

  • FamilyGuy||

    "Their job is to make money for themselves"

    Hmm, funny. That's my job too and I'm not a millionaire. I prefer to make money for myself not the mother of fifteen without a job.

  • Tony||

    And so you can buy an extra video game, those 15 children should starve to death.

  • ||

    Hopefully they will be those carrying your genes Tony.

  • ||

    those 15 children should starve to death

    Let them eat cake.

    On second thought, that contributes to their obesity... let them eat oatmeal with no sugar on it.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.15.11 @ 5:51PM|#
    "And so you can buy an extra video game, those 15 children should starve to death."

    Shithead, why do you love murdering people?

  • ||

    He's too fucking stupid to realize the way to end poverty is for everyone to prosper.

    It really befuddles me that liberals cannot see past first order consequences. I honestly believe it's physiological. Perhaps those with left leaning tendencies lack something in their brains that allow them to predict the unintended consequences of their proposed agendas. Just a little theory of mine.

    Either way, trying to reason with Tony is an exercise in futility.

  • Sevo||

    "...I honestly believe it's physiological...."

    Perhaps when you list far enough to port to capsize, the fluid around the brain leaves the starboard side dry?
    Naaah. It's simply arrested maturity at the adolescent stage.

  • Tony||

    the way to end poverty is for everyone to prosper.

    I'm too fucking stupid to understand a tautology?

    The problem is you don't know how to make everyone prosper because your entire worldview is the absurd and unproven claim that if you reduce government everyone will prosper. All it means is power is transferred from government to private capital. That tends to concentrate wealth, not distribute it, and moving more wealth downward is what we're both talking about when we talk about reducing poverty.

    Welfare is not something I enthusiastically support--its need should be minimized. Ideally everyone prospers because everyone contributes, if they can. If they can't (disability or inescapable poverty) then the only choices are let them die or provide social assistance. At the very bottom it's necessary just to keep people from going over the edge into third-world conditions. That's something you cannot claim to prevent with your ideas.

  • ||

    Tony,question for you:

    Do you believe that wealth can be created or do you think there is just one pie that everyone needs to divide up?

  • GILMORE||

    [crickets chirping]

  • ||

    He'll never engage in forthright debate. Just spew his rhetoric.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hey, I have a video game... where do I cash it in so I can pay for food for fifteen kids?

  • Tony||

    I believe in the first law of thermodynamics. Ultimately wealth is based on physical resources. Or do you suppose capitalism is so magical it can violate basic physical laws?

  • ||

    Answer the question.

    Do you believe that wealth can be created or do you think there is just one pie that everyone needs to divide up?

  • ||

    Are you implying that wealth is energy and therefor cannot be created or destroyed? And am I to assume then you believe their is just one big pie out there that we all divide up?

  • ||

    PS, I won't even comment on the absurdity of relating economic principles to the laws of physics, as I'm trying to make a point and don't want to get sidetracked. (I just didn't want everyone else to think me stupid by letting you get away with such a ridiculous statement.)

    Answer the question. Can wealth be created or not?

  • ||

    I'm too fucking stupid to understand a tautology?

    Seems as yes you are.

  • VJ||

    That logic never seems to dawn on them. I have various friends who can't seem to understand that proposition.

  • ||

    Well, not if the mother or any of the 15 rugrats is the one selling him the video game. But, that's beside the point. She isn't Familyguy's responsibility. And neither are her children. They wouldn't starve to death because FamilyGuy didn't give her the money. They would starve to death because the mother didn't find a way to create value equivalent to enough food to eat.

  • ||

    They wouldn't starve to death because FamilyGuy didn't give her the money. They would starve to death because the mother didn't find a way to create value equivalent to enough food to eat.

    True cause the only "real value" she had was worn out after kid 5.

  • ||

    She couldn't use it anyway - it's against the law.

  • ||

    I think if you're going to advocate for a certain policy you should use real words and not GOP poll tested bullshit.

    'cause left-"liberal" talking points bullshit is much better.

    Again:

    http://orwell.ru/library/essay.....sh/e_polit

  • ||

    Wonderful... companies that don't take subsidies create jobs. Then end subsidies? Oh, wait, that's impossible until we fix campaign finance reform.

  • Jason||

    You're starting to get it… the possibility of subsidies and regulations produces lobbyists to get those subsidies and regulations written in their favor and those subsidies and regulations produce lobbyists in turn.

  • ||

    You're almost there....so to fix it we need...it's okay...you can say it...to fix it we need.................

    TERM LIMITS!

    Limit the government...not the constituents.

  • ||

    Term limits do limit constituents. Would Ron Paul be around today if there were these proposed limits?

  • ||

    I think you'd have to admit that RP is the exception when it comes to politicians. Can you name another that has kept his/her integrity and haven't been corrupted by their power?

    My opinion is the trade off of losing the extremely few good ones and getting rid of the majority of the corrupt ones is well worth it.

    Term limits could eliminate the need for reelection and therefore the power of the lobbyists.

  • Tony||

    They would also remove from the people the freedom to choose who they want to represent them. They should be free to factor in experience and seniority.

    The answer is strong laws separating money and politics. The only freedom sacrificed is the freedom to bribe legislators.

  • ||

    Once again the left would rather limit the freedom of the people than limit the source of the problem, which is an unquenchable lust for power by corrupt politicians.

  • ||

    The answer is strong laws separating money and politics. The only freedom sacrificed is the freedom to bribe legislators.

    Term limits Tony are the only way to make that a reality. You have just proven that you have nothing more than wounderlust for power and power through Government.

    My guess is this stems from the fact that your so insecure with your self and your own ablities that the government "is the only way".

    You preach it as "for the children" or for the "poor grandmothers", but in reality it's all about YOU.

  • Tony||

    I just explained that your idea limits people's freedom to elect who they want, while my idea limits only the freedom to bribe politicians. "Lust for power" is not the root of the problem. We're supposed to have orderly democratic elections in this country, and if someone is too "lustful" or whatever you can not vote for them again.

    But you won't endorse any law that limits the amount of influence corporations have on legislation, will you?

  • ||

    "if someone is too "lustful" or whatever you can not vote for them again."

    No, you cant vote them out when the pig promises to steal money from 49% of the population and redistribute it to 51% of the population.

    "But you won't endorse any law that limits the amount of influence corporations have on legislation, will you?"

    No I won't, because your solution takes liberty away from the people. Mine takes privilege away from the government, which was the sole purpose of our Constitution.

    Where do you draw the line on how much influence an individual or a company can apply concerning their own governance? Any line you draw will be arbitrary. Some will argue it's still too much, others not enough. Do YOU get to decide Tony? Why not me? Either way, they will find yet another way around your regulation, which will require you to pass yet MORE regulation (and grow government to enforce said regulation).

    Why not just eliminate the problem instead of creating more?

  • ||

    Francisco said"Why not just eliminate the problem instead of creating more?"

    There is not a Liberal Progressive mind on this planet that is capable of that feat. They need it to be complex so the "smart" people can "run it" and since they are the only "smart" people then they must be the ones.

    It's magic, just like their Economics

  • ||

    But you won't endorse any law that limits the amount of influence corporations have on legislation, will you?

    Wrong I want ALL lobbiests OUT of the system. And any elected offical that "recieves" any money shall be jailed.

  • ||

    "I just explained that your idea limits people's freedom to elect who they want, while my idea limits only the freedom to bribe politicians"

    The system needs cleaning just like your diapers Tony and for the same reason.

    Limits on terms and Money coming into the "system" are the only way.

  • ||

    The answer is strong laws separating money and politics.

    Sorry to break this to you, Tony, but the only thing separating money from politics will be the absence of laws putting politics into people's money. But, that's not what you had in mind, was it?

  • Tony||

    That doesn't even mean anything.

  • ||

    So Tony are you going to answer the question so we can have a real debate, or are you just going to spout rhetoric and leave?

    Can wealth be created or not?

  • ||

    So, it's regulation that's causing unprecedented profits and uninvested savings? Funny, I would have thought it was lack of consumer demand, but that's probably a result of me thinking about silly things like "economics".

  • ||

    To be clear, the lack of demand is driving the uninvested saving and unemployment, not the profits...

  • first||

    Say hello to Erica F, the very first Portuguese girl to join Team Hegre!

    Erica is what you would describe as a natural blond bombshell. She’s super tight, toned and perky - almost like she has been chiseled out of marble. Erica also has the marvelous quality of being petite but curvy, and it has to be said she has the most incredible ass.

    Erica just loved strutting her stuff in front of the camera and is a natural born poser. Erica is new to erotic modeling but says that she loves the job. Erica also loves dressing in sexy clothes and high heels. She enjoys turning heads wherever she goes. But we are sorry to have to break the bad news to you - this gorgeous girl is already married.

    She may just be starting out but Erica F is sure to go far!

  • Sevo||

    Hello, Erica.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Team Stossel Live Blog is pre-empted for the GOP debate. I know, I know. It's a fan's worst nightmare.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement