Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Who You Calling a Job Creator

Posted by labrea 7NYC (My Page) on
Thu, May 17, 12 at 22:55

"Nick Hanauer. He's a venture capitalist from Seattle who was the first non-family investor in Amazon.com. Today he's a very rich man. And, somewhat jarringly, he's screaming to anyone who will listen that he, and other wealthy innovators like him, doesn't create jobs. The middle class does - and its decline threatens everyone in America, from the innovators on down.
Technology, Entertainment and Design wasn't impressed though he received a standing ovation.

TED officials have declared it too politically controversial to post on their web site. You be the judge:

The full speech thast toooo controversial!

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification

We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Thank You.

This will be like the Krugman post I bet.

Here is a link that might be useful: Nik The Speech Video


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Quick question, Labrea. Did you write this?


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Logic has landed.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Of Course not It says the full speech so that's his full speech ! Otherwise its cut an paste 2 lines of it are mine mine. So Elvis your take on the speech is what?


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

It really is so simple, isn't it? It's the dirty little secret the 1% doesn't want the rest of us to know.

His comments on who creates the jobs is spot on.

This figure is amazing:
If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

That is the crux of the problem. The share of total income has shifted so drastically.

It's not that the liberals are envious of the rich (as the conservatives on this board say so often), it's that we think it's unfair that the balance has shifted so drastically.

And here's where we get back to voting your own interests and how I cannot understand how middle class can vote Republican. Why do they think it's ok that this huge shift has made the rich richer. If you're rich, I can understand you like it. But, if you're not rich, how do you vote for those that will continue to widen the gap.

I just don't get it.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

What Jill said.

How people do not see this, I couldn't say... or perhaps it's that our media, also part of the hugely rich, has convinced them otherwise. But still... it all comes back to basic math and logic.

The playing field is not fair, and hasn't been in quite a while.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Fortune 500 a very profitable year job creation from all that profit minimal gambling excessive


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

And here's where we get back to voting your own interests and how I cannot understand how middle class can vote Republican. Why do they think it's ok that this huge shift has made the rich richer. If you're rich, I can understand you like it. But, if you're not rich, how do you vote for those that will continue to widen the gap.

I just don't get it.

I do not know how many times I have said this....Party, race, hatred.

Decision is not made with the head it is made with the heart.

The campaign is heating up and we are seeing more negative Ads that the "Job Creators" need lower taxes with each lowering of the tax we are losing more jobs. The companies are making record profits by employing less people and getting higher bonus.

With the taxes low Company profits are high so where are the jobs? They need more tax breaks so they can give bigger bonuses.

None of this is a secret. But you can convenience enough people to believe what they are told to believe. "Who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes". They chose to believe........lol

In my heart I do not think it is going to work. It did not work 4 years ago I do not think there are as many as we might think that do not see and believe their eye and not what they are told to believe.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

When our local congress critter starts in on the obvious benefits of tax cuts for the 'Job Creators", the over-whelming Republican audience is stupefied into silence.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

This is not the first time someone has pointed out this fallacy, yet it's an article of faith - practically a commandment within the GOP - that it is true.

Class warfare by another name, and it is being carried out by the haves against the have-nots -- with lone voices, such as above, pointing out what is actually happening.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Labrea: "So Elvis your take on the speech is what?"

I asked my question because it was late and I wasn't going to stay up and read it if you didn't write it, so that's that. Sounds like you went to bed, too :)

So now there's time to read the thing.

"What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring."

So what came first, the chicken or the egg?

"So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous."

That part is so unnecessary, but it's very politically correct, right? This is the sort of rhetoric that makes the Baptists rise up from their seats and shout: "Amen, brother!" Please.

"That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer."

More gratuitous drivel.

"Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%."

Now that's worthy of discussion. Not about how wealthy some are. But! Why the decrease in tax rates? Were they so high before that they needed correction? A flat tax would solve this problem. Simplify that tax code.

"The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff."

Duh. But okay, in case anyone's having trouble following the logic.

"I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally."

This is meant to set him apart from those super-rich who are clueless to the plight of the "little people", or as he would put it in public: "the middle class". He's just a regular guy...

"Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?"

Fair warning--he used the word "incredible". You can look that up yourself, I don't want to piss Frank of ;)
You know what they say about statistics. Just make 'em up. And what's the point, anyway?

"Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification."

Now we've got the god-complex thing going. This guy is definitely on a major guilt trip. I think he means to be self-deprecating but comes off a pompous a$$.

"That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich."

To a point. I still like the idea of a flat tax for all. Get rid of the corporate loopholes (that's oversimplifying, but you know what I mean). Cut the low income workers a little slack. No refunds for people who didn't pay tax in the first place. You don't get a rebate if you didn't buy the product, right?

That's MHO on this guy's speech (his credentials are--what? He's rich?)



 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Just because he's Rich>

"NICK HANAUER is a Seattle-based serial entrepreneur, venture capitalist, author and activist with a knack for identifying and building transformative business models.

In 1995, Hanauer became the first non-family investor in Amazon.com where he served as a Board Advisor until January 2000. During the same time period, he founded and served as CEO of aQuantive, Inc (originally Avenue A Media) and a short time later founded Gear.com. aQuantive was acquired by Microsoft in August 2007 for $6.4 billion, the largest acquisition in Microsoft history, and Gear.com merged with Overstock.com in 2001.

He co-founded Second Avenue Partners in 2000, and he currently serves as a board member and advisor to MarketLeader.com and Qliance Medical Group and is vice chairman of Marchex."
I'd say he's got a background in starting successful companies ....no, maybe?

"Hanauer directs a significant portion of his time to social and policy issues. In 2007, he co-authored "The True Patriot" with Eric Liu and co-founded The True Patriot Network, a non-partisan group committed to furthering patriotic ideals. He also co-founded the Washington State League of Education Voters (LEV), a non-partisan statewide political organization focused on promoting public education, where he serves as co-president." Involved too!
Not too far away from Buffets concept of you give me a tax break I won't buy anything tangible with it I'll just invest it.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

And here's where we get back to voting your own interests and how I cannot understand how middle class can vote Republican. Why do they think it's ok that this huge shift has made the rich richer. If you're rich, I can understand you like it. But, if you're not rich, how do you vote for those that will continue to widen the gap.

That's why Republicans play up social issues.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

But terriks that still does not answer the fit the expected outcome? It might have been back in colonial days but.....

They use Birth Control
They vote for the war hawk
The Bible speaks of helping the poor, needy, sick. Concern for your neighbor
In short loving, caring, no hatred or greed.

That is not what policies that have been put forth support.

So if they are looking for who supports their social issues and religion or what is really in their heart. The Conservative party voters are not living the social, religious right issues.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Okay, Labrea. Impressive credentials there.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

They call themselves "Christian", but what they are really practicing , as David has mentioned, is the religion of conservatism. Has no relationship to real Christianity.
the religion of conservatism uses social issues as a distraction. It works like a charm. Poor people voting Republican because of "morals."


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

OP: "So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous."

Elvis: That part is so unnecessary, but it's very politically correct, right? This is the sort of rhetoric that makes the Baptists rise up from their seats and shout: "Amen, brother!" Please.

OP: "That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer."

Elvis: More gratuitous drivel.

What are you talking about? Do you disagree with what he says? If so, which parts and why?


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

OP: "So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.
Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous."

Elvis: That part is so unnecessary, but it's very politically correct, right? This is the sort of rhetoric that makes the Baptists rise up from their seats and shout: "Amen, brother!" Please.

Elvis, earlier on this forum you identified as running a business yourself. Do you disagree with the OP's claim?


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Jill: "What are you talking about?"

As I said in my post, I was answering LaBrea's question.

"Do you disagree with what he says? If so, which parts and why?"

I said in my post.

CP: "Do you disagree with the OP's claim?"

I said in my post.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

The model would have job boom going on/

The Fortune 500 generated a total of $824.5 billion in earnings last year, up 16.4% over 2010. That beats the previous record of $785 billion, .. The year before we were told it was the uncertain business climate that kept companies making money hand over fist from hiring. It was lie the & it's a lie now austerity did nothing for Germany but cause it production to ground down in February to 2009 levels. While US growth is modest countries that adopted austerity methods economies have shrunk.
Japans Economy grew by 4% tons of money were thrown into repairing infrastructure destroyed by the Tsunami.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Labrea: "Japans Economy grew by 4% tons of money were thrown into repairing infrastructure destroyed by the Tsunami."

I don't suppose we can expect one of those anytime soon. So what do YOU suggest, Labrea?

"The year before we were told it was the uncertain business climate that kept companies making money hand over fist from hiring. It was lie the & it's a lie now"

Okay, I get that. Now what?


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Gee I just don't know Elvis but I really don't think austerity along with more tax cuts is the answer. I would hope for an end to the Bus tax fiasco's.
As for the original topic it's about exposing the myth that if I giver you more money your going to create jobs with it. If you give me more money I will invest it I don't want or need anything.
Investment for the sake of investment is a dead end in terms of consumerism.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Maybe a big part of the problem is that when I hear "higher taxes on the rich," I hear "higher taxes if you are not poor".


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

I hear a return to what was supposed to be a temporary measure caused by a surplus.
We ain't going to argue this again is a dead horse that won't run in the triple screw.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Maybe a big part of the problem is that when I hear "higher taxes on the rich," I hear "higher taxes if you are not poor".

How about if you heard "higher taxes on those that can afford it?" or "higher taxes on those that benefit from the infrastructure that made those higher earnings possible"?

I know, you just want a flat tax - you think that would be "a fair tax", right?


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

The "job creator" title... it's all just fancy talk for something that doesn't, and can't, work the way it's said to. It's a GOP lie. Supple side, or trickle down economics has always been a farce, since the concept was created and worded ever so carefully, like a marketing ploy. But the glaring truth is, the middle class create the jobs and keep the economy moving along... and without a healthy middle class, there is no healthy economy. Supply and demand, and the means to purchase go hand in hand. Without jobs, and without income, there will be no purchasing power... thus, no need for the jobs, and no money circulating.

Social/moral issues are always nice to drag out and sprinkle around, but they don't feed people when it comes down to it, and the government doesn't have any business regulating morals, which are subjective, anyway.

The GOP would rather beat the drums of war... against anything it possibly can... as long that money chain/cycle doesn't dry up. Unfortunately, they picked a lie to follow that is not sustainable in the long run, so the chain or cycle that keeps money moving in the direction they want is soon to dry up.

Unless the GOP can find a way to market kidneys and first born children, or can invent a process to squeeze blood out of turnips, soon that's all the people will have left to give... and the result will be an economy crashing down around everyone, just like it is, and eventual third world status.

Our tax laws are not fair the way they are, but I doubt a flat tax would help those who need it. What we need is to simplify some laws, where a fair share is paid, by all... instead of continually cutting taxes for the wealthy, and allowing billions of dollars in subsidies on farms and other interests to exit the budget and end up in those same hands that already enjoy huge tax cuts.

Since a government is not a business, it can't be run like one. There needs to be a fair balance of revenue and cuts in spending... but we must take care where those cuts are made.

The Pentagon can't be the largest slice of pie eaten on a continual basis. A country must also help to maintain its citizenry, public services, and infrastructure. If the largest chunks of money go to defense spending, or are siphoned upward continuously without some taken for government revenue and sent back through the economy, how will the economic cycle continue to run? It won't. It can't.

I don't know what the best policies would be, but I know the ones in place today are not working. The definition of insanity, though, still includes doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Why would people keep buying into the same lies that broke our economy in the first place? It wasn't all that long ago we had a surplus... what's different now? Let's go back and look at what gave us that surplus, and utilize those policies today.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

"higher taxes if you are not poor"

What on earth is wrong with that? I'm not poor and I pay higher taxes than a poor person. That's the way taxes work -- you earn nothing, you owe nothing.

But I'd rather pay taxes proportionate to my income than be poor, wouldn't you?


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, Teddy Roosevelt "we sure got that wrong in this country"

The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted. Let us admit also the right to regulate the terms and conditions of labor, which is the chief element of wealth, directly in the interest of the common good. (Teddy Roosevelt) He broke up the too big to fail he broke up the too big for our nations own good.
He taxed vast fortunes at a higher rate & felt their perpetuation dangerous to the common good but beneficial for the few.

"The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."
I think this guys uo there on Mount Rushmore geeeez Louise he sounds like a screaming communists by today's GOP standards. He once was touted as a great Republican President. I wonder which moved Teddy or the party.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, May 20, 12 at 7:51

No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, Teddy Roosevelt

...the problem around here is that the only jobs available are 9 to 10 dollar an hour jobs. Yep tis better than nothing, BUT who will buy the homes/cars ?? A barely living wage keeps you barely living.

Two more teachers I know got laid off, one is young and will return home to his parents till he finds something .. the other is middle age and I pray he will find a something, as a senior citizen I can tell you that finding a job aint easy.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Good old Teddy. Not sure we would want to use all of his sentiments for our model lives today. But hey, thanks for putting us on the path to world domination. If it weren't for you I'd be living at a standard closer to an average citizen of China than what I have now.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

In filling out apartment applications this week a co worker was calculating the 40 times rent requirement that is pretty standard for NY Landlords. The average rent for a studio in Greenwich Village today is $1,805.56. As clerk at the daily News I was always able to afford a studio in the Village there are no $75,000 a year entry level clerks.
Stuyvesant town which to me was never anything more than an upscale housing project for working Middle class

From an old article

In 1950, residents at Stuyvesant Town paid a median rent of only $76, and those at Peter Cooper Village $100. This was a time at which the median income of the residents was $5,866. Thus, the median household paid only about 15 percent of its income for rent. By 2000, the median rent had climbed above $1,000, but since the median household income had shot up to $68,422, the median household still pays only about 18 percent of its income for rent. This is well below the 35 percent that is considered non-affordable, making the two complexes one of the few bargains left in Manhattan.

After battling in courts for years here are some of the current rents.

400 East 20th Street
Apartment Size Finish Rent Floor Plan
6-D 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath Modern $3,270

410 East 20th Street
Apartment Size Finish Rent Floor Plan
0M-A 2 Bedrooms, 1 Bath Modern $4,351

5 Stuyvesant Oval
Apartment Size Finish Rent Floor Plan
4-E 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath Modern $3,330

1-H 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath Modern $3,305

624 East 20th Street
Apartment Size Finish Rent Floor Plan
11-B 2 Bedrooms, 1 Bath Classic $4,061

7 Stuyvesant Oval
Apartment Size Finish Rent Floor Plan
5-G 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath Modern $3,320

So the model of 40 times rent some go as high as 60 times rent on their applications to live in this "upscale" housing project you should be making in excess of $100,000 a year for a 1 bedroom. To live in a community built for working middle class families. mmmnnnn funny.

The Median rental for a studio in the infamous SOUTH BRONX is $950. minimum wage jobs for a husband & wife can make it.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Two things come to mind... one, I could never afford any of those rents... and two, there's barely a tree in sight. Look at all that concrete. Not my kind of living scenario, though some like the cities. If I didn't like Chicago, I doubt I'd like New York, which must be so much bigger... it's about the only city I haven't visited.

It's not that it's so complicated to figure out how to balance budgets or take care of the human population... it's that today's sentiment runs in a different direction... self-interest. How to keep the people semi-happy and still keep skimming the till? That's the political question on the table, it seems.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Supply and demand.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

That rent is crazy. What kind of money do these people make, anyway? Why in the world would anyone live there? Crime, crazy rents, no jobs.

There must be a huge gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" in cities like New York. I think that there must be a lot of people like me just shaking their heads.

I don't suppose many New Yorkers buy most their clothes at Goodwill, grow most their own vegs, hunt and fish for meat, and make around $30K a year.

In any economic discussion with folks that can afford to pay that kind of rent, I simply can't relate.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

If you overlook the sloppy, misapplied metaphors and all of the straw men, ignorance of economics alone makes it easy to see why this was rejected by TED.

TED has some really good stuff and some very mediocre stuff. They have even allowed some of the batshoot crazy, newage-y topics to be recorded -- which means it's hard to take TED too seriously -- but this is so bad that it couldn't make the cut.

Of course wealth, finance, and economics is not a zero sum game. Blame it on pie charts, where everything appears to be finite and if someone takes a larger slice that means someone else must get a smaller slice.

Wealth is created all the time without having to diminish someone else's wealth to offset it.

Maybe Hanauer is ignorant, or maybe he's just indulging in some recreational populism. Either way, every piece of manure that falls from a rich person's lips isn't automatically a gold nugget.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

"Either way, every piece of manure that falls from a rich person's lips isn't automatically a gold nugget."

Boy, you can say THAT again! However, when those nuggets tend to lean more toward the side of truth and rational thought, they're better than the normally vomited crap about too many regulations and too much taxable income, and who can I pay to influence legislation in my industry's favor, etc...


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

At the link is 'the rest of the story' from TED

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Due to high NYC rents and shortages of low income/subsidized housing, many poor, low income and unemployable NYC residents move Upstate.

Even though our Upstate welfare cities have very affordable apartments and homes, many people still can't afford them since they're unemployed, under-employed, unemployable, have poor credit, no savings etc.

Most poor NYC residents don't own vehicles, and many don't have a driver's license, so their employment options are very limited in Upstate New York.

Rising rents and occupancy safety/health/fire code enforcement in many Upstate regions has pushed many poor, low income, fixed income, unemployable and residents with large families to our poor welfare cities.

For example, in Saratoga county, we steer poor residents to Fulton and Montgomery counties.

Poverty is becoming more and more concentrated.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Jim Cramer called Romeny a Job Destroyer yesterday.

It is mind blowing that a person like Romney who is part of the problem and the cause of our and the world's economic meltdown could be our next president.

It seems not possible or some cruel and obvious joke...but nope.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

I'd just like to see one, single example of this myth that virtually eliminating taxes on the wealthiest people in a society leads to job creation for the rest of the 99.9 percent of the population. Just one.

Maybe ancient Egypt? Building the pyramids?

Yet the past 3 years, we've had the lowest tax rates in recent history, the greatest transfer of wealth imaginable has occurred upwards, and where are the jobs?

/oh, its the 'uncertainty' and 'regulations'. Snort.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Actually the idea of supply & demand was all about What built that complex was a progressive idea of an Insurance Comapny Met Life. They tore down slums & built a complex with 80 acres hard to see it of green around them hard to imagine it.

Tishman Speyer bought the complex for $5.8 billion & has battled with the existing tenants for ages over rents.
Supply & demand are not the laws of NYC control & stabilization are the order of business. Once an apartment reaches $2000 it can float to market rates. Amazing how fast a lot of these apartments that had rents in the slums of The Lower East side rose so rapidly.
Then this purchase jacked it higher.

The apartment layouts are spacious compared to the neighborhood which is what the idea was when Met Life built it they also built Parkchester in the Bronx.

Metropolitan Life displayed an intricate scale model of the proposed development at the 1939 New York World's Fair.

There were strict controls governing living in one of Met Lifes Buildings they were segregated.

"In 1942, a new housing complex was completed in the East Bronx.[1] Fifty-one new buildings with over 12,000 apartments made room for 40,000 people to live on just 129 acres,[2] while still allowing for ample open space. The complex was called ‘Parkchester.’ The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company funded the project in hopes of bettering American living conditions. A nationwide movement for affordable housing was growing, and there was a wealth of new ideas about what it meant to build a city. With revolutionary concepts and new-found public enthusiasm for architecture and urban design in the 1940s, New Yorkers were able to start a trend toward greater affordable urban housing. Parkchester was one of the groundbreaking projects in this process."
Evolutionary capitalism proceeds from a revolutionary idea!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The hope for Parkchester was that it could provide high quality housing that would be affordable to middle-income New Yorkers. The apartments rented for about $12 per room per month. While rent for a Parkchester apartment was not as low as the U.S. Housing Authority’s subsidized “low rent housing,” Parkchester was still quite inexpensive for the area. For a nearby modern six-story apartment which might be comparable to Parkchester apartments, rent could be expected to be between $18 and $28 dollars per room per month.[9] And Parkchester apartments were spacious " almost comparable to privately owned homes in the area[10]" ranging from 577 square feet for one bedroom to 967 square feet for three bedrooms.[11]

"In the late 1930s and early 1940s when Parkchester was being planned and built, there was a greater movement going on, working for the creation of affordable housing across the country. During the Great Depression, Americans were struggling with their finances: incomes were falling, and people had trouble making their housing payments."
Sounds familiar!

The most striking aspect of Parkchester's design, however, was its spatial layout. It contained only half the apartments that could have legally been built, in a random pattern rather than the typical New York City grid, and it set aside over half the total space for "social' uses They did the same in Stuyvesant Town.

"Parkchester had to fit into Met Life's Master Plan for better U.S. living conditions---the largest, healthiest quarters that could be provided at the comparatively lowest rent scale. A necessary corollary to these indoor aids to living was the requirement that ample outdoor recreational facilities be provided." There were 20 playgrounds built for children.
What country was this?

Neighborhoods change & the small Jewish Community in Parkchester could no longer afford their rent they found a home in the Mosque.

“Nowhere in the world would Jews and Muslims be meeting under the same roof,” said Patricia Tomasulo, the Catholic Democratic precinct captain and Parkchester community organizer, who first introduced the leaders of the synagogue and mosque to each other. “It’s so unique.”

Today Parkchester is mostly Condominiums Met Life sold it to Harry Helmsley in the late 60s after not maintaining it for ages. Helmsley turned it into Condos & divided it into Parkchester North & Parkchester South.
Todyas prices are modest about $160,000 for a 2 bedroom $90 to $130,000 for a 1 bedroom.

The idea was worker housing, middle class housing, affordable healthy housing all due to a loophole in NY State Insurance Law that permitted insurance to get into the apartment market.

Now for the darker side of it.

To thwart integration attempts, Moses introduced the Urban Redevelopment Companies Act which made it legal for real estate companies to exclude Blacks from modern housing developments like Park Chester in the Bronx and Stuyvesant Town on 14th St. on the East side of Manhattan. Stuyvesant Town, the largest housing project in the country, offered low-income spacious apartments to white veterans and their families.

Stuyvesant was owned by MetLife, still the largest life insurance company in the country. MetLife fought tooth and nail to preserve the segregated character of Stuyvesant Town. Eviction proceedings were initiated against white families who challenged the segregation policy, and neighborhood children who were not white were chased away from the gated community by hired security. MetLife president Frederick Ecker stated "Negroes and whites do not mix."

When three African American World War II veterans sued MetLife for their discriminatory practices, the court ruled: "It is well settled that the landlord of a private apartment or dwelling house may, without violating any provision of the Federal or State Constitutions, select tenants of its own choice because of race, color, creed or religion ... Clearly, housing accommodation is not a recognized civil right." For its part, the New York Times refused to endorse the integration of Stuyvesant Town.

I hope you all enjoyed the tour!

Here is a link that might be useful: If you build it


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Maybe ancient Egypt? Building the pyramids?

If you consider being a slavery to be employment.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

It is only a continued example of the notion that the Middle class was eroded to the point that even housing that was created for them is not considered high end luxury apartments. Add a gym & some new flower beds & Voila!
This was not a beneficial development for the city overall it is a further example of a grinding down of the middle class/or working class. Thousands of units of affordable housing disappeared the investors Tishman Speyer & Blackrock plowed $5 Billion into buying Stuyvesant town abandoned the project defaulted on their loan when the property value fell below $2 Billion. Yes the free market created a bubble around this project & dreams of fabulous profits. What it left behind was a nightmare for tenant who had been in residence for years and a decline in affordable housing for the Middle Class.
I'm sure the multi billion dollar deal created a job or 2 along the way but the loss was greater.

Midtown west is what we used to call Hells Kitchen (still do)


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Wasn't Parkchester and then Stuyvesent Town a result of work done by the Housing Study Guild in 1934? And wasn't their worked based on Le Corbusier's ideas? And then weren't other developments like those two built throughout the rest of the US. Building those complexes sure did result in jobs.

NY Life might have helped finance the NY projects, but I don't believe they should be given credit/blame for the initial ideas.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Wasn't Parkchester and then Stuyvesent Town a result of work done by the Housing Study Guild in 1934? And wasn't their worked based on Le Corbusier's ideas? And then weren't other developments like those two built throughout the rest of the US. Building those complexes sure did result in jobs.

NY Life might have helped finance the NY projects, but I don't believe they should be given credit/blame for the initial ideas.


 o
RE: Who You Calling a Job Creator

Only know what I read & learned growing up that's interesting for sure!


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here