skeeter,
Honestly, if you can't (or more likely don't want to because of your political bias) understand pre introduction to basic economics and business 101, I can't help you. You are debating something that is not even in debate by anyone other than political hacks and people with no understanding of these matters at all.
I'll try one more time.
Let's analyze a successful business that generates some cash (as most large companies do) after simply maintaining the business. There are only a handful of things it can do with that cash.
1. Expand and invest for growth (capital expenditures)
2. Pay dividends
3. Buy another company
4. Let the cash accumulate on the balance sheet for awhile and invest later
5. Pay down debt
6. Buy back shares
7. Other
The decision each company makes is dependent on its opportunities and its wisdom.
Many of these options will require hiring new people either directly or indirectly. Direct hiring for new plants and expansion is obvious. Indirect things like dividends provide shareholders with the capital they can use to provide to companies that don't generate enough cash internally to expand.
In aggregate though, since we know the economy grows over time and the number of workers increases, companies are investing fairly well.
If you lower taxes on business and other forms of capital/savings, you automatically increase that pool of savings. That automatically increases investment. To think otherwise is monumentally foolish. The very greed you constantly whine about is what drives these businesses to expand and make more money etc... The byproduct, is more employment, higher wages etc...
You keep asking for proof.
The proof is all around you!
Look at the income statements, balance sheets, "employee counts" etc... of successful and unsuccessful businesses. The interaction of after tax earnings and reinvested capital and how that impacts employee wages and employee counts is business at its most basic level.
Companies that make more money tend to expand and hire people.
Companies that lose money or don't make enough to justify their existence tend to shrink and shed people.
So how could being business friendly not be good and business unfriendly not be bad?
You want more proof!
Look at what's going on in India and China now that they have embraced business and freer markets. They are literally dragging hundreds of millions (soon to be billions) of people out of poverty.
That's your proof, but you do need two eyes and an intellectually honest mind to see it.
There is a legitimate debate about the impact of globalism on US workers and why we are producing some of the dopey stats you want to analyze, but that's a different issue.
The U.S. used to be a kind of closed nationalistic economy with little competition. That's not true any longer. So some of the fruits of global capitalism are dragging the standards of living of people outside the US up rapidly but causing stagnation or a decline for many here.
So the shorter term merits of globalism depend on your perspective.
Are you happy that billions of people around the world are getting dragged out of poverty by free trade, pro business, pro free market, low tax policies?
Are you upset that union workers in the US are no longer able to transfer wealth from non-union workers to themselves with above market wages and the resultant higher costs for goods and services and are therefore losing jobs and wages?
Are you happy that all workers are benefitting from the lower cost of many goods and services made overseas?
Those are the questions.
|
