"It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It is the customer who pays the wages" - Henry Ford<p>follow up reading:
<a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfork...</a>
Nick Hanausr says much the same thing:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g</a><p>Here is an excerpt from the Atlantic:<p>"Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalist's 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."<p>"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."<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/here-is-the-full-inequality-speech-and-slideshow-that-was-too-hot-for-ted/257323/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/here-is-...</a>
George McGovern (liberal politician who turned entrepreneur) wrote a great piece about his experience in business after politics. Maybe Hillary should read it (or start a business, since she has no private sector background).<p>"In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn's 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender."<p>A Politician's Dream Is a Businessman's Nightmare (1992)<p><a href="http://digital.library.ucla.edu/websites/2008_993_056/Politician_Dream.htm" rel="nofollow">http://digital.library.ucla.edu/websites/2008_993_056/Politi...</a>
That's a really astounding statement. Basically, I think there are only two types of employers. Businesses and government. When government is the employer your salary is paid out of taxes. Those taxes are taken from the economy. So, even if no businesses ever hired anybody, and say, worked only with robots, they would still be the ones creating the economic growth necessary to provide government jobs.<p>I guess, with the power to print money, the government could eliminate taxes and just print money to pay everyone. But I wonder what the dollar would be worth in such a situation. I don't think much at all. Then again, I guess there'd be nothing to buy with them either.
It's a statement made in the context of supply-side economic policy.<p>Some people believe that giving money to businesses via tax reductions will result in more hiring and economic activity. This stuff is typically attributed to President Reagan.
I've never understood why Clinton gets credit for the speculative boom during his term, but never gets blamed for the subsequent and inevitable bust. That is one of the finest pieces of political spin in recent history.
For most of us debating politics is like debating astronomy - it can be fun to spin one sided theories but at the end of the day we can't make much of a difference, so no sense getting all worked up about who said what and wasting hours in political debates online. The best thing you can do is to educate yourself, which means listening to others and researching data.<p>The best way to affect the world is to do something yourself, not debate what others will do.