<i.My company did that. In two years time we went from 450 employees at the plant to 200, and did so without "firing" anyone.So, no new jobs were created. Fewer workers = lower payroll. With same sales = more profit for owners. The term used is productivity improvement.Increasing the money in peoples pockets increases the amount of investment that will be made, whether in 401K's or direct into stocks. Either way, the investments will go to expand or begin businesses. That increases jobs. False assumption. If the people do not have jobs, they will not invest--they will spend the money. So there is no more investment. More investment does not happen until more production is needed--because a productivity improvement will pay for itself regardless of more sales.It worked before. It worked with Reagan. It worked again with Clinton. Mr. Obama said that Clinton showed that government involvement could increase jobs, but failed to say that the increases did not occur until after the 96 elections, when tax rates were decreased across the board. During the early Clinton years, these employment figures didn't change appreciably.Those were times of rising demand by boomers for a wide range of goods and services--classic Keynesian economics. Tax rates were irrelevant. Demand drove growth--not tax policies. Just about everyone had a job if they wanted one (especially late 1990s). Not so much under Reagan.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra