Question, how are you going get people who don't have jobs or are extremely leveraged to spend money?
Contraty to what some people might tell you, corporations are sitting on piles of cash. Tax breaks aren't going to get them to hire anybody. They have billions of dollars, and they aren't hiring. Giving them a tax break will just put more billions in their banks without making jobs.
But, if you can get people to believe the economy is good, and that dollars are worth more, jobs would be created. In a good economy the companies would actually save less and hire more. Also, prices would go down. Low prices means people and companies would start buying things. More buying is more jobs is more buying is a start to an economy that is actually better. The key is we need to do something to convince people who have money to start spending it on things. If a lie can convince people that the time to buy stuff is now, then why not?
The other thing is that a lie is free. It doesn't cost anything to lie. Every other means of job creation involves spending more money, which the government refuses to do. Yet, politicians are experts at lying.
Hey, it worked once in a specific situation, then like colt .45, it must work EVERY time.
I find it a mildly interesting insight into Scott's mind that he doesn't seem to have imagined the possibility that economists already thought of this, and dismissed it. I have no evidence of this, but frankly, I strongly doubt Scott is the first person to think of this, you have a TON of people with real fuckin' crazy ideas about money and the economy, WAY crazier than Scott's ideas. I'd even bet some of them are economists, too.
There is also the possibility that economists have thought of this, and are lying to us right now because those big piles of corporate money are paying their salaries.
Scott, tax breaks don't (always) work the way you think they do. A tax break almost never takes the shape of, "Well, let's just cut their tax rate X percent."
Let me give you an example of a real life incentive-based tax break: A manufacturing company close to me has been given a tax break to expand jobs here. For every new person hired to jobs with specific kinds of criteria (certain qualifying wages, health benefits, duration, etc.), the city will give $X,XXX to the business, with a cap of $YYY,YYY. The city is happy because it gets more in income tax than it expends. The business is happy because it gets more revenue, period.
Most governmental entities work very, very hard to avoid any scenario in which they give away money without assurances of returns on investments. Cities, counties, and states are not interested at all in businesses that will sit on savings. They are sure to attach strings.
Most governmental entities work very, very hard to avoid any scenario in which they give away money without assurances of returns on investments. Cities, counties, and states are not interested at all in businesses that will sit on savings. They are sure to attach strings.
So why are all the biggest corporations sitting on huge piles of cash? The stories that Apple has more money that the US government may not have been true. However, what is true is that Apple has 70+ billion dollars in cash reserves.You could hire 1.4 million people to work an entire year for 50k each. That's a lot of fucking jobs right there. Sure, there's a lot of overhead costs like insurance and payroll tax, but that's just one company. Google, Facebook, and many other companies are also sitting on huge cash reserves. They're all trying to hire like crazy, but they're only interested in tech professionals that are already employed.
How do you get them to spend this money? Those existing strategies don't seem to be working, otherwise why haven't they spent it already? They're saving it so they can weather the storm. If we can convince them the storm has passed, they will spend as if the storm has passed, which will cause the storm to pass. A positive self-fulfilling prophecy as opposed to a negative one.
They're all trying to hire like crazy, but they're only interested in tech professionals that are already employed.
To be fair, I doubt there is a lot of use for burger flipping teenagers or automotive sprayers at Apple or Google. Now, I'm not a professional in the field, but I can sort of see the sense in a giant tech company hiring experienced, proven professionals in the field relevant to their business ventures.
Jason's actually right here. The big companies are "Technically" using them. They are floating the money in bonds and safe investments because they feel they can make a larger return on bonds and other safe boring "does not actually hire anyone" returns.
Let me give you an example of a real life incentive-based tax break: A manufacturing company close to me has been given a tax break to expand jobs here. For every new person hired to jobs with specific kinds of criteria (certain qualifying wages, health benefits, duration, etc.), the city will give $X,XXX to the business, with a cap of $YYY,YYY. The city is happy because it gets more in income tax than it expends. The business is happy because it gets more revenue, period.
There is a great Planet Money on this topic which finds that most hiring tax incentives barely have any influence on whether a company decides to hire. It's purely market conditions and whether they will make money hiring someone new. It was a pretty good eps I highly recommend. (do your own search for it).
I know why they have them, why don't they USE them?
I like to think they are using it for and protecting themselves from patent trolling. It cost serious money to do it in multiple countries. And you would want mega liquid assets to scare others into thinking you can do this all day or just in case they lose.
Guess I should just move to an EU signatory that isn't part of the Eurozone.
Are you rich and do you speak German?
I am not and do not. But I will be (or, to avoid sounding too fucking cocksure, I am at least moderately assured of my own ambitions to say that I will be successful and not a total fucking leech) and I can learn.
Guess I should just move to an EU signatory that isn't part of the Eurozone.
You could always move back to Spain...o wait...
Spain's part of the Eurozone. I'd move to the UK. It's not a party to the Maastrict Treaty, nor it is a party to the Schengen Agreement. However, it is considered a party to the Schengen Area for the purposes of travel, residency, and employment movement.
Alternately, I could heave myself into studying Norwegian for a few years and then go be a doctor in Oslo.
Only of German descent eh? They're not willing to take just any old American with high tech skills?
Obviously someone up there in Germany listens to Geeknights and put in some words where needed. Probably for the best. Will focus you guys more towards those barges you planned.
Spain's part of the Eurozone. I'd move to the UK. It's not a party to the Maastrict Treaty, nor it is a party to the Schengen Agreement. However, it is considered a party to the Schengen Area for the purposes of travel, residency, and employment movement.
Alternately, I could heave myself into studying Norwegian for a few years and then go be a doctor in Oslo.
All the while you'll be missing out on legal drugs and whores. And killing yourself legally.
We also have a ridiculously fuckhuge GDP.
Correct, and still the US defaulted because of their stupid No-Party political system. And a double-A+ still isn't going to do shit in terms of paying back debt.
Spain's part of the Eurozone. I'd move to the UK. It's not a party to the Maastrict Treaty, nor it is a party to the Schengen Agreement. However, it is considered a party to the Schengen Area for the purposes of travel, residency, and employment movement.
Alternately, I could heave myself into studying Norwegian for a few years and then go be a doctor in Oslo.
All the while you'll be missing out on legal drugs and whores. And killing yourself legally.
I can always take a ferry to your magical wonderland nation when I feel the need for stacks of space cakes and awesome canal bike rides.
In the interest of International Diplomacy, I will buy you beer.
Correct, and still the US defaulted because of their stupid No-Party political system. And a double-A+ still isn't going to do shit in terms of paying back debt.
In the interest of International Diplomacy, I will buy you beer.
I don't drink beer.
But how will we maintain international relations!?
Correct, and still the US defaulted because of their stupid No-Party political system. And a double-A+ still isn't going to do shit in terms of paying back debt.
So will the EU. Surprise, this is a global problem.
I'm not denying that. That's why I initially specified moving to a nation out of the Eurozone. If the Euro collapses, the pound will be in shit shape, but it'll still have value. Anyway, at least most EU nations still have politics that actually make a difference. The US might as well not even have two parties anymore. There's one limp-dicked majority with severe multiple personality disorder, and a bunch of unelectable fringe elements ranging from batshit crazy anarchists to loony bin Evangelical libertarians who think that God created the dollar, the atom bomb, and apple pie the day before last.
I've been pretty fucking sick of the news and most everything as of late, but it's just becoming too much for me to bear.
But how will we maintain international relations!?
I know some ways, rawr.
We didn't default.
Not in words, I'll give you that.
So will the EU. Surprise, this is a global problem.
Fueled, ignited and fanned by... If your side of the world would be so kind to stop dicking about and help the rest of the world (yes, there actually is more land outside of US and middle eastern borders) then we could deal with it. Maybe start with getting a democracy set up in your country.
Comments
But, if you can get people to believe the economy is good, and that dollars are worth more, jobs would be created. In a good economy the companies would actually save less and hire more. Also, prices would go down. Low prices means people and companies would start buying things. More buying is more jobs is more buying is a start to an economy that is actually better. The key is we need to do something to convince people who have money to start spending it on things. If a lie can convince people that the time to buy stuff is now, then why not?
The other thing is that a lie is free. It doesn't cost anything to lie. Every other means of job creation involves spending more money, which the government refuses to do. Yet, politicians are experts at lying.
I find it a mildly interesting insight into Scott's mind that he doesn't seem to have imagined the possibility that economists already thought of this, and dismissed it. I have no evidence of this, but frankly, I strongly doubt Scott is the first person to think of this, you have a TON of people with real fuckin' crazy ideas about money and the economy, WAY crazier than Scott's ideas. I'd even bet some of them are economists, too.
Let me give you an example of a real life incentive-based tax break: A manufacturing company close to me has been given a tax break to expand jobs here. For every new person hired to jobs with specific kinds of criteria (certain qualifying wages, health benefits, duration, etc.), the city will give $X,XXX to the business, with a cap of $YYY,YYY. The city is happy because it gets more in income tax than it expends. The business is happy because it gets more revenue, period.
Most governmental entities work very, very hard to avoid any scenario in which they give away money without assurances of returns on investments. Cities, counties, and states are not interested at all in businesses that will sit on savings. They are sure to attach strings.
How do you get them to spend this money? Those existing strategies don't seem to be working, otherwise why haven't they spent it already? They're saving it so they can weather the storm. If we can convince them the storm has passed, they will spend as if the storm has passed, which will cause the storm to pass. A positive self-fulfilling prophecy as opposed to a negative one.
There is a great Planet Money on this topic which finds that most hiring tax incentives barely have any influence on whether a company decides to hire. It's purely market conditions and whether they will make money hiring someone new. It was a pretty good eps I highly recommend. (do your own search for it).
Guess I should just move to an EU signatory that isn't part of the Eurozone.
Also, I'm already a citizen.
Alternately, I could heave myself into studying Norwegian for a few years and then go be a doctor in Oslo.
In the interest of International Diplomacy, I will buy you beer.
I've been pretty fucking sick of the news and most everything as of late, but it's just becoming too much for me to bear.
If your side of the world would be so kind to stop dicking about and help the rest of the world (yes, there actually is more land outside of US and middle eastern borders) then we could deal with it. Maybe start with getting a democracy set up in your country.