JOBS, JOBS, JOBS        
(To the tune of "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?")

Where have all the good jobs gone . . . . 

Long time passing.

Where have all the good jobs gone . . . . 

Long time ago. . . . . . . . 

Dec. 2, 2007 (From, notably Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, the Wall Street Journal, will justify tax cuts for capital gains on the specious argument that those entrepreneurs who are risking everything to start a new business, are providing new jobs. Capitalism and good old fashion entrepreneurship is what made this country, say they. Not so fast, say I. 

America has had entrepreneurs for over three centuries. A few lived in stately manors or large prairie ranch houses while most ordinary citizens lived in hovels, rented houses or sod huts. We had "entrepreneurs" during the Great Depression, but most Americans barely scraped by. Until 1945, this country did not have a middle class. After World War II, the American Economy was one of the few left intact. The demand for U.S. goods created a demand for U. S. workers. Previously scorned, labor unions were allowed to organize the workforce, and wages soared. The standard of living for the working class greatly improved. For the first time in our long (entrepreneurial) history, the people who manufactured consumer products actually could afford to own those products.

For the first time, an American middle class came into existence. Workers bought cars and built houses away from the core cities. Suburban shopping centers sprang up. Interstate highways populated with motels and fast food restaurants were constructed. People could afford vacations, and weekend homes. Most importantly, ordinary folks, who never dreamed that they could own their own businesses, opened restaurants, started up retail stores, became builders, and sent their kids to college. 

The new middle class became the new entrepreneurs, only there were a lot more of them. (more about "entrepreneurs and risk takers below)


Starting in the 1970's American manufacturers started moving their operations overseas where labor was cheaper, taxes lower, and regulation less obtrusive. Good manufacturing jobs began to disappear. While our politicians, Republican AND Democrat, and our political pundits, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Cavuto, those two Fox business analysts (the one with the big ears and the big guy named Charles (who reminds of my cousin Bobby)) assure us that "free trade is good for everybody," I have to wonder where they got their Economics Degrees.

Basic Economics: People grow food and manufacture products for their own needs. Anything grown or produced above basic needs is surplus. Surplus is then traded for the surpluses of others.  Do the math: A manufacturing job pays, what, $40,000 per year? At $400 Billion in net trade deficits (2006), that comes to 10 Million good jobs we have shipped overseasThis is free trade?

We have a trade deficit with China of about $400 Billion per year (2006). Wow ! ! With that much money, will China eventually own the Earth? Well maybe. First let me tell you something that you (and the smart people above) don't know. Well, maybe Cavuto knows. China runs a trade DEFICIT with the rest of the world. Uh huh. We ship our jobs and spending money, to China and they buy THEIR stuff from someone else. Why? Mr. Cavuto? Mr. Hannity? Big Ears?

Your concept of free trade sucks.

Indebted to the labor unions, the Obama administration has threatened a tariff on Chinese Steelmakers. In retaliation, China has threatened higher tariffs on several American products. Can you say Smoot-Hawley ? Tariff wars prolonged the Great Depression and they have no place in today's world. 


Glad you asked. In the last twenty years, during a time of stagnation in the European Union, there has been one success story to report; One European Nation leads the EU in per capita industrial output; and is second (to Luxembourg) in per-capita income. Industrious Germany? Nein. France? Non. Switzerland? Non, nein, and no (ask someone)? Nope . . . 


What are you smoking, Sawyer ?!? Yes Ireland. In just over a generation, Ireland has evolved from one of the poorest countries in Western Europe to one of the most successful. It has reversed the persistent emigration of its best and brightest and achieved an enviable reputation as a thriving, knowledge-driven economy.

Living standards and economic stagnation has been left behind. Ireland now has the second highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita within the European Union (after Luxembourg), one-third higher than the EU-25" \l "_ftn1#_ftn1" \o  average, and has achieved exceptional growth. In the past 20 years every major world corporation has located facilities here. Nicknamed the Celtic Tiger, the Irish Economy is booming. 

Recent data suggest Ireland has a higher gross domestic product per capita than Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan and Britain.  How in the world did Ireland do it? Many explanations have been offered for Ireland’s exceptional economic performance:

1. Macro-economic stability resulting from the decision to attack the debt by controlling public spending, rather than by increasing taxes: For a small, open economy, curbing public spending proved to be the productive way forward. It created room for tax cuts while simultaneously lowering the debt ratio. Lower taxes and a more stable macro-economic background translated into a huge burst of private sector activity, employment, and confidence in the government. After the cessation of civil war in the Eighties, the newly-elected conservative government did three things: 

(A) They acquired a line of credit from the European Union (can you say stimulus package?).

(B) They slashed pension benefits, and 

(C) They reduced corporation taxes from 22% to 15%. Always obsessive about education, Ireland then could provide good workers and lower taxes. Then after prospering for the ensuing 9 years, what did the Irish do (Barack? Barney? Nancy? Harry? Karl? Vladimir?) Raise taxes? Nooooooooo.


Ireland cut its corporate taxes - yet again - to 12%.

2. Social partnership through a unique model of wage determination, involving extensive consultation and agreement among the social partners: The two key elements were wage restraint in return for income tax cuts and ongoing participation in economic decision-making through social partnership committees. 
Domestic interest rates plunged as investor confidence grew, triggering a rare occurrence in modern economics: an expansionary fiscal contraction.

3. Foreign investment: Favourable corporate taxation is the main fiscal incentive for foreign direct investment. Ireland offered a preferential tax rate of 10 per cent on corporate profits from export-oriented manufacturing and services.

By the way, when you heard John McCain and Fred Thompson discuss Ireland's success during the 2008 election, know that they got their information from my website (October 6, 2009) With unemployment hovering around 10% and the deficit at a record high of nearly $1.5 Trillion (three times the "unacceptable" standard set by the Bush deficit last fiscal year), what does the Speaker of the House suggest as a cure? The Value Added Tax (VAT). This tax is used in all European Union countries, as well as many other countries. 

Simply put, VAT is a charge on various stages of production of goods or commodities. In most countries, VAT is a tax in lieu of a sales tax. The "value added tax" has been criticized because the burden of it relies on personal end-consumers of products and is therefore a regressive tax (the poor pay more, as a percentage of their income, than the rich). Just like the corporate tax on my MAXX SS.

Defenders claim that excising taxation through income is an arbitrary standard, and that the value-added tax is in fact a proportional tax in that people with higher income pay more at the same rate that they consume more. Classes of goods are taxed at different rates. Therefore VAT is at most a flat tax. Baloney ! ! The VAT effects younger people more. Older people are more likely to have big ticket items, cars, refrigerators, houses, etc. already paid for. Younger people aremore likely to be purchasingthese items in the near future.

So, I suppose Nancy Pelosi wants to eliminate the sales tax altogether and impose the VAT tax sort of like the 'fair' flat tax? I can live with that. Ahh, ye of faith. VAT would be assessed - but all of the existing taxes would remain.

In the United States, only Michigan used a form of VAT known as the "Single Business Tax" (SBT) adopted in 1975, as its form of general business taxation. It is the only state in the U.S. to have used a VAT.  I owned 17 retail stores in Michigan, and that tax put me out of business. VAT really worked well for MIchigan, didn't it Nancy?

I digress.

The top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35% - the highest in the world now that Japan in September 2009 finally dropped its top rate to 32%. And with the proposed increase in the Obama tax plan, our top rate will go to 40%. Wow ! ! Is that incentive to attract more business to the USA, or not Mr. Obama?


I had lunch the other day with Harry Reid and Michael Moore and as they handed me the check. they told me that corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes.

I used to drink that Kool-aid too, but one day I had an epiphany. I had driven 1288 miles to NW Arkansas to buy a 2006 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx SS, a car no longer manufactured (morons), from Steve Smith GM. After I left the dealership, I noticed that I had left my credit card behind. Rushing back, I was surprised to find my Salesman reading a newspaper; the receptionist eating lunch; the Sales Manager picking his nose.

Me: What's going on here?

Salesman: What do you mean?

Me: Shouldn't you be passing the hat?

Salesman (dialing security): for what Mr. President?

Me: To pay the corporate taxes on the car you just sold me.

Salesman (waiving off the security guard): The tax is figured in the sticker price.

Security Guard (holstering his weapon): Everyone, except liberals, knows that.

Then I had an epiphany - Corporations don't pay taxes, people do - their 'fair share' is figured in the price of the products we buy. Huh.


ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES ON ALL MANUFACTURING and ALL EXPORTS. The taxes we get from our manufacturing amounted to 6% of our budget. 6% !! Our deficits are infinitely higher. And, I just told you corporations don't pay taxes anyway. Corporation taxes are a tax on the people who buy their products - you and me. 

If Ireland can attract manufacturing with 12% taxes (10% on favored exports), manufacturers will flock to the USA with 0 taxes. No tariff wars, no unfair competition, no huge deficits, no 2,000 page legislation. Just doin' business in the freest country on the planet. Just the return of those well-paying jobs to the good ole U.S.A.

Where have all the good jobs gone . . . . 

Long time passing.

Where have all the good jobs gone . . . . 

Long time ago.

Where have all the good jobs gone . . . . 

Gone to the U. S. everyone . . . 

Someday, we'll ever learn . . . someday we'll eeeeeeeevvverrr   learrrrrrrrrrrrn.


Really? In which category for example, are we short of businesses to meet the consumers’ demands? Drugstores? Gas Stations? Starbucks? Bookstores? Computer stores? Restaurants? Big Box shopping centers?

They’re everywhere.

Could it be better for the economy in the long run if we have fewer businesses rather than more? If businesses go under, “experts“ tell us, people will lose their jobs. Really? E. g.: Clothing store chain A goes under, does that mean that their customers will stop buying clothes? Not likely. They will just buy them from someone else  (clothing store B) - and in the same quantities as before. So, employees of  Store A can go to work for store B, who not only is now a lot busier, but also operating on a lower overhead than the (formerly) combined stores A and B (One rent; one water, phone and electric bill, etc. 

With a lower combined overhead and an increase in sales, in a medium in which employee turnover is typically at 100%v annually, turnover in help  for so many reasons I won’t detail here, is costly to any businesses’ bottom line, store B can afford to increase wages and benefits in order to keep its employees. Thus, with an increase  in wages, and thus, presumably, an increase in the employees discretionary spending, other businesses also benefit , and surely the country as a whole benefits. 

Starbucks was opening a new store every day, even  those in locations that competed with existing Starbucks. Along comes the recession, people couldn’t afford a $5.00 cup of coffee; Starbucks starts losing money. So, they closed stores, especially self-competing stores. Did they fire anyone. No. They transferred them to existing stores (now busier). The result? Starbucks became more profitable.

So, should banks lend money to Starbucks for more new locations - you know, “create more jobs?” Another conservative talk-show-host  myth debunked.

Thus a legitimate argument for fewer businesses.

On the other side of the coin: if the banks loan for another redundant business, competition increases (more stores chasing the same finite customer base) and to make a profit, stores cut costs. Where? In retail we have two types of expenses (aside from cogs): One is fixed costs (non-controllables) such as rent , and then their are controllables, such as wages. Rent is set by the lease, but in hard times, a business can reduce the wages of employees to cut costs. 

The second scenario has been the bane of the retail industry for decades. ‘Entrepreneurs’ keep opening businesses in an already saturated market, and ALL business in their category feel the pinch. The fact is - we have too many retail stores, not to few.

Finally. With all due respect to the "experts" (you know, all those smart "advisors" that surround our Presidenta and other hig elected officials - the one's who got their jobs because they raised big bucks for the boss's campaign), banks don't lend money for start ups. They never have (unless you are connected to someone at the bank - like Mitt Romney).

9 out of 10 businesses fail within 5 years. If you owned a bank, would you lend money to a risky start up?

Neither would I.

Politics Blogs


Stop Listening to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 

97% of large corporations are owned by investors:

1.  Institutional buyers (retirement and pension funds like, Prudential (GM), Vanguard, Fidelity) own 56% of all publicly-held corporations. That's you, retired GM worker. And you retired teacher, cop, fireman.

2.  Individual investors - rich and not-so-rich who have savings in stocks own - 41%.


Taxes are simply tacked on to the price of the products and services that you - the consumer -purchase !


Liberals say you are. How much of your personal retirement check, derived from your retirement funds' investment in "greedy corporations" are you willing to give up so you can assuage your conscience ? One-Third ? Half ?

Liberals attack "greedy corporations" so they can get more tax money to blow on projects that keep Democrat politicians in power. "Conservatives" say nothing, because the same money spending keeps Republicans in power.