Job Creators

I honestly have no idea what John Stunzel is talking about when he says this:

But is small business really the solution to the nation’s economic woes? Probably not. In a recent Harris Poll of more than 1,400 small businesses, two-thirds said they would not increase hiring this year. And even when small businesses hire, they tend to hire small numbers of people.

However hostile Democrats like me may be to the excesses of Wall Street, and however much everybody admires the small, independent businesses in our neighborhoods and communities, big business remains the primary driver of economic growth and job creation.

He presents a few anecdotes but not much in the way of supportive data.

Small businesses, mostly new small businesses, have been responsible for 2/3s of the new jobs created between 1993 and 2009. When you add to that the number of jobs created by new, large businesses it accounts for nearly all job creation.

Old, established businesses on the other hand have been destroying jobs at a furious pace for decades. In the early 1980s GM employed 349,000 wokers. In 2000 GE employed 168,000 people in the U. S.; now they employ 134,000. The largest companies in the United States are oil companies, financial firms, and a few industrial manufacturing firms and most of them are more than fifteen years old and well-established. None of them are showing any signs of beginning to do mass hiring. They’d better get started if they are to offset the large employment decreases they’ve had for decades.

As I’ve said before what we need is considerably more entrepeneurialism if we are to produce more, better jobs. How are we faring on that front? Not too well if this post at Washington Monthly, summarizing an article appearing in the print magazine, is to be believed. Here’s the meat of the article:

In 1977, Americans created more than thirty-five new employer businesses for every 10,000 citizens age sixteen and over. By 2009, however, Americans were annually creating fewer than eighteen such businesses, a 50 percent drop. While the Great Recession clearly cut into new business creation, the decline was clear well before 2007. The averages across decades capture that decline: between 1977 and 1989 Americans created more than twenty-seven new businesses for every 10,000 working-age citizens. This compares to fewer than twenty-five in the 1990s and around twenty-two in the 2000s.

and

The single biggest factor driving down entrepreneurship is precisely the radical concentration of power we have seen not only in the banking industry but throughout the U.S. economy over the last thirty years. This revolutionary remaking of almost every economic activity in the nation was set in motion in 1981, when officials in the Reagan administration all but suspended traditional enforcement of America’s antimonopoly laws, a change in policy then adopted by every subsequent administration. Since then, regulators have done almost nothing to stop the great waves of mergers and acquisitions, with the result that control over most major economic activities is now more consolidated than at any time since the Gilded Age.

For my own part I don’t believe that there’s a notable difference between the two parties, at least at the federal level, in their preference for big businesses over small. I point to the Clinton Administration’s fumbling of the antitrust suit against Microsoft as an example. How many of the obvious monopolies in the country were broken by the Clinton Administration? The Obama Administration? At least the castigated Reagan Administration oversaw the breakup of the Bell monopoly without which there would barely have been fax machines let alone an Internet revolution.

Just as big businesses prefer doing business with other big businesses, big government views the American economy through the prism of big business. From agricultural subsidies to government contracts to intellectual property law big business is the primary beneficiary. That’s as true of the nominally small government Republicans as it is of the purportedly big government Democrats. It’s no accident that the exceedingly Republican-friendly Bechtel is the largest construction firm in the U. S. and has built its power and influence largely on government contracts.

26 comments… add one
  • Icepick Link

    In 1977, Americans created more than thirty-five new employer businesses for every 10,000 citizens age sixteen and over. By 2009, however, Americans were annually creating fewer than eighteen such businesses, a 50 percent drop. While the Great Recession clearly cut into new business creation, the decline was clear well before 2007. The averages across decades capture that decline: between 1977 and 1989 Americans created more than twenty-seven new businesses for every 10,000 working-age citizens.

    16 and over would include very old people who have (almost entirely) retired. That portion of the population has grown significantly since the 1970s. That won’t be responsible for all the drop, maybe not even a significant part, but it is likely responsible for some..

  • sam Link

    The suit to breakup the Bell system was initiated in 1974 and the settlement was finalized in 1982. I’d bet that such a suit would never have been brought under the Reagan regime.

  • Steve Link

    The late 70s-morningish early 80son also saw the acceleratiin in in inequality in income in the US. If we are going to concentrate so mucb of our wealth into very few people, we should not be surprised when we get fewer new businesses. Add in the inability to afford health care on your own and you severely limit the sizs of the entrepreneur pool.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    I often get exasperated, I rarely get angry.

    I’m angry.

    Contrary to the commentary of a certain frequent commenter, I care about the unfortunate deeply. So deeply that I actually posit solutions that i believe will help them, not just make me feel good for implementing some inane government program that will do jack squat. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a war on employment. Government is the answer, say some.

    Call me crazy, but math is math. If 50 big companies hire 10,000 people, that’s 500’000jobs. And the assumptions are suspect. If 100,000 itty bitty companies hire 10 people apiece, that’s 1 million jobs. And the fact of the matter is that there are ten or twenty times that itty bitty company figure. Get a clue, people. Get a clue, Obama. But of course, itty bitty companies don’t fund campaigns……..

    And now you know all you need to know about Obama.

  • In fairness I think the author’s position is completely coherent if you take a government-centric viewpoint. That is, if you take the position that things happen because the government/the Administration/the Congress/whatever cause them to happen and unless they do they won’t happen.

    When you take that view, you might conclude that the transaction cost for getting one of the 18,000 some-odd large companies to hire, say, 1,000 more people is lower than getting 1,000 mom-and-pops to hire one person each. That’s a daunting task.

    That’s not my view. I think that people do things for the reasons they always have—fear of loss or hope of gain—and the government/the Administration/the Congress are largely just along for the ride.

    There are something like 27 million small companies, nearly all of the companies in the country. If just 1% of those small companies (=270,000) hire just ten people that’s nearly 3 million unemployed people who now have jobs. That’s a big chunk of the unemployed.

    That’s why I think that rather than trying to bribe, coax, or coerce big companies into doing the heavy lifting we should be figuring out what small companies need to grow and prosper and do that. Mostly I think it’s getting the heck out of the way which adds insult to injury if you’re taking a government-centric point of view.

  • Icepick Link

    If we are going to concentrate so mucb of our wealth into very few people, we should not be surprised when we get fewer new businesses.

    How much of that concentration has been BECAUSE of new business formation? Silicon Valley comes to mind, as well as places in Washington state and around Boston.

    I believe that Steven Hsu (one of those new business creators back in the days before he went in to the academy for a second career) has broken out the numbers and found that almost all the income inequality from recent years (pre-bust, anyway) came from about four counties. Some of it is NYC/Wall Street specific, but much of it is tech centered. Guys like Ellison and Gates account for a huge amount all by themselves.

    I’m looking for something more recent than 2006. But it is a favorite topic of Hsu’s, and he tends to come back to it over and over again.

  • Drew Link

    I think you are saying the same thing I am, Dave, sans the emotional piqué. It’s been a rough week.

    Multiplying two numbers is easy. One can be big and one can be small. I posit, and always have, that the number of small businesses dwarfs the ability of any single organization to create jobs. So you need lots of employers.. I believe the empirical evidence is on my side.

    But it is so painfully clear that the Obama Administration is a bunch of schmucks on steroids. All politicians promise candy for votes. These guys are on steroids to the max. And their preferred candy eaters are unions (see GM) and the banks – large corporate. they are what the left claims they are against. But they are stooges of the banks and large corporate.

    It’s almost funny. Many would suspect I’d be a banking proponent. No chance. When this stuff happens it simply paves the way to “regulatory reform” which really means you pay me or I’ll screw you.

    Obama has shown himself to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry and large corporate. Any wonder I’m a small business guy?

  • Icepick Link

    There are something like 27 million small companies, nearly all of the companies in the country. If just 1% of those small companies (=270,000) hire just ten people that’s nearly 3 million unemployed people who now have jobs. That’s a big chunk of the unemployed.

    Another benefit: Those jobs are more likely to be widely distributed geographically when going through myriad small businesses, as opposed to a few larger companies.

    On employment, the feds have stepped in to stop certain jobs from being created. The pipeline from Canada is the best example of that. And who thinks that the EPA won’t implement punitive regulations on fracking later this year? Nothing like hitting the energy sector when it (and damned near ONLY it) is up. As has been pointed out here by Drew most often (but by others as well) lower energy costs don’t just help everything, they help manufacturing in particular.

  • Icepick Link

    But it is so painfully clear that the Obama Administration is a bunch of schmucks on steroids.

    I think of them as being on amphetamines instead of steroids, but that’s just me I suppose.

  • Icepick Link

    Oh, and hitting on one of Schuler’s favorite points, those tech companies are exactly the kinds of businesses that tend to help the employment situation – small companies that rapidly become behemoths.

    Unfortunately a lot of those jobs end up being created in China, but not all of them. Also unfortunate is that the jobs tend to be concentrated in two or three places, but better that than none at all. And there have been positive spin-0ffs from a great many of these firms in terms of increased productivity elsewhere.

  • steve Link

    “And now you know all you need to know about Obama.”

    Even more so for the GOP. We really do not have choice between good and bad, just bad and worse. Both parties are owned by the big banks, but the GOP also endorses policies that make sure we have wealth and income accumulating only among a small group of people. Since we know that we need small business for growth, we also know that most of those start ups use personal savings and money from family and friends to get started. That cannot happen if those people have no money.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    Steve

    I guess that’s our point of departure. You believe the GOP is beholden to big business more than the Dems. My experience is completely different. Not to say. T hat either are pure.

    But if you believe that self interest is a reasonable guide, note that small businessmen and women are overwhelmingly conservative/Republican. I don’t believe that happens by mystical intervention.

  • jan Link

    Good comments, Drew.

    Obama’s raising taxes on the $250,000 and above crowd will negatively effect some of these small business owners too, especially if you live in expensive states such as CA (like I do).

  • Drew Link

    Jan

    I’ve harped on this so long I’ve run out of oxygen. Small business people are frozen. They don’t trust the current political environment. Unless its such a dead bang winner like fracking they are on the sidelines.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. Obama just doubled down and it may destroy him politically.

    It’s a shame political squabbles take down the Average Joe with them.

  • If we are going to concentrate so mucb of our wealth into very few people, we should not be surprised when we get fewer new businesses.

    I’d be curious to see you provide a bit more detail on how this works.

  • Icepick Link

    But if you believe that self interest is a reasonable guide, note that small businessmen and women are overwhelmingly conservative/Republican. I don’t believe that happens by mystical intervention.

    For arguments sake I will accept this. (I don’t actually doubt it, but I also don’t want to bother taking the time to look up relevant details.) What does that have to do with the beliefs and actions of Republican Party officials and operatives? The leadership was just as willing to bail out the big financial institutions as the leadership of the Dems. They’ve been beholden to big Defense contractors for decades now. They haven’t exactly been keeping the tax code simple, nor have Republicans failed to impose more regulatory burden over time. I grant that their rhetoric is better, but so what? Have they been linked to Big Oil, or not? Did they cover for Big Tobacco, or not? Have they covered for Big Ag, or not? Have they been deferring to the healthcare industry, or not? (I’m thinking of the annual “FIX” for Medicare payments.)

    Defense contractors, Big Finance, Big Ag, Healthcare, Big Pharm, Big Oil, Big Tobacco … where’s the love for the little guy again? Don’t tell me what the (R) voters want – they aren’t actually running anything.

    And it’s not like the (R) party leadership hasn’t supported government expansionism. Homeland Security, Department of. Medicare Part D (a great corporate welfare boon). SOX. Bush’s pushing of more sub-prime lending.

    It’s the disasters versus the catastrophes – and one side HAS to win! Everybody wins in that scenario, except for everybody.

    And now you’ve got a party leader who likes to talk like a disaster and then act like a catastrophe. That’s gonna work out wonderfully.

  • DaveC Link

    I’m wondering, do small business owners have to pay for unemployment insurance for two years if they have laid people off when the business went bad for a while. I really don’t know how this works.

  • Businesses of any size pay federal unemployment (FUTA) if they have payrolls. Whether they also pay state unemployment insurance depends on the laws of the particular state.

  • steve Link

    Drew- Some observations.

    1) Doctors dont seem to believe that they have anything to do with problems in health care, especially costs. It must be patients, the govt, the insurance companies. Teachers dont believe they have much to do with problems in education. The military usually believes their problems come from civilians, not the military. Small business people dont believe problems with jobs have anything to do with them, it must be the government. I think I see a pattern.

    2) Sometimes government really is a problem. I would love to never have another state inspection.

    3) If there is a significant advantage for small businesses in having the GOP in office, there should be some empirical evidence. I dont know of any. The tax cuts for the wealthy is their focus. After that, deregulating the financial sector. What else do they do?

    4) Ignoring health care reform , except to buy votes with Medicare Part D when health care costs are one of the biggest concerns small businesses have is good? Look at the state level. What is the GOP doing anywhere? The plan is just to kick poor people off of Medicaid or never put them on? How does this work as more people are unable to afford care?

    Steve

  • steve Link

    Steve V- Who starts new small businesses? How do they fund it? Extrapolate out trends from the last 30 years? What is the size of your possible entrepreneurial pool?

    Steve

  • jan Link

    Steve,

    I’m kind of butting into your comment directed at Drew…however, I think you are indulging in generalities.

    All the professionals you cite, doctors, teachers, military personnel, small business people, cannot be put into one handy reference guide. There are many personalities in each group, along with purposes, goals, and actions.

    A doctor I know, on staff at a local hospital, had a patient who was determined to die. He had a problem which was treatable. So this medical doctor made a house call, and talked him into the surgery which saved his life. There was no special compensation awarded him. He gets paid a set salary…period. It was his own medical conscience/concern that made him go the extra mile.

    There are similar anecdotal stories that can be attributable to any profession out there. However, if the business or moral climate is so gloomy and oppressive, which I think the dems often create with their forced policies, then you will see more and more disengaged behavior from the public in all areas of employment.

  • Icepick Link

    It’s safe to say that local governments are NOT going to be the job creators, at least not in California. Also, this is a pretty good indicator that we’ve had a phantom economic recovery.

    Question: Is it regime uncertainty if you’re wondering if the local fire department is about to go out of business?

  • Who starts new small businesses? How do they fund it? Extrapolate out trends from the last 30 years? What is the size of your possible entrepreneurial pool?

    I’m still not seeing it steve.

    1. How do the fund it: Loans/venture capital. Yeah, that money often comes from the big guys….but the big guys aren’t adverse to find the next big thing…are they?

    2. Extrapolate trends for the last 30 years: What trends? For funding small businesses? If you have a data source please share.

    3. Size of the entrepreneurial pool: No idea, but I wouldn’t be surprised if historical data shows the pool is somewhat counter cyclical to some extent. This time might be different, but I’d hazard a guess that it is due to structural changes in the economy vs. just a down turn. This would be what Dave and I (amongst others) refer to as regime uncertainty.

    Here, let me offer an alternate theory of why growing income in equality could restrict economic growth.

    1. Activist/discretionary government policies.
    2. Concentrated income/wealth allows for greater rent seeking/influence buying.

    Via 1, people with lots of money (i.e. number 2 above) go about seeking additional rents and protecting those they already have. Additional regulations, grandfathering, even things like taxes to prevent additional competition. Big business hates competition. All big businesses would rather be monopolists. But that is only possible via an activist government that makes it possible to reduce competition.

  • steve Link

    ” How do the fund it: Loans/venture capital.”
    Funding most commonly comes from personal savings, including selling personal property and refinancing mortgages. Next most common is from friends and family. With fewer people, and family, having those resources, how will start ups get going?

    2) Extrapolate income and wealth trends.

    3) This is a long term trend remember. Did you read Dave’s post? This has been going on since the late 70s.

    “1. Activist/discretionary government policies.”

    If all you have is a hammer……….

    Steve

  • Funding most commonly comes from personal savings, including selling personal property and refinancing mortgages. Next most common is from friends and family. With fewer people, and family, having those resources, how will start ups get going?

    Sure, personal savings, but your third one is a type of loan. Selling property? Sure. There are also personal asset loans and credit cards as well. Depending on what business you are going into you might try venture capital as well, but that isn’t going to work for everyone.

    3) This is a long term trend remember. Did you read Dave’s post? This has been going on since the late 70s.

    Yes, and it says nothing about the size of the pool does it? It says that it is becoming increasingly difficult to become an entrepreneur–i.e. starting up your own business, but for all we know the overall number of people who would like to is roughly the same.

    “1. Activist/discretionary government policies.”

    If all you have is a hammer……….

    Maybe, but I’d argue it fits the facts better than your half-assed story…oh wait you don’t even have a story. You are like Keving Drum, “income inequality is bad!”

    “Why?”

    “It just is!” say Kevin and steve.

    I’ll also add you don’t like my narrative because your sacred cow of activist government gets gored.

  • Drew Link

    Steve

    It is an irrational position to just say some people want to cut taxes for the rich. Why would they want to do that? Out of charity? Out of their own self interest? No. . They understand the effects of taxation on returns to investment.

    BTW. Steve V is on it. So much of the debate I hear is large corporate vs…….

    People equate large corporate with “business.”. My world is small business. Large corporate can manipulate government, just as large law, large health care, large union…….

    That’s why I’m a small government guy. Large business is a reality. But large government doesn’t have to be. We’ve simply made it so.

Leave a Comment