The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (19 comments)

  1. theBuckWheat

    I have been involved in Angel and venture capital investments in the midwest. At a recent meeting of a startup fund, when discussing the recently passed JOBS act, the professional advisers in the room all said that trying to raise money from unaccredited investors was still dangerous. As the law stands right now, Lindsay Lohan is accredited and can solicited but my banker neighbor, who is well off but not accredited cannot be approached. The SEC bureaucracy still has not done its job in writing rules for the JOBS act, so anyone trying to put together a fund to pitch startups and early stage companies has very high regulatory risk factors.

    Raising money for promising startups is just as difficult as it always was, and this is not made any easier by the change in capital gains taxation. The people who are writing the laws and proposing the rules are clueless about where jobs and wealth really comes from, nor about the real damage they inflict on our economy.

    1. SeattleSam

      What drives early stage investment is expected after tax returns. Those returns have been falling over the last dozen years. Threatening to increase taxes on capital gains further reduces the expected return. The people who are writing the laws and proposing the rules may be clueless about where jobs and wealth really come from, but they’re not clueless as to how to leverage resentment.

  2. Why don’t you update your graph? The data is here.

    There has been a slight uptick in 2011 and 2012. Job creation bottomed in 2010 at 2.46 million and were 2.71 million in 2012.

    It looks like a secular decline to me since the 2000 peak being a combination of lower firm formation and fewer jobs per firm exacerbated by the Great Recession.

    1. Yeah, 2.7 millions is AWESOME. Only 2 million more and you’d be at 1996-2000 rates.

      p.s. lower firm foundation? lower jobs per firm? I wonder what would cause that? I don’t supposed taxes, uncertainty would do it. And it cannot be lower demand – the Stimulus took care of that.

      I also cannot wait for your explanation for all of the 49 person firms that will exist soon. Must have been bad luck or exacerbation of something or something.

  3. well geeze Marmico, if that was done, it would screw up the entire “Obama is opposed to entrepreneurship” narrative.

    it would ruin a perfectly good anti-Obama post!

    1. Sorry, but 2.7 million is not good either.

      I don’t get why under Obama suddenly every trend is “secular” and we cannot aim higher.

      Its all weather, bad luck, or “unexpected.”

  4. John Toohey

    I find the chart title misleading. It would be clearer to say “Total Employment by… ” instead of “Jobs Created by …”.

    1. If it is for firms less than a year old, that is almost a distinction without a difference.

      1. Todd Mason

        To the contrary, if Bubba’s BBQ opens four locations in Akron, O, and hires 120 people, he may or may not be creating jobs. If spending on food away from home has increased in Akron proportional to Bubba’s receipts, the answer is yes. If not, then Bubba took those jobs from Wendy and Ronald et al, and the next question is whether Bubba’s employees are better off or worse off than the workers they displaced. If the answer is ‘no,’ then Bubba is hurting the Akron economy. (i.e. even fewer consumers have discretionary income.)

        The bottom lines: The entrepreneurs who can conjure up products you never realized you must have are as rare as Steve Jobs. And as Henry Ford demonstrated, making an affordable car is only half the battle. The other half is giving workers the means to buy one.

        1. Fid def res publicae


          But creating manufacturing jobs in US that outcompete China by technological process improvement (and hiring skilled educated and well compensated employees) will have the uplift economic effect. This also is innovation, but the bankers, government apparatchiks and ‘smart money’ crowd remain stuck-on-stupid.

          1. Todd Mason

            Today’s manufacturing startup that reclaims jobs from China by necessity will be heavily automated, and is unlikely to budge the ratio of factory workers to McDonalds cooks. Meanwhile, the only part of consumer spending that grows is healthcare. If only the Rs weren’t too stupid to look at the world as it is.

        2. I get your point, but they do still “create” the jobs – those jobs didn’t exist before because the company didn’t exist before. Sure, some of those jobs may come at the expense of some of their competitor’s jobs (i.e., different jobs), but new jobs are created as old ones (may) go away. I understand that you’re interpreting “created jobs” to mean “net new jobs in the competitive field in which the new company conducts its business,” but I don’t think they mean the same thing.

          1. Todd Mason

            I repeat, if the jobs at Bubbas BBQ came at the expense of McDonalds and Wendys then the Akron economy has gained nothing, and in aggregate, neither has the US economy. If the aggregate doesn’t matter, then publish the jobless rates in Williston, ND, declare victory and go home.
            Not only does the aggregate matter, but so does money in circulation. If Bubba is stingy with his workers and his own money, the broad economy is worse off for his success.

      2. John Toohey

        I can see the temptation to call it job creation, but I find it misleading.

        The chart shows a snapshot of employment as of a certain date by one-year old firms. If one wants to interpret that as job creation, I think one is either (a) introducing several implicit assumptions about things happening (or not happening) elsewhere in the economy, or (b) creating a definition of job creation (i.e., job creation among 1-year old firms) that is so narrow it is essentially meaningless by itself.


        1. To determine net jobs created in a given field of business, you have to do the following math:

          jobs created – jobs lost = net jobs created

          So, the jobs created number is important itself. You cannot possibly have a large “net jobs created” value without a large “jobs created” value.

          1. Todd Mason

            But we are looking at a small slice of industry employment — startups. In many years in the airline industry shakeout, for example, startups showed big growth while the industry contracted, (by virtue of lower costs and more amenable labor.) The jobs created by JetBlue did not offset those lost by US Airways. You could argue that lower fares meant more traffic, but the reality is that the soon-to-be Big Three now have fewer planes and flights, fewer employees and higher profits.

            Then there is the problem of cause and effect. It’s not easy to find an underserved market when GDP growth is anemic. It’s harder yet to convince a banker that you can meet this need. Yes, pieces of this are secular. Opportunities are scarcer in a mature economy.


          2. John Toohey

            Sure sure, but I’m just making a simpler, more editorial point.

            Namely, as labeled, there is no way to know precisely what data the chart shows. Even the source note is vague. Until a commenter provided a link to the underlying source, I didn’t know what the chart shows, so I don’t see how anybody else could have known.

            “Jobs created” is a term open to much interpretation so it requires definition. As you point out, there is the question of gross or net. Other questions about the definition come to mind as well.

            The chart would be clearer if it said “Employment” (and specified the underlying data series). Then we could begin thinking about what it tells us about job creation.

            I suppose it might work to entitle the chart “net jobs created by 1-year old firms (i.e., gross jobs created by 1-year old firms minus jobs lost at other 1-year old firms).” But that’d be rather wordy. :)


        2. Todd Mason

          Amen. The reason there are fewer jobs created at firms less than year old is that business formation remains sluggish. And business formation is weak because of the credit crunch and soft consumer demand, and not some mythical prejudice by Obama against business. Banks are not lending despite the trillions in freshly printed dollars the Fed is thrusting into their hands Exactly what it is that Obama isn’t doing for small biz?

  5. Altig of the Atlanta Fed chimes in.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content