Now this is obvious pandering to the hard left of the Democratic Party–surely Mrs. Clinton knows better, doesn’t she?  Hillary says that businesses don’t create jobs, and worse yet, this is somehow a version of “trickle down” economics that’s been tried again and again and failed.

Oh, where to begin–as one of my colleagues at CU would say, “opportunities abound.”  But first, let’s apply a bit of logic to this.  Where do jobs come from?  Let’s first distinguish that there are public sector and private sector jobs.  Obviously public sector jobs are created by government, ostensibly to satisfy some needed public service.  In the private sector, we have to further break down between non-profit and for-profit sectors.   But both of these sectors create jobs to meet some private demand.  Within the for-profit sector, we might further break it down to self-employed (who I will call entrepreneurs) and those employed by firms.  So we have four sources of jobs identified:  1) Government jobs, 2) Non-profit jobs,  3) Entrepreneurs, 4) Firms.  Since the ADP report shows over 117M private sector jobs as of Sep ’14, I think we can safely say that there are a lot from firms (small or large) or self-employed entrepreneurs.

So why would Mrs. Clinton, who is a very smart woman, make such a preposterous statement?   Where does she think jobs come from if not business?  First, having lived in Washington DC and in the halls of government power virtually her whole adult life, her comment is likely in the spirit of Mr. Obama’s “you didn’t build it”:  there are no corporations that can create jobs without government services (such as rule of law, roads, educational system, etc).   But even if that perspective is true–and there is certainly some truth in it–why denigrate businesses?  Surely businesses have at least some small role in job creation?  One can only speculate, but her following line attributing this to trickle-down economics is likely our best clue.  This is a favorite shibboleth of progressive politicians; the fiction goes something like this:  if you give rich people money, it will somehow increase economic activity and wealth will “trickle down” to the poor.  The only problem with this view is that nowhere have any of those accused by progressives actually supported anything like this, as economist Thomas Sowell has shown.  But you can count on it to play like red meat to hungry dogs at a Democratic Party rally.    In an election cycle where Democratic enthusiasm is diminished, and low turnout threatens Democratic control of the Senate, it doesn’t seem too surprising that Mrs. Clinton would bring out the red meat, no matter how foolish the statement behind it.

But here is a question for Mrs. Clinton.  If trickle-down has failed time and time again, why did JFK cut taxes in the 60s?  Why did Mr. Clinton lower capital gains tax rate (a benefit that goes primarily to the rich for its direct benefit)?  And why did private sector job growth under Mr. Reagan look almost exactly like private sector job growth under Mr. Clinton?

There is a failed trickle-down economics, but its the opposite of what Mrs. Clinton is averring.  If you elect progressive politicians, wealth will trickle down to you.  The problem for the Democrats in this election is simply that no amount of spinning and red meat can change the fact that median income has declined substantially EVEN AFTER the end of the recession in 2009.

No amount of spinning can change the fact that unemployment and underemployment are a huge problem for the many Americans.  Wouldn’t it be nice if progressives could try and build up business and not tear them down?  Especially since businesses both provide the goods and services we need to live on, as well as provide the livelihood that almost all of us need to survive?   Further, it would be very good for progressives to remember that at least some part of the population must work to create the goods and services that everyone consumes.  There can be no government services without taking from the surplus created by the private sector.  So fans of big government ought to be thinking about how to make the private sector as big as possible.

For Christians, we know that work is intrinsically good (it was ordained pre-fall) and is part of allowing our creativity and being made Imago Dei to flourish.  So Bereans generally support businesses  when they create jobs that are consistent with the dignity inherent in every person created in the image of God (which post-fall will definitely include work that is with “toil”).    Further, we value businesses which create many valuable goods and services that are necessary for human flourishing.  Why, we even support private sector jobs in the green energy business!