Talk Elections

Since he claims to have an exemplary record of creating jobs (and they were GOOD jobs, obviously :P ), which makes him qualified to be President because of his "business experience" (which is quite relevant to the Presidency, of course :P ), why don't we guess how many jobs the Mittbot has created? :P 

10,000-100,000.  I was just counting private-sector jobs there though.

Net job loss. Still > Obama though.

These people who are claiming Mitt actually contributed to net job losses are so totally full of sh**t it's not even funny. Clear Obamatons.

Please explain.

LOL, 2 people actually voted 1 million or more? Wow, just wow.

It needs to be remembered.

He was a really bad governor.

Romney's record as governor wasn't great, but there were more jobs in the state after Romney's term than there were before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-vs-obama-on-job-creation/2012/01/03/gIQA31g3YP_blog.html

It's pretty straightforward.

Romney's record at Bain is harder to ascertain, but we do know that Romney's leadership yielded an 88% average rate of return during his years there. That's pretty remarkable. And in order to get that money back, the businesses he invested in have to be successful. In some cases, that may mean laying off workers to streamline operations. But in the long run, I believe Bain's investments helped more people than they hurt.

The numbers aren't there. But I think it's pretty obvious. Look at Staples. Look at Dominoes. I trust Romney's claims because they aren't that absurd. What's more important is that this man knows how gets things moving.

The question is vague and ambiguous. Are we talking about Bain, or as governor, or both, and are we talking about where he was the causative agent, or just on his watch, for starters? And whatever jobs were lost, are they ones that Mittens could have reasonably "saved," or would it just be throwing good money after bad?

As to the Mass job numbers, it matters what the population change was over the relevant period as well. Mass population was probably stagnant, so a relatively small number of new jobs would drop the already low unemployment rate there (Mass has long been in transition from a lower wage blue collar state to a higher wage white collar state, with not much population growth - an excellent long term plan really from its perspective). 

All too often these numbers games are not only silly, but false and misleading as well.

Winfield and Politico are my guesses. I voted net job loss based on what I've heard about Bain, but I looked up the actual numbers and it's more in the 10-100K range if you includevjob creation at Staples, etc. after he left.
Are you taking credit, on behalf of Romney, for the jobs created in those franchises since he stopped dealing with them?

If Bain hadn't invested in those companies, those numbers would be a lot different. So Romney certainly deserves a big thank you.

Not necessarily. For example, Staples made the switch to "That was easy" in 2003, long after Romney had left Bain.

Jobs were up 1.4% during the Romney administration. Nationwide they were up 5.3%. Romney fail.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romneys-shaky-job-claims/

But the point is, that still doesn't amount to a net job loss.

And sure, Staples made autonomous decisions without Romney. But it had ONE store before Bain put money into the company. "That was easy" wouldn't mean much if there was only one Staples location. I mean... maybe Staples could have flourished on its own--but Romney and co. certainly sped up that process. The way history played out, Bain was THE catalyst behind what Staples is today.

Well, I'm not denying it's relatively hackish to hold forth on 'net job loss', but then again it's hackish to try to quantify the number of jobs 'created' by one person in the first place.

Isn't it hypocrtical to cry fowl over Romney's people taking credit for jobs that occured long after he stopped dealing with them and yet still lay blame on Romney for failures that occured after he left his position?

Also, isn't the very nature of venture capital to put money into small startup or a failing company? Therefore, if the company gets off the ground or is saved by that action, it is not so unreasonable to claim that the actions of the venture capital firm played a role in later successes because otherwise they would still be tiny or maybe not in business.

The founder of Staples painted a very bleak picture of his past experiences with other firms, before finally trying Mittens and Mittens himself turned him down at first. People weren't too keen on the concept at the time and it doesn't seem so eggrecious to say that Romeny deserves atleast some credit for their success now, by virture of being the only one to listen to the idea and give it serious consideration that others were unwilling to give.

The whole arguement over specific numbers is as ridiculous as the notion of a direct translation of business into gov't. It is not about running the country like Bain. It is about using the experience gained from working directly with the catalysts and environments that provoke job creation and job losses and then taking that into DC to influence gov't policy.

And how much of that 5.3% was the result of the housing bubble, growth in energy producing states, population growth in the fast growth states and development of previously undeveloped land in the high growth and/or resource abundant states? None of which, Massachusetts can claim to have. It is built out, maxed out population wise, has no oil, coal, or natural gas and didn't have that much of housing bubble compared to a CA, AZ, or a FL.

Here's a better question, if you were a small business owner or even someone looking for a better paying job, would you want to work with Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?

Which candidate will give you better advice on staying in business, or growing your profits?

Its a cut-throat world in capitalism.  Should capitalism always be fair? 

There are so many different industries, technologies, and skill-sets available in America.  Farmers, teachers, engineers, all have different needs and wants. 

You want to know how to get a job, make all the kids get STEM degrees. 

The bias on this forum is so obvious given the number of answers voting  a net job loss.

This is extremely hackish.

The original poster referring derisively to Romney as Mittbott should give everyone a clue as to the biasness of this thread.

I kinda thought that's how these investments work. When Obama invested in Gm it's not like he stayed there creating jobs for people but it's his invstment in the auto industry that led to the jobs in manufacuturing.

I kinda feel that if you invest large amounts of money in any company or industry and they're succesful it should be fair game to take credit for. So whatever jobs created from staples considering Romney's massive investment in it should be a positive on his record.

Did you ever consider that if there had been no Bain, some other venture capital firm would have invested in Staples or one of the other successes attributed to Bain?  And then lets not forget the jobs that were lost whenever Staples or some other big-box store came into town and killed off one or two mom-and-pop stores in the same market segment?

Yeah, Romney was a successful venture capitalist, but the claims that he created jobs instead of merely shifted jobs to companies Bain invested in are rather dubious, especially in the retail sector.  To be fair, they are same sort of job-creation claims that politicians and businesses like to promote all the time.

And if I had wheels I'd be a wagon.


Uh-oh, the luddite fallacy strikes again!  My father used to run a small business; before big office supply retailers he used to have to order them from the "mom-and-pop" people who charged obscene markups; it was a *huge* cost reduction for them (which is why Staples became so successful in the first place).  The money other businesses saved on office supplies let them hire more workers (and of course more efficient retail reduces deadweight loss in an industry); it's not just the jobs in Staples itself.

The giant Goose Egg.

Nah.  I'm not saying you have to consider what Bain did with jobs to be a total wash, wormy.  But any fair assessment of job creation has to take account of job losses in the businesses were outcompeted by the companies Bain invested in while Romney was at its helm.  After all, its not as if Staples opening a big box store increased the demand in office supplies.

I believe that's called capitalism.

Doesn't he like firing people? So maybe the people he's fired > the jobs he's created. :p

Seriously though, he didn't really create that many jobs in power...and Bain could've laid off as many people as they got jobs for.

Is he going to tell Obama...."You're fired"?

Are people interested in just working low-paying jobs, are people trying to grow their wealth through investments and their own businesses?

Has Walmart created jobs or has it destroyed jobs? 

If you are pro-Walmart, you are probably a Republican.

If you are anti-Walmart, then you are a Democrat.

You don't have to be a Democrat to know that Wal-Mart is a horrible company.

0 because job creators are mythical creatures like ponies, Reagan Democrats and good metal band.

Ponies are mythical creatures?