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.
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 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.
Poll
