In an entrepreneurial economy, reward job-seekers willing to start businesses

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 19, 2014 8:52 p.m.

    .... (hit enter by mistake).... are surprised that it also took longer to recover? I know it makes for great sound bites.... but if the other recessions were the same in magnitude and damage to the economy, I would be right there with you. But they were not the same in scope or scale.

    An additional dimension that every administration is also going to have to deal with is as time goes along, our economy will increasingly be tied to global markets, and we could be doing everything perfect, but if a global growth leader like China or India has economic problems, those will ripple to ours.

    Pretending any single administration has the power to alter global economies is likened unto trying to stuff a turkey through its beak... ( I love that quote ).

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 19, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    Lost.... you fail to mention that the recession of 2007 was also the deepest recession since WWII... with gross gdp decline of 4.3%. The others between '45 and '07 averaged the low 2 percent range... with the next highest being at 3.7% gdp loss. So, yes, it has taken longer to regain that lost ground, because it was also the greatest loss.

    Using the chart you are likely referring to.... you will also notice that the number of unemployed due to the recession was also fewer than the 2007. The duration of the decline also lasted longer... from 2007 through mid 2009.

    So the recession was deeper, had more job losses, over a longer period of time, and it took long to hit the trough.... from 2007 to 2009.... and you

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 19, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    In 2012 it cost Americans $1.8 trillion to comply with federal regulations -- an amount greater than the GDP's of Canada or Mexico. I don't know what the cost was in 2013, but the number of page of new regulations (final rules) added last year was 26,417 -- a new record.

    Try making a strong economic recovery with this kind of burden on your back. It's just not going to happen. New businesses are particularly vulnerable.

    (Sources: Regulator Without Peer, WSJ; The Ten Thousand Commandments, Wayne Crews.)

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    Our current brand of capitalism cannot stand. It's failing labor - chronic unemployment in the U.S.; severely exploited labor in the third world where American capital has exported jobs; global warming with which capital will not deal.

    There is a socialist solution out there, but what brand of socialism? Some like R.D. Wolff advocate for more worker-owned and managed enterprises like the Mondragon cooperative in Spain. That would be ideal as it would avoid the generally disliked Soviet model.

    But cooperation must replace self-interest and competition if we are going to deal with the terrible challenges of the present.

    In the meantime labor should look at small proprietor startups.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 19, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    you are correct, your interpretation DOES taint the numbers.

    There is a difference between recovery and normal economic expansion.

    What you fail to mention is the speed of the recovery - you admit it has taken 4 years, as if that were a good thing. In the previous recessions, the speed of the recovery has been consistent with the depth of the recovery - the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery - with the exception of this one and the great depression.

    In NONE of the recoveries you mention has it taken so long to return to full employment, which is only ONE measure, but which is really where the average American feels the recovery. We STILL have not returned to full employment, and the BO spinmiesters are starting to redefine full employment as higher unemployment to hide his failures.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 18, 2014 9:52 p.m.

    lost in DC - we need to clarify something you say here... "I am incorrect to indicate we have the most tepid recovery in modern history, all under BO’s misadministration?"

    What are you considering modern history? The US through both conservative and and liberal administration had a long run of overall expansion. But since 1945 we have had 12 recessions. Average time between these recessions has been about 4 years.

    Right now we are in our fourth year of positive GDP growth. We are just now passing the average time that we historically fall back into recession. So by now more than half the time, the US has already fallen back into another recession. Seeing how more than half the time the economy has done worse, it sort of makes your statement a little hard to support..... maybe even inaccurate.

    Dates of US recessions since WW II - 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, and 2007- with several of these being multi year recessions. Our strongest period was during the combined Reagan and Clinton administrations with just one recession between them.

    Data doesn't have tainted glasses..... just those interpreting it do.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 18, 2014 5:24 p.m.


    “if lost was accurate…”

    You infer I am incorrect to say there are new taxes with Obamacare? Or business owners will have higher expenses because they will have to provide insurance?

    I’m not, there are.

    I am incorrect to say religious business owners are not being forced out of business or do things contrary to their beliefs?

    I’m not, they are – ask the owners of Hobby Lobby or a certain florist, wedding photographer, or baker.

    I am incorrect to say liberals scream that successful people are not accused of not paying enough taxes? I’m not; they are – liberals LOVE to demand higher taxes from the successful

    I am incorrect to indicate we have the most tepid recovery in modern history, all under BO’s misadministration?

    I’m not, we do.

    No, nothing in my post was incorrect or inaccurate.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 18, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    Patriot.... give it a rest. We can once again publish a list of now very successful companies that were gotten off the ground via government grants, contracts, or funding. This is a huge red herring argument. Next time you fly, thank the government for funding the company that built that plane.

    Whats missing here from the discussion is capital. Mike Richards brings up some great points. Having a great idea or product is not enough. It is why the trades are rank the highest if business failures, because they think being good at what you do is enough.

    But you also need capital, at reasonable rates. And for many, access to that capital is still not there, particularly if you are already under financial stress from being out of work. Starting a small business is a great idea... but you need money to make money, and many don't have it. We need creative was to extend credit or funding to these that are willing to take a chance.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 18, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    If lost was accurate, there wouldn't be any businesses left at all, let alone new ones. Methinks he doth protest too much.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 18, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    Well now wait a minute here - I recall hearing something to effect "you didn't build that business - the government did". In other words, you have no right to deserve any reward what-so-ever ...according to Barack and his progressive Socialist friends after all it was the government that made it all possible so actually you should award the government by paying more business taxes ...right??

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 18, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    I hope people who constantly refer to "Ayn Ryand's utopia", have actually read the book.

    If you're talking about Atlas Shrugged... I'm reading it now (since it comes up so often). And she's obviously not describing a "eutopia". She's describing a FICTIONAL dirty, disgusting, fallen, failed world (at least as far as I have read).

    I haven't made it to the end (and don't know if I will make it)... maybe at the end it turns into a Eutopia... but so far she's positively NOT describing what she considers to be a "Eutopia".


    Remember... it's science fiction...

    Wikipedia says...
    "The book explores a dystopian, increasingly socialist, post-economic collapse United States where many of society's most prominent and successful industrialists begin to disappear, abandoning their empires in response to aggressive new regulations".

    Last time I checked... "DYStopia" is NOT "Eutopia".

    #1. She's not describing her Eutopia or dream world... she's describing her NIGHTMARE world. An imaginary dark America (after Socialism and overregulation took it's toll).

    #2. She's not describing Capitalism.. she's describing a fictional America that took a socialist turn back in the 1800s.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 18, 2014 2:46 p.m.

    Why start a business when Obamacare will tax you to death or blow your expenses sky high?

    When you will be forced to participate in activities that violate your conscience?

    When you will be accused of oppressing everyone and mooching off society if you succeed and more and more taxes are demanded of you because you are not “paying your fair share”?

    No, there has never been an environment more hostile to small businesses than the one BO has created.

    No wonder new business starts have declined every year since 2011.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 18, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    Big Business does not just need to compete - ala Ayn Ryand's utopia.

    It's not a race, with clear lanes, refurees, and penalties for cheating.

    It's a Free for all.
    and Cheating, lying, back-biting and bribery goes on all the time.

    If a huge corporation feels the least bit threatened by a growing sompetitor,
    they will use everything in their business arsenal to squish and eliminate the competition.

    Frivelous law suits,
    Corporate espianoge,
    False media reports or mis-information,
    anything to discourage or COST the up and coming,
    once the value is doomed,
    they will drive the final stake through it heart by simply buying them out at artifically deflated prices and then deep sixing th whole business.

    I've seen some of the most the world's most innovative ideas torpedoed because a bigger guy with a inferior product had more more to financiall cripple them to them to just give up.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    Re: Mike Richards " In all of them, I was only able to spend 60% or less of my time using my specialized skills. The rest of the time was used to "run" the business. "

    At least. In my two experiences at business. The first failed because I didn't expend enough effort in management. The second failed because I just couldn't compete with the big guys. I attracted business, just not enough to support a growing family.

    It's a rough road for small business, but for many it may be the only way out in a system which needs less and less hired labor.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 18, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    Her is a change that would assist the small business start ups. Currently a single individual who starts a business with little or no capital can earn about $10,000 and not pay income tax. The rub, at $400 of net income they have to pay self employment tax at 15%. This amount was $400 in 1957. Adjusted for inflation the current amount should be $3,363.60. Want to really help the young and low income start up? Change the threshold.

  • Cheesecake Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    Keep in mind the 4.7% unemployment in 2007 was during an economic bubble. Or, put another way, it was artificially low. I think that's more maddening than comparing it to current numbers.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 18, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    It will never fly. There is still about 50% of the nation that wants to PUNISH people for starting a business...

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 18, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    If I'm in business already and doing just fine, thanks, then I'm not too crazy about the idea of government subsidies for my new cut-rate competitors. And since the Supreme Court says I can pay whatever I want to keep certain people in office who think my way, that's just what I'll do. If I ever need those laid-off guys, I'll let them know.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 18, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    Starting a small business requires so much more than just having a valuable skill. A small business owner has to understand bookkeeping. He has to know how to create and use a break-even-analysis spreadsheet. He has to be a salesman. He has to be a bill collector. He has to be a janitor. He has to know all the rules and regulations that government has put on him and his business.

    I've owned three successful small businesses. In all of them, I was only able to spend 60% or less of my time using my specialized skills. The rest of the time was used to "run" the business.

    A good friend once told me that thousands of people have asked him if their business idea was good. His only question to them is how they would market their service or product. If they had a viable marketing plan, no matter what the product or service, he told them that if they worked the plan, they would probably succeed.

    You have to sell your service or product. Nobody is going to seek you out.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 18, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    You read my mind. If you aren't worried about leaving your family exposed to massive medical bills it would make it way easier to take a chance and start your own business. Not the ACA, but real single payer healthcare. We should try it, it's the future(or present for every other 1st world country on the planet but us......)

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 18, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    How about giving them, and their prospective employees, a health care system that has nothing to do with the employer/employee relationship and takes the entire burden off the employer?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 18, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    That only works in the minds of a Liberal,

    In the GOP mind,
    Why should the Government go along with a plan to help those with no jobs start a small business,
    when they can throw $Billions of dollars to huge Corporations who are already making $Billions of dollars and not creating ANY new jobs?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 18, 2014 6:23 a.m.

    Sounds like a good idea.

    But the free speech from Big Corp would never allow it. They like things the way they are! CEO profits sky high, worker pay and benefits way low, and millions of desperate workers willing to do anything to choose from. It's a corporate/GOP dream come true. The end result of 3 decades of robber baron Reaganomics. Is the money trickling down yet?

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    April 18, 2014 3:51 a.m.

    Hear! Hear! I have several friends who, though skilled and experienced in their industries, have lost their jobs due to mergers, businesses failing, ObamaCare, etc., and who have been out of work for a year or more. They have families and financial obligations that make unemployment payments a necessity. Several have share with me their desire to launch their own business, and have the skills to do so, but the minute they begin that process their unemployment gets cut off, even though the income phase of most businesses is a ways down the road.

    It seems it would be in the best interest of the state and our economy to give these erstwhile entrepreneurs a leg up by allowing them to continue to collect unemployment during the ramping up phase of self-employment, given a demonstrably viable business plan.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 12:12 a.m.

    I understand that in Italy if a group of people are laid off, rather than take unemployment payments they can instead get business start up capital from the Italian government.

    Also the EU appears to be far ahead of the United States in fostering small business creation.