Saturday, May 4, 2013

Just One Concern of Many from John This May 2013

Guest Post: The Percentage Of Self-Employed Americans Is At A Record Low

May 3, 2013

The percentage of Americans that are working for themselves has never been lower in the history of the United States.  Once upon a time, the United States was a paradise for entrepreneurs and small businesses, but now the control freak bureaucrats that dominate our society have created a system that absolutely eviscerates them.  This is very unfortunate, because by murdering small business, the bureaucrats are destroying the primary engine of job growth in this country.  One of the big reasons why there are not enough jobs in America today is because small business creation is way down.  As I mentioned yesterday, entrepreneurs and small businesses are being absolutely devastated by rules, regulations, red tape and by oppressive levels of taxation.  If anyone doubts that small business in the United States is dying, just look at the charts below.  Sadly, this is what the bureaucrats that run things want.  They don’t want us to be independent of the system.  Instead, they are much more comfortable when as many of us as possible are heavily dependent on the system in one way or another.  If all of us have to go running to the government or to one of the big corporations for a job, then we are much easier to control.  But as the control freaks continue to construct their bureaucratic utopia, they are also killing off what once made the U.S. economy so great.

The other day I came across the following two charts in an articleby Charles Hugh Smith, and I was absolutely stunned by what I saw.  This first chart shows that the number of unincorporated self-employed Americans has dropped back to levels that we have not seen since the mid-1980s even though our population has increased by tens of millions of people since that time…

They Are Murdering Small Business: The Percentage Of Self Employed Americans Is At A Record Low The Number Of Self Employed Americans 425x255

As you can see, from 1970 to the mid-1990s the number of unincorporated self-employed Americans rose steadily.  But in the mid-1990s it began to level off and now it is falling rapidly.
This next chart shows the percentage of self-employed Americans as a share of non-farm employment.  In other words, those that work on farms are excluded from this chart.  The percentage of self-employed Americans was fairly stable between 1970 and 1990, but since 1990 it has been steadily eroding and it has now reached a level never seen before…

They Are Murdering Small Business: The Percentage Of Self Employed Americans Is At A Record Low Self Employed As A Share Of Non Farm Employment 425x255

At this point, only about 7 percent of non-farm workers are self-employed.  That is depressingly low.  That means that an overwhelming majority of those that are employed in America are working for the system in one capacity or another.

But isn’t that what we pound into the heads of our children these days?  We teach them to work hard in school so that they can “get a good job” when they grow up.  From a very early age we train our children to plug themselves into the system.

Not that working for someone else is wrong.  Of course not.  It is just that we are not fostering a spirit of entrepreneurship in America today.  In fact, we seem to be doing everything that we can to kill it off.
In a previous article, I detailed how the number of new businesses (and the number of jobs those businesses create) has been steadily declining.  In particular, this decline has accelerated dramatically under the Obama administration.  According to an analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data performed by economist Tim Kane, the following is how the decline in the number of startup jobs per 1000 Americans breaks down by presidential administration

Bush Sr.: 11.3
Clinton: 11.2
Bush Jr.: 10.8
Obama: 7.8
Is that a good trend or a bad trend?

It doesn’t take an advanced degree in economics to figure out where things are going.
Kane speculated about why we are witnessing such a decline in his paper
There is anecdotal evidence that the U.S. policy environment has become inadvertently hostile to entrepreneurial employment. At the federal level, high taxes and higher uncertainty about taxes are undoubtedly inhibiting entrepreneurship, but to what degree is unknown. The dominant factor may be new regulations on labor.  The passage of the Affordable Care Act is creating a sweeping alteration of the regulatory environment that directly changes how employers engage their workforces, and it will be some time until those changes are understood by employers or scholars. Separately, there has been a federal crackdown since 2009 by the Internal Revenue Service on U.S. employers that hire U.S. workers as independent contractors rather than employees, raising the question of mandatory benefits. New firms tend to use part-time and contract staffing rather than full-time employees during the startup stage. According to Labor Department data, the typical American today only takes home 70 percent of compensation as pay, while the rest is absorbed by the spiraling cost of benefits (e.g., health insurance). The dilemma for U.S. policy is that an American entrepreneur has zero tax or regulatory burden when hiring a consultant/contractor who resides abroad. But that same employer is subject to paperwork, taxation, and possible IRS harassment if employing U.S.-based contractors. Finally, there has been a steady barrier erected to entrepreneurs at the local policy level. Brink Lindsey points out in his book Human Capitalism that the rise of occupational licensing is destroying startup opportunities for poor and middle class Americans.
In my previous article, I also pointed out some of the other statistics that show that small business in America is dying…
-According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. economy lost more than 220,000 small businesses during the last recession.
-As a share of the population, the percentage of Americans that are self-employed fell by more than 20 percent between 1991 and 2010.
-As a share of the population, the percentage of “new entrepreneurs and business owners” dropped by a staggering 53 percent between 1977 and 2010.
Unfortunately, this is a crisis that has taken decades to develop and that there are not any easy solutions for.  But there are certain factors that should be addressed immediately.  The following are some of the things that are contributing to the murder of self-employment and small business in America…
#1 Taxes: The IRS seems to especially enjoy tormenting entrepreneurs and small businesses.  In fact, things have gotten so bad that even late night talk show hosts are joking about it.  Recently, NBC Tonight Show host Jay Leno joked that if Barack Obama really wanted to close down Guantanamo Bay, he should “do what he always does: declare it a small business and tax it out of existence”
#2 Ridiculous Regulations: If you have ever tried to start a small business, you probably know how frustrating it can be dealing with government red tape.  In particular, the federal government has burdened our small businesses with gigantic mountains of rules and regulations and it gets worse with each passing day.
#3 State Governments That Are Openly Hostile To Business: A perfect example of this is the state of California.  In 2011, the state of California ranked 50th out of all 50 states in new business creation, and yet they just continue to pass more legislation that hurts small businesses.
#4 Obamacare: Our broken healthcare system is a tremendous burden on small businesses, and Obamacare is going to make things much worse.
#5 The One World Trade Agenda: In many industries, U.S. small businesses simply cannot compete against products made by workers that are being paid slave labor wages on the other side of the globe.
#6 Predator Corporations: Time after time we have seen corporate giants extract huge tax breaks and other enormous concessions from local officials which give them an overwhelming advantage.  But once the corporate giant moves into town, many of the existing small businesses find that they cannot compete and are forced to shut down.
#7 Our Corrupt Political System: On the national level, elections are almost always won by the politician that raises the most money.  Our politicians know that their careers depend on raising money, so they tend to be very good to those that they get big money from.  There is a reason why big corporations spend billions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying.  They do it because it works.  Over the decades, the big corporations have been able to shift the rules of the game massively in their favor, and this has been to the detriment of entrepreneurs and small businesses.
Can you think of any other factors that you would add to this list?  Please feel free to share your opinion by leaving a comment below…

Webmaster comment: Some of us believe this to be Ray Ramano. I do. And this is just one illustration of hundreds if not thousands of fake events making up our phony reality... Therefore, how can we debate anything until this criminal fraud is exposed?

So you want to be a successful actor in Hollywood son?

Yes Sir, I'll do anything....

Well sign this "I'll do anything" contract and one day... you will have to play some parts in some media segments...sound easy enough?

Maybe even play a Congressman that no one ever sees but once in a while....


  1. many things to comment on here....

    bottom of page...

    elections are won by those who spend most money....

    maybe for an excuse but elections are won because the shadow government chooses who is to win and men and women...actors...with fake names and no background are being put into puppet positions in all branches of government....seriously.... fake people with fake names...

    1. Starting with the President!
      Fake Birth Certs.
      Fake SS numbers,
      Fake Passport application.
      Fake Presidential Screening.
      Fake College Records.
      Fake Financial records.
      Fake " Sexuality?"

    2. Great point yes yes yes yes yes yes and yes....

    3. I like it when we agree on the same things...

    4. Examining the attempts to remove the natural birth requirements for anyone holding the office of president thru constitutional amendment by both parties over the past few years is very telling. Some time ago, I saw a post with the actual House and Senate bill numbers attached. Not speculation based but fact that is part of the Library of congress.

    5. they wanted Arnold, not sure if that is still in their plans...

    6. Geno, I believe the corporation controls both sides of the isle. Arnold was just the cover to involve the republican side.

  2. Very good article by the way. I am a small business owner. We have had a target on our backs now for some time. Have lived in the 40% bracket. I now gear the work I find not based on growth, but where it places me in the IRS tax codes. Better for small business to work smaller and keep more, than "expand," into new markets and create jobs. They have systematically removed small business tax incentives because we don't have the political pull of voting numbers. It is plain to see the "socialists," hand writing on the wall. The government seems to see it as well. Once the 47% who are on some sort of government support or payroll know the well is dry, there will be civil unrest. The Berlin wall fell and so will the US if we don't get DC on the straight and narrow. There are some great graphics on the following site:

    scroll to the bottom to see the problems clearly depicted in graphic form.


  3. To try to start your own business, even if a one-man show, there are way too many requirements. Register for a license, contact state tax dept. and get a Number, keep records (which constitutionally you have a right to privacy of your papers)
    then report everytime you wipe yer butt with toilet paper, LOL.
    Notice today how everything requires 'you show your papers'..even to get a drivers license (which is also just a Statute, not a Law).

    I used to watch the tv series 'little house on the prairie' which depicted life in the late 1800's. What freedom they had. This family came to this location by covered wagon as a family, if you recall. They saw a spot near a little creek and said, hey, lets make this our homesite. So they built themselves a 'little house on that prairie' and began farming.
    If you wanted a job, you walked up and asked for one and just started working and getting paid in cash. No papers, no questions, no 3 interviews.

    Today we have asshole 'human resources' robots without a heart empty suits who have been schooled in colleges who keep secret what they are really looking for in an employee for this position....but 'grade' you by a list of 'proper answers' which some asshole made up...and decided if you dont give THESE answers, they dont want that candidate.

    Then they really pick your brain with 'HOW would you do this, and how would you do that, or what if this situation arose, how would you handle it.....'' etc etc.

    Well gee, what a great way to get IDEAS of how to handle THEIR problem they are having, HUH? And THEN suddenly decide they arent going to hire anyone; close the job opening, and tell you 'sorry but the the position has been filled from WITHIN'....which IF anyone in the lower rungs REALLY had the qualifications and education FOR that position, they wouldn't have looked on the outside to begin with !

    No, the so called hiring person was just looking for FREE solutions they didnt know how to handle.

    Employers want stooges; not real efficient and intelligent people who will and can ACTUALLY handle the job with real skill.

    Now, as for the Article above, the writer states 'the reason americans dont have jobs is because small businesses are curtailed from starting businesses....or words to that effect.

    NO. The REASON we dont have enough jobs is BECAUSE OF NAFTA, just as Ross Parot warned a couple decades ago....and NOW here we are....just AS PLANNED.

  4. my company is is just better....more write offs and less tax than a proprietorship...not sure how different our systems are....but for me to incorporate was easy and cost me $450.00....however i did everything myself and did not use a if that graph was represented would show the same thing....but would be totally irrelevant in the grand scope of things....almost all small business is incorporated here...the ones that aren't are run by either very stupid people or are scam artists...

    but like i mentioned before...i do not know how much our systems differ.....

    i know all about the constant threat from the taxation department though...what i don't like is being a tax collector for the least in my province there is no sales tax....however we still have the goods and services tax(5%) that i must collect and account for...and i am currently being audited by Revenue Canada since last October...i am in my 8th month of an audit...and i am just small potatoes ....very small....there is nothing for them to find...but they just won't stop accountant is about to draft a letter of request to have this auditor removed from my case....they say they are trying to cut down on the underground economy in construction (cash without tax) i am audited personally as well as my business...i find this very obtrusive...but have no recourse....just have to let it play out....but they are wasting my time and theirs...

  5. Federal law formally allows for two types of PACs: connected and non-connected. Judicial decisions added a third classification, independent-expenditure only committees, which are colloquially known as "Super PACs".

    Connected PACs
    Most of the 4,600 active, registered PACs are "connected PACs" established by businesses, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class," generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation and members in the case of a union or other interest group. As of January 2009, there were 1,598 registered corporate PACs, 272 related to labor unions and 995 to trade organizations.[8]

    Non-connected PACs
    Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress and other political leaders may form "non-connected PACs". These organizations may accept funds from any individual, connected PAC, or organization. As of January 2009, there were 1,594 non-connected PACs, the fastest-growing category.[8]

    Super PACs
    Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups, without any legal limit on donation size.[9]

    Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions: the aforementioned Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, two months later, v. FEC, where the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures. The result of the Citizens United and decisions was the rise in 2010 of a new type of political action committee, popularly dubbed the "super PAC".[10]

    According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.[11][12]

    Super PACs may support particular candidacies. In the 2012 presidential election, Super PACs played a major role, spending more than the candidates' election campaigns in the Republican primaries.[13] As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney's presidential campaign—had spent $40 million. Winning Our Future (a pro–Newt Gingrich group) spent $16 million.[9] Some Super PACs are run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates.[14]

    In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to super PACs has come not from corporations but from wealthy individuals.[13] According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised,[15] while less than 0.5% of the money given to “the most active Super PACs” was donated by publicly traded corporations.[16] Super PACs have been criticized for relying heavily on negative ads.[17]

  6. Yet despite disclosure rules, it is possible to spend money without voters knowing the identities of donors before the election.[32] In federal elections, for example, political action committees have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" basis.[33][34][35] This allows funds raised by PACs in the final days of the election to be spent and votes cast before the report is due.

    In at least one high-profile case, a donor to a Super PAC kept his name hidden by using an LLC formed for the purpose of hiding their personal name.[36] One super PAC, that originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that no one could find, led to a subsequent filing where the previously "secret donors" were revealed.[37]

    As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008. The leading Super PAC on its own raised more money than the combined total spent by the top 9 PACS in the 2008 cycle.[39]

    The 2012 figures don't include funds raised by State level PACs nor funds raised by national level non-profit groups that pool "soft-funds". Spending by non-profits, also called 527 organizations, exceeded $500 million in the 2010 election cycle with the two largest organizations being the Republican Governors Association $131,873,954 and the Democratic Governors Association $64,708,253 [40] Spending by the 527 organizations for the 2012 is expected to be double and much will be derived from donors kept hidden from voters

  7. as close to MSM you are going to get....

    "Muslims responsible for 6% of terrorism in the US...Jewish extremists 7%...."

    wow....GO RT.....!