Let me start by saying that I think making money is great.  I think making a lot of money is great.  I admire people who can do it.  That said, I swear if I hear the term “job creators” one more time, my head is going to explode.  It’s hard to think of an expression that is more calculated, artificial or twisted.  I hesitate to make the easy comparison to “1984,” but “jobcreator” would fit very nicely in a Newspeak dictionary.

The press seems to recognize this, as to the Republicans who coined and promulgate it.  I think the Democrats do, too.  So why do we keep allowing anyone to use it?

Bottom line:  Wealthy people are job creators in the same way that bees are plant creators.  Bees go about their business feeding on plants and in the process pollinate them.  But pollination is not their purpose, it’s a by-product.  If all the bees in the world suddenly decided beef tasted better than blackberry blossoms, they’d make the change without a second thought – because it suited them, never considering the effect on future blackberry crops.

The same goes for the wealthy.  They make decisions for the health of their companies – which they have to and which they should.  They run businesses, not welfare agencies, not governments.  Trouble is, those decisions may involve laying off all or part of a workforce in favor of automating.

Ultimately, businesses cannot be counted on to put taking care of people as their first priority.  If they could, they would be using the trillions of dollars in cash that they’re holding now to build us out of the recession instead of saying they’re immobilized by the fear of a 3% – 5% increase in their taxes.  Again, they have to put the interests of their shareholders first.

None of this makes the wealthy inherently bad nor does it mean capitalism is evil.  It does mean they are owners whose objective is to increase their wealth, not to create jobs.  Sometimes their decisions will result in jobs; sometimes not.  Even the most altruistic management will choose the company’s survival over the retention of employees.

Can we just return to the rational, agree to call them business owners as we used to and dispense with this sad rhetorical exercise?  If nothing else, it would save me from an imminent aneurysm.