system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Decreasing taxes and regulation won't do much to create more jobs and increase pay.

This seems to be a tenet of many CEOs and conservatives.  Was watching the CEOs of Citibank and IBM talking about how important this is.  They seemed to be alluding to the fact that if they had tax breaks and less regulation they would be expanding.  But those two companies had net profits of over $2 billion EACH in the 2nd QUARTER.   If $2 billion a quarter isn't enough to spur expansion, how much is enough?  

It isn't just huge companies that are profitable.  The stock market has grown by over 250% in the last 8 years.  Investors have had record profits while worker's pay has remained flat. 

IMO, right now, the investor has so much power companies can't expand.  Expansion is risky. Why mess with record profits?  250% is unsustainable, yet investors pressure companies  to beat last years record profits. 
  
 Increased productivity is the buzz word because it is a big reason companies are so profitable.  Why would additional profits cause companies to pay more and expand (reduce productivity?) It has been very profitable for companies to run lean and mean.

Now I get that there will be some increased employment, but record profits  havn't spurred investment why will adding to that profit change things?  Do we need to give investors 20%, 30% or more in yearly profits, increase the debt and increase pollution in return for a slight bump in wages and employment?

The other side believes that expansion happens when demand increases.  Increasing salary for the many is a much more effective way to increase demand (for a consumer product) than increasing profits for the few, (which should eventually lead to increased profits for the few anyway.)
gpt
"Regulatory capture".

Since about the 1970's it's been pretty clear that higher levels of regulation lead to fewer, larger, and more profitable businesses. In short, the more regulation you have the closer to a monopoly a business becomes. In fact, you have created functional monopolies in a number of industries that probably shouldn't be *cough*ISP*cough*.

Now, that's not to say that all regulation is bad. There needs to be a framework of rules that cover for weaknesses in the market. When customers don't have equal access to information, someone has undue market power, or a deal strongly impacts third parties then regulation is generally necessary. That said, a lot of regulation is unnecessary or fails to accomplish the goals. Then there's an entirely different thicket of regulation that is written by the existing firms in a field to make it harder or functionally impossible to create a new business in that same field.

Expansion in a market is usually done by new entries into the market. Someone outside one of the existing companies has an idea and starts a new business in that field. If the idea is a good one the new firm grows rapidly, taking money from the existing firms. Then those existing firms usually find their weakest member forced out, they buy the start up and grow themselves, or the entire market expands as they are now doing something that they weren't doing before. New firms also means new jobs, and more competition for skilled employees. More opportunities and competition for anything means higher wages. If there are only a few businesses in a field then employees can't play one against the other effectively to negotiate wage increases. If there are many then it becomes much easier, and with the advent of corporate head hunting you might not even have to do anything yourself to get leverage for a raise.

Decreasing taxes and regulation across the board doesn't do us much good. But, intelligently cutting out tax loopholes and the most burdensome regulations can free up space for "creative destruction" among companies and allow growth that occurs at the expense of established players in the field.

Also, expansion doesn't usually reduce productivity if there is unmet demand.