A job creator is a person or business which employs more people at the end of a given span of time than it did at the beginning.
Being a first-derivative phenomenon, job-creation only has meaning with respect to some span of time; any entity that is a job creator during one span of time might be a job-destroyer (downsizing or going out of business) during another.
A stable business of any size that is neither expanding nor shrinking is neither a "job-creator" nor a "job-destroyer"; it is a "job maintainer" or "employer".
The term "job creator" is often used rhetorically as a synonym for "rich people" or even "large companies/employers", based on the theory that jobs are created by "trickling down" from the top.
- There is a difference between job creators -- i.e. companies that create new jobs, adding to employment -- and job providers or maintainers (aka "employers"), i.e. companies that employ people and generally re-fill positions that become vacant.
- Most large companies are not job creators, but job maintainers. Most jobs are created by small companies starting up and going through an initial growth phase.
- During recessions such as the current one, large companies actually tend to be job destroyers, as they lay off workers and close plants.
- Rich people are not automatically job creators. They are not automatically job creators if they own a company. They are only job creators if they are investing in a start-up that is successful and doesn't end up laying off everyone they hired.
- A rich person who invests in a successful start-up is still not as much a "job creator" as whoever is actually doing the work of making that company successful.
- A rich person who does not invest in sustainable businesses is arguably a job-destroyer, since they are at best taking the money out of circulation (so it can't be used to help a growing business) and at worst contributing to businesses that damage the economy and have a net negative effect on employment over the long run.
This conflation is misleading and should be challenged wherever it is found. It is essentially a form of bait-and-switch in that we are given arguments for supporting business growth, but what we are actually being asked to support is legislation to help maintain the plutonomy.