Dean,

Good points, but I think that most people who strike out on their own are by nature more independent-minded; meaning that though they might like some help from time to time, they don't want a lot of strings attached to it...so, a conservative program of tax-credits and vouchers to allow the self-employed and small-businesspersons to run their own affairs, while still getting some help, will keep them happily voting GOP and, also, prevent the government from unduly interfering in what is really driving our economy at this time.

Of course, a sensible Democratic Party would latch on to these self-employed people like a crack-addict on to the pipe - the Democratic Party should be all over this; demanding vouchers and tax credits for such people, including education vouchers for the kiddies. Additionally, sensible Democrats would be "out-warring" the President on the War...as you can see, we've got a dearth of sensible Democrats; or, at least, a dearth of them in the leadership positions of the Democratic Party.

The one thing true about American politics is that only a large minority on either end of the spectrum are reliable voters for either Party - gaining power depends upon the ability or a candidate to appeal to the uncommitted. By nature, the uncommitted tend to be the more independent minded thinkers; maybe in favor of low taxes, but also in favor of, say, civil unions for gay people...while also being opposed to abortion on demand, but in favor of keeping abortion legal...while also being in favor of a strong defense, but opposed to too many US committments...etc, etc, etc....mix and match to your hearts desire - key: you can't just find one issue and, whammo, win elections...its in the mix and the nuance that you get these voters.

Right now, the Democrats are about as nuanced as a sledge-hammer...additionally, they are hammering on all the wrong themes; the independent voters, pace John Kerry, don't want a debate about the activities of men back in 1972, but are deeply interested in what sort of policies shall be followed in 2005.

So, all in all, until you get yourself into your party and conduct a purge, the self-employed, etc will continue to vote GOP, even if its just as a default position.

One should think, yes. A natural for Democrats, at least from their rhetoric, would be for them to be the school choice party, the party that recommends a voucherized universal health care system, a privatized social security system, and highly small-entrepreneur-friendly tax policies. They're not doing it, won't go near any of it, almost like they're afraid of it--afraid of innovation, afraid of change, afraid of new ideas.

I fear our latest round of campaign finance "reform" has left them even more indebted and under the thumb of a shadowy and unaccontable number of financers who are more interested in their own agendas than the country's.

I suppose I could get involved, but today's Democrats seem so alien to me, more alien all the time. Not that the Republicans are all that wonderful, frankly, for there are many of them that disturb and disappoint me.

I don't know, most days I'm cheerfully optimistic about the future, but today I'm rather depressed.

Dean, I was just saying as much to Kathy Kinsley, who's had a big job disappear on her in the past week. While I like to work freelance jobs, I despise the tax paperwork and am just not driven enough to act the salesman for the requisite hours each week that it would take to make a self-employment gig work.

That said, I do know some people who have been "outsourced" to themselves, meaning that they are let go by their companies, only to be hired as an outside contractor (primarily in high knowledge work). While that keeps some money coming in, they lose the benefits.

It's a tough dilemma. I chose family security over the entrepreneurial spirit at this point. Maybe later in life I won't have the option.

As Dean knows, I'm one of those people. I've been self-employed for over 10 years.

Single-motherhood was the catalyst.

I don't think (and never have thought) that the Democrats were business friendly. They are seldom (if ever) independant friendly. If I am my own boss they cannot score points by trying to make a case that all bosses are evil and all company owners are greedy.

So much of the legislation passed by Democrats in my adult life has been unfriendly to business--in big, big ways--especially small business. Family leave? How can a one to two person operation do that? The truth is, you can't, so I don't.

There have been many opportunities for me to expand the business and I've flatly rejected the notion. I've sub-contracted a lot, but I refuse to put anyone on the payroll. It's too risky.

As more and more business shifts to self-employed people--hiring other self-employed people on a project basis, this trend will increase.

But all of that, the stuff about adding it up wrong, has ALWAYS been true--it's just more extreme now.

Thomas Sowell has written at length that unemployment figures, poverty rates, etc., are based on WAGE income. Someone who made $500K last year and takes this year off to spend it will appear in the poverty quintile this year. Someone who has $10M in the bank will also appear to be living in poverty.

The fact that the Democrats are now using the employment figures to distort the success of individuals and the economy as a whole doesn't surprise me. They're in the misery business--always have been.

Mrs du Toit: I would certainly agree, having been a corporate owner, that it is far easier, and far cheaper, and far safer, due to our current system, to never hire employees if you can avoid it. The number of headaches, hazards, liabiliites, and the sheer paperwork is mind-numbing. You can pay people to do it, but why bother if you can avoid it at all?

Of course, our laws on illegal immigration don't help that. ;-)

But in any case, there's simply no question that our current system is very hostile toward the self-employed. The taxation, especially the Self Employment Tax (i.e. "social security") is especially draconian toward the small time self-employed person. Democrats ignore this, rather contemptuously, and it shows.

The current bias in the Democratic Party is toward both pillorying "big business," but also expecting most people to be employed by big business. It's a rather weird dichotomy.

I would have to disagree with your opinion that self-employment is less stable than working for somebody else. My husband and I started our own business 10 years ago and, yes, it hasn't always been easy and we've had years where we've really struggled, but we would much rather rely on our own decision making than having to rely on somebody else to make the right decisions in the company. As far as job security? Who has job security these days?

I would have to disagree with your opinion that self-employment is less stable than working for somebody else. My husband and I started our own business 10 years ago and, yes, it hasn't always been easy and we've had years where we've really struggled, but we would much rather rely on our own decision making than having to rely on somebody else to make the right decisions in the company. As far as job security? Who has job security these days?

I’ve done it both ways and I think the point someone else made is the really were the rubber meets the road. Do you want to spend the request time doing “sales” and “accounting” tasks? If you’re the kind of person that likes the diversion that those other elements bring to your work day you will like being on your own. If you don’t like those things or are simply much better at what it is you do and are horrible at “sales” and “accounting” tasks then you are not going to like it at all.

There are some people who have to work in an environment where they can be part of a group plan because of pre-existing health issues. If you can’t get insured then working for yourself is a dodgy option.

Don't forget that "Health Savings Accounts" got slipped in with the Medicare Bill. They are going to be great for anyone without health benefits.

And Bush has some other tax-free savings plans that have been pushed to the back burner. But I'm guessing he hasn't forgotten them.

And he hasn't forgotten Social Security reform either. The onerous Self-Employment Tax will seem less painful if a large chunk of it is going into one's own retirement investments...

Self-employment definitely has its drawbacks, but I always found working for other companies to be surprisingly arbitrary and capricious. You could be out of work any time, for any or no reason. Your job could change in insane ways.

In self-employment, you still aren't exactly your own boss; the customers are. You just eliminate a potentially capricious middle layer and take control of it all yourself, succeed or fail.

Jay, I think you are dead right. It really depends on where you can handle risk. It's not a criticism of people who choose not to be self-employed, it's just DIFFERENT risk.

Being employed by someone else means you don't have to be as responsible, as attentive, or know as many things. You can specialize--focus on what you do really well, spend less time thinking about work.

Some folks really like structured hours--they like putting in their hours and leaving work behind when they get home. Then there are folks like me, who cannot tolerate structured hours, and prefer to never be at work/and always at work.

There are trade offs.

I really think of our home-based business as (what my daughter calls it) Amish with technology. It's really VERY old-fashioned. We're all home, all day. We make our bread from our own land--no different from farmers 100 years ago.

From the Times, on the payroll vs. home survey data that engendered the notion of an "entrepreneurial economy" developing that nobody expected:

***
At this point, the gap between the payroll and the household data continues to be a puzzle,'' said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, in a speech this month. But, he added, the number of self-employed workers has risen by 326,000 in the last three years and the "extent of self-employment has changed as the economy has changed.''

Unfortunately for the optimists, the Federal Reserve has just thrown cold water on the household data. It concludes that the gloomy payroll data is essentially accurate and that the household survey is probably off base.

"I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate,'' Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, said in his testimony at a House hearing on Feb. 11. "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow.''

To test the self-employment theory, the Fed adjusted the household survey by taking out all the kinds of workers who do not show up on the payroll survey - self-employed people, but also farm workers and family workers in family-run companies. Even then, Mr. Greenspan said, the discrepancy remains large.

The Fed's conclusion was that the household survey's results have been inflated by overestimates of population growth.

Because the household survey is a sample, the Bureau of Labor Statistics infers the total change in jobs by multiplying the ratio of employed to unemployed workers in the household survey by its estimate of the total population. If the population estimate is too high, the estimated number of jobs will also be too high.

THE Bureau of Labor Statistics bases its population estimate on the 2000 census, but it updates that estimate yearly with data on births, deaths and immigration. Immigration numbers are largely guesswork, however, because so much immigration is illegal. Fed officials suspect that the immigration estimate is inflated, because it fails to reflect tighter immigration controls after Sept. 11, 2001, as well as declines caused by the economic slowdown.

Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics lowered its population estimate in January. Plugging the new estimate into the previous household surveys, the bureau found nearly half the apparent increase in jobs during the last three years vanished.