Do IPOs create jobs?

1.9 million jobs lost to the slump in IPOs over the last decade, according to a new report

Has the collapse in the number of IPOs since the dot.com boom hurt employment? That's the question asked by a new report from the Kauffman foundation.

The argument is that IPOs pump huge amounts of money into start-ups, which can then be reinvested into employment growth. Their chart of the revenue per employee of Google, Amazon and eBay is instructive:

All three experienced sharp drops in revenue per employee immediately following their IPOs, as they went on hiring binges. If that's a standard pattern, then the fall in the number of IPOs a year (from hundreds in 1996-2000 to to just 8 at the nadir of the crash in 2008) will hit the labour market nationwide.

But it doesn't appear to be a standard pattern at all, as the key chart in the report shows:

While employment in the dot.com boom rocketed up post-IPO, once the crash hit, companies appear to have begun to take the cash injection and pocket it. Google – and Salesforce.com, the other big IPO of 2004 – are such exceptions that their year noticeably deviates from the trend.

As a result, the headline conclusion of the report is that around 1.9m jobs were forfeit over the past decade by the slump in IPOs. A lot, without doubt, but when you consider that post-IPO companies hired 1.6m people last year alone, the context becomes clear. And as the continuing saga of the Facebook IPO (currently stabilising around $29, 25 per cent lower than the IPO price) shows, there are upsides of steering clear of the whole thing.

Facebook in the heady days when it was above $30 a share. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Could Jeremy Corbyn still be excluded from the leadership race? The High Court will rule today

Labour donor Michael Foster has applied for a judgement. 

If you thought Labour's National Executive Committee's decision to let Jeremy Corbyn automatically run again for leader was the end of it, think again. 

Today, the High Court will decide whether the NEC made the right judgement - or if Corbyn should have been forced to seek nominations from 51 MPs, which would effectively block him from the ballot.

The legal challenge is brought by Michael Foster, a Labour donor and former parliamentary candidate. Corbyn is listed as one of the defendants.

Before the NEC decision, both Corbyn's team and the rebel MPs sought legal advice.

Foster has maintained he is simply seeking the views of experts. 

Nevertheless, he has clashed with Corbyn before. He heckled the Labour leader, whose party has been racked with anti-Semitism scandals, at a Labour Friends of Israel event in September 2015, where he demanded: "Say the word Israel."

But should the judge decide in favour of Foster, would the Labour leadership challenge really be over?

Dr Peter Catterall, a reader in history at Westminster University and a specialist in opposition studies, doesn't think so. He said: "The Labour party is a private institution, so unless they are actually breaking the law, it seems to me it is about how you interpret the rules of the party."

Corbyn's bid to be personally mentioned on the ballot paper was a smart move, he said, and the High Court's decision is unlikely to heal wounds.

 "You have to ask yourself, what is the point of doing this? What does success look like?" he said. "Will it simply reinforce the idea that Mr Corbyn is being made a martyr by people who are out to get him?"