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

LISTEN: Boris Johnson has a meltdown in car crash interview on the Queen’s Speech

“Hang on a second…errr…I’m sorry, I’m sorry.”

“Hang on a second,” Boris Johnson sighed. On air, you could hear the desperate rustling of his briefing notes (probably a crumpled Waitrose receipt with “crikey” written on it) and him burbling for an answer.

Over and over again, on issues of racism, working-class inequality, educational opportunity, mental healthcare and housing, the Foreign Secretary failed to answer questions about the content of his own government’s Queen’s Speech, and how it fails to tackle “burning injustices” (in Theresa May’s words).

With each new question, he floundered more – to the extent that BBC Radio 4 PM’s presenter Eddie Mair snapped: “It’s not a Two Ronnies sketch; you can’t answer the question before last.”

But why read your soon-to-be predecessor’s Queen’s Speech when you’re busy planning your own, eh?

Your mole isn’t particularly surprised at this poor performance. Throughout the election campaign, Tory politicians – particularly cabinet secretaries – gave interview after interview riddled with gaffes.

These performances were somewhat overlooked by a political world set on humiliating shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, who has been struggling with ill health. Perhaps if commentators had less of an anti-Abbott agenda – and noticed the car crash performances the Tories were repeatedly giving and getting away with it – the election result would have been less of a surprise.

I'm a mole, innit.

0800 7318496