Economy

Rant

It’s the Jobs Stupid!

Posted 11 months ago|9 comments|411 views
Thousands Apply For Few Jobs
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
Unemployment went up again. This caused Obama's popularity to go down again.

Pretty simple equation right? If Obama can bring the jobless rate down, he will get re-elected. Obviously the Democrats are going to do everything they can to bring that number down.

The Republicans are overjoyed at the jobless rate, and are doing everything they can to slow down the economy. Their solution to reducing joblessness are just about opposite what the Democrats think needs to be done.

Who is right? What can really be done about joblessness?

The first thing we need to consider is where did all of the jobs go? Jobs and hiring are driven by three basic factors.

Number one is Globalization. It used to be true that what was good for GM was good for America. That is why Obama saved Detroit. Giving tax breaks to corporations provided incentives for those corporations to hire more Americans to work in those American factories.

That doesn't really work anymore because the corporations are international, and they take those tax breaks and move production overseas where they can hire workers at half the cost. If we give tax breaks they should only be given if the corporations provide American Jobs. Many of these factory jobs are never coming back.

To compensate for those lost jobs we need to provide more jobs in innovation, but to do that means a massive investment in research and development and education.

Number Two is productivity and efficiency. Today corporations are producing just as much as they created before the economic meltdown. The problem is this efficiency was created by buying robots and through automation. They are creating just as much now with 7 million fewer workers. The corporations will not sell their robots so many of those jobs will not be coming back. When people lost their jobs they were getting $45 per hr. now only service jobs are available at $12 per hour.

The third factor is consumer confidence and demand. If people have jobs, and think they can keep them, if they are confident the economy is improving, they will go out and buy stuff. If consumers buy stuff, factories will expand to meet that demand. Today's economy is demand driven. Supply side economics no longer works. The corporations don't need more tax breaks. Already 2/3rds of the corporations pay no taxes at all. The corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash reserves. Corporations are making record profits, but they won't hire more workers until the demand improves.

The economy is demand driven. To get the economy going we need to get money to the people so they can spend more. We need to build up their confidence.

The Republicans are doing the opposite. Their austerity programs take money away from the people and loose jobs. They are threatening not to extend the debt ceiling unless they get their way and kill Medicare and instate even more radical austerity measures which will slow down the economy further and reduce consumer confidence more. The threat to default on our debt for the first time in history is freaking out the financial markets.

Most of our economy is driven by housing. Today housing is at record lows. There are a record number of foreclosures on the market. There are a record number of vacancies so no one wants to buy a new house so builders are out of work. Those that supply the builders are hurting. Everything snowballs.

On the housing front, the banks are not doing their jobs. They are making it difficult for homeowners to hang onto their homes by making refinancing harder. They are not lending to new start up corporations. Obama has moved to punish the banks for not helping consumers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09...

Consumer confidence is at record lows. There are about 20 million people out of work. These people are not buying stuff, so none of the factories want to expand. There is no demand. http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/20...

The jobless rates for women, blacks and other minorities, and the young, are often double what the national average is. These people who have been out of work for more than six months are becoming chronically unemployed. No one wants to hire them because their job skills are deteriorating. The free market conservatives have no solutions for the chronically unemployed, The markets have written them off, and the last of the extended unemployment benefits will be gone in December.

If there is nothing business will do for the 20 million out of work, that leaves the government. Our infrastructure is still crumbling and fixing that would create millions of jobs, but those workers hired would be the experienced ones. What can we do with the ones lacking in experience or job skills?

It is time to reinstate the WPA or CCC. We could expand the Job Corps program which would educate and give the unemployed job skills and experience. http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Bring-Back-...

If the economy is demand driven how will austerity measures effect the economy? We have already had a taste of that. The state governments have been taken over by Republicans and they have pushed budget cuts and austerity programs. Teachers and other government workers have been fired. The result is the economy slowed, confidence went down the tubes, the stock market stalled, and the unemployment went up.

The exact opposite needs to be done. We need more stimulus not austerity. But how do you pay for it?

What Europe is considering is a financial speculation tax which would discourage the short-term speculative activities that dominate and distort financial markets, and caused the economic meltdown. This is one of the "Good Taxes" which doesn't slow down the economy because it only discourages bad behavior. A simple transaction tax of 0.2% would raise billions of dollars and would force speculators to put some "Skin in the Game". England's Gordon Brown has asked us to instate a speculative transaction tax. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced plans to launch a "coalition of pioneers" with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and others at the November G-20 leaders meeting. Obama should join them because it will be much more effective if many countries have the same tax. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06...

So what about the deficit? Won't additional spending increase our already worrisome debt? Not if the stimulus creates jobs. With more people working there will be less dependant on government programs, and there will be more paying taxes. If the economy speeds up the deficit shrinks. If the economy stalls the deficit grows. So it makes sense to invest in stimulating the economy. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
11 months ago: Ah, Al? Wouldn't one way to get the people more money to spend be just to let them keep more of their own money? John Kennedy, good Republican that he was, believed to his dying day that the way to increase revenue was to cut taxes. Cut back on the amount of the economy siphoned off by government and people have more money to spend.

But I suspect that your way of giving people more to spend would be to GIVE them money to spend - OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. The wealthiest 5% are paying 45% of the taxes now. The only sense in which they are "not paying their fair share" is that they are paying VASTLY MORE than their "fair share". Meanwhile some 50% or so are paying no taxes at all. How is THAT fair?

Are you paying your "fair share" now? If YOU were part of that 5%, would YOU figure you weren't paying enough? Do you take any deductions on your income tax? If so, why? Are you unwilling to pay your "fair share"? If it is acceptable for you to utilize existing deductions to offset part of your income tax load, how could it be wrong for someone else to do so?

Do you covet what others have so much that you would sanction The State confiscating others' wealth? Do you harbor animus towards those better off than yourself? If not, then why do you want them to pay more than they already do?

You really should look up John Fitzgerald Kennedy's views on how government can increase revenues. He had an interesting take on how to balance a budget, too.

Bad Cyborg X%er
Bury your head in the sand if you wish. It only makes your a** a better target.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: You may be able to raise revenue by cutting taxes of the poor because they spend that money and it grows the economy. Giving tax cuts to the rich has the opposite effect. They don't spend it here, and that money is taken out of circulation.

Yes half of the American people already pay no income taxes thanks to Obama's tax cuts. But they do pay payroll taxes. Those could be lowered.

In other posts I proposed a transaction tax, that would be paid by all every time money was transferred. I wouldn't mind paying .2% on what I spend. Would you? That small amount wouldn't discourage any transactions or slow down the economy at all, but it would create almost as much money as the income taxes, so then income taxes could be lowered.
All civilizations needs revenue to run, why not make it as painless as possible?

It is obvious that we can't pay down the debt without tax increases. Who else should pay but those who have the money.

When the Republicans give more tax breaks to the already obscenely rich, they make back door tax increases on the poor by cutting services that they need to survive, by choking the budgets of States and Local governments those governments have to raise all kinds of local taxes, fees, and cut back on services. Libraries, schools, swimming pools close, people are laid off. Building fees go up. The economy slows down.

I think the rich who are swimming in money should support the nation that allowed them to get richer than god by giving some of that back instead of socking it away in the Cayman islands where it doesn't do anybody any good.

During every other war we had the top tax rate for the rich was 90% to help with the war effort and to prevent war profiteering. Now the super rich are only paying 16.7%. No I don't think they are paying their fair share. Their fair share historically would average about 60%.
11 months ago: What separates Americans from their precious jobs is education. Many of the jobs becoming available require some form of specialization and the vast majority of unemployed are under qualified to fill these new positions.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: You are correct. That is why it is so important for the unemployed to use this time to further their education, except with all of the austerity measures it is getting so only the rich can afford education.

That is why the time is ripe for a vast expansion of Job Corps,or a new CCC or WPA to educate the unemployable and to give them a job instead of just handouts. They need a boost to their self esteem and dignity as well as enough to survive on.
11 months ago: I'm all for empowerment through education unfortunately what the rich republican elite want is slaves and their voice the lazy working class bigots that blame minorities and non white immigrants for their lack of skills are making sure they get them by not taking the least bit of initiative. I've know people that turned their situation around in a very short amount of time. I was one of them. I don't have sympathy for the lazy or uninspired.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: I agree that people need to take control of their own lives and be willing to work and improve themselves.

But the manufacturing jobs of the past are not coming back, and the Free Market System has abandoned all but the most qualified, leaving tens of millions of people with no chance of employment.

We need to develop new and innovative economic and employment sollutions.

Germany solved much of their unemployment problems by reducing hours and going to job sharing. In some fields in the US like medicine people work 80-100 hr. a week. Why not hire two or three people to do that work? They will not be as exhausted and will do better and safer work with less mistakes.

To solve the problem of the chronically unemployed with no job skills, We need to reinstate an apprenticeship program and perhaps have three people doing one job. A master that is an expert at that task. A Journeyman that has some experience and education, and an apprentice that has no experience or education. Those that are learning would work less hours and would expand their education at the same time, while the master could be training two or three other teams at the same time.

11 months ago: That would be great if business would be willing to hire more employee's but that would mean more expenses in the form of healthcare and other non salary benefits. It is sometimes cheaper for an American company to pay the overtime than hire more workers. But unions prevent this from happening. An example of this is Wal-mart. It hires plenty of employee's and gives them mostly part time hours to ensure the work is spread around and that they can keep healthcare and other employee associated cost down and instead of the community being happy the stupid unions start complaining about unfair business practices. The only way you can keep cost's down is if businesses were allowed to pay less of the non salary employee related expenses but that is not going to happen. Is it?
11 months ago: Healthcare costs could also be kept down if more emphasis was spent on preventative medicine and if the weight of the cost of healthcare was levied on the source of the problem. The biggest killers in America are lifestyle related and it is in this area where health insurance is spending the most money. Why should an insurance company have to pay for a persons heart attack when it was brought on by unhealthy behavior. If you notice flood insurance in flood zones either don't exist or are really expensive. Why is that? It is to help pay the cost. Likewise Insurance companies should charge more to people who live unhealthy and the government should help by levying heavier taxes on companies that sell dangerous products. Costumers should also pay more and there should be an age restriction.
11 months ago: The result would be healthier Americans and more jobs. What could be wrong with that? Oh yeah, the rich could not make a profit at the expense of death and disease, too bad huh?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.