NationStates Jolt Archive

The USA economy has officially been in a recession since December, 2007, it has lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 6 months, and Obama has been president since 1/20/09, about 3 weeks.

As there is a great debate on the stimulus package and what should be done, I wondered what some of your ideas were?

Do you think more tax cuts for the rich and corporations will replace these jobs based on a "trickle down" theory at this point?

Do you think the government needs to create jobs? What kind?

Do you think a combination approach is needed? What?

What about overseas jobs--more or less? What about jobs across all sectors of the economy that have been lost, not just banking, finance, etc? (For the scope and extent of the problem, see posts below).

job loss: Worst in 34 years - Feb. 6, 2009.
money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Employment Situation SummaryU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics ... In January, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors. ....
www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm - 49k

SEE POST 75 AS TO WHAT WAS CUT FROM STIMULUS PLAN TODAY 2/7/09

Cut government spending, cut the military budget, end the Iraq war, end the Afghanistan war, cut taxes, eliminate corporate subsidies, cancel Medicare, cancel Social Security, abolish patent and copyright laws, and abolish minimum wage. In short, minimize government spendings and minimize government interventions.

If Obama manages to accomplish these things, the adjustment period will be painful but mercifully short. Unemployment will temporarily soar as the malinvestments of the preceding illusory boom are liquidated, and just as quickly plummet as resources quickly adjust to more productive uses. Years from now people will be talking about the American economic miracle of Barack Obama.

If Obama manages to go through with a second New Deal, just like Hoover's and FDR's interventions, the fiscal stimulus packages will delay recovery, cause chronic unemployment, and exacerbate the economic crisis. In this scenario the recession will turn into a second great depression.

You're missing the point. Why does losing their job harm people? It's because there is only a finite amount of work to be done, and people cannot otherwise earn a living. That is what we should be addressing.

In fact, the way to restore 2.5 million jobs is to take the existing jobs we have and subdivide them into shorter working hours, thereby giving the people who do have jobs a break, because if we're still making enough to support the people in our society despite having 2.5 million people sitting around not working, then we don't need to make more work for people to do.

Cut government spending, cut the military budget, end the Iraq war, end the Afghanistan war, cut taxes, eliminate corporate subsidies, cancel Medicare, cancel Social Security, abolish patent and copyright laws, and abolish minimum wage. In short, minimize government spendings and minimize government interventions.

If Obama manages to accomplish these things, the adjustment period will be painful but mercifully short. Unemployment will temporarily soar as the malinvestments of the preceding illusory boom are liquidated, and just as quickly plummet as resources quickly adjust to more productive uses. Years from now people will be talking about the American economic miracle of Barack Obama.

If Obama manages to go through with a second New Deal, just like Hoover's and FDR's interventions, the fiscal stimulus packages will delay recovery, cause chronic unemployment, and exacerbate the economic crisis. In this scenario the recession will turn into a second great depression.
I'm with you on the military budget and ending the Iraq war, but I don't think the republicans will go for that. Not sure about the Afghanistan "war"--not sure there is one. Cutting taxes always sounds good, but for who? Am with you on eliminating corporate subsidies, but isn't the argument that they will leave the country and invest elsehwere (like they have taken jobs to India and China and Korea)?

Canceling medicare, social security and minimum wage seems rather cruel -- how would the poor, children, elderly who cannot work and disabled people get medical care and how would they pay for their shelter and food?

Minimize government spending you said twice, and I'm all for unnecessary government spending, but we do need a president, senate, congress, courts (state and federal), buses, subways, police, fire, garbage, teachers and so on, and they too have to pay rent and buy food for their families. Not sure what you mean about "government interventions."

You're missing the point. Why does losing their job harm people? It's because there is only a finite amount of work to be done, and people cannot otherwise earn a living. That is what we should be addressing.

In fact, the way to restore 2.5 million jobs is to take the existing jobs we have and subdivide them into shorter working hours, thereby giving the people who do have jobs a break, because if we're still making enough to support the people in our society despite having 2.5 million people sitting around not working, then we don't need to make more work for people to do.
So your idea is to have fewer jobs and have people work fewer hours so they can job-share the jobs that do exist?

It's because there is only a finite amount of work to be done, and people cannot otherwise earn a living.

That's completely wrong. There's an infinite amount of work to be done, because we live in a world of scarcity. Even if it's growing vegetables in your backyard to provide food, there's never a lack of work to do in this world.


That is what we should be addressing.
Government and central planning won't be able to address the problem. Central planners are incapable of efficiently allocating resources, capital, and labor. What we'll see is many new roads and bridges will be built, but few people ever drives on them. Many schools will be built, many philosophy PhDs will be trained, but students won't be able to find any jobs and are mis-educated for the actual work that needs to be done. Resources will be misallocated, and no productive and useful work will be done. Government stimulus packages solve nothing, and only create long term chronically high unemployment due to the misallocation of resources. The New Deal-type economy is unsustainable.

Cut government spending, cut the military budget, end the Iraq war, end the Afghanistan war, cut taxes, eliminate corporate subsidies, cancel Medicare, cancel Social Security, abolish patent and copyright laws, and abolish minimum wage. In short, minimize government spendings and minimize government interventions.

If Obama manages to accomplish these things, the adjustment period will be painful but mercifully short. Unemployment will temporarily soar as the malinvestments of the preceding illusory boom are liquidated, and just as quickly plummet as resources quickly adjust to more productive uses. Years from now people will be talking about the American economic miracle of Barack Obama.

If Obama manages to go through with a second New Deal, just like Hoover's and FDR's interventions, the fiscal stimulus packages will delay recovery, cause chronic unemployment, and exacerbate the economic crisis. In this scenario the recession will turn into a second great depression.

I've been trying to decide if you're serious or not. This post puts you pretty handily in the Not column.

That's completely wrong. There's an infinite amount of work to be done, because we live in a world of scarcity. Even if it's growing vegetables in your backyard to provide food, there's never a lack of work to do in this world.



Government and central planning won't be able to address the problem. Central planners are incapable of efficiently allocating resources, capital, and labor. What we'll see is many new roads and bridges will be built, but few people ever drives on them. Many schools will be built, many philosophy PhDs will be trained, but students won't be able to find any jobs and are mis-educated for the actual work that needs to be done. Resources will be misallocated, and no productive and useful work will be done. Government stimulus packages solve nothing, and only create long term chronically high unemployment due to the misallocation of resources. The New Deal-type economy is unsustainable.
I wish I had a backyard to save money on food, but I live in an apartment in a building in the city. I am happy to work, but I need to be paid for it so I can buy food. You should visit NYC at rush hour and take a look at its bridges, tunnels and roads, as you might change your mind about whether people drive on them. We currently have alot of students who cannot afford to go to school and, even if they can afford it through loans or whatever, there are no jobs out there that will enable them to repay their loans and live. I am not sure who you think is misallocating the resources or how you propose to remedy that sitatuion.

I'm with you on the military budget and ending the Iraq war, but I don't think the republicans will go for that.
Frankly I don't think either the Democrats nor Republicans would go for any of my suggestions.

Not sure about the Afghanistan "war"--not sure there is one. Cutting taxes always sounds good, but for who? Am with you on eliminating corporate subsidies, but isn't the argument that they will leave the country and invest elsehwere (like they have taken jobs to India and China and Korea)?
That's completely fallacious. Corporate subsidies are just free money given to companies, without causing them to invest any more than they would have, hire any more people than they would have, or produce any additional useful products.

In reality, corporations will find it most advantageous to invest in the US, if the US has low taxes and no minimum wage.

Canceling medicare, social security and minimum wage seems rather cruel -- how would the poor, children, elderly who cannot work and disabled people get medical care and how would they pay for their shelter and food?
Traditional social insurance networks like families and extended families have been mauled by government interventions and social security. By eliminating the nanny state, traditional social insurance will quickly reassert itself out of necessity. Furthermore health costs can be brought down by reforms of the healthcare system: abolishing patent laws that keep drug costs high, abolishing government laws that allow the pharmaceutical cartel to fix prices, abolishing government laws that perpetuate the medical doctor cartel, allowing more doctors to practice, and allowing non-physicians to prescribe medications.

Minimize government spending you said twice, and I'm all for unnecessary government spending, but we do need a president, senate, congress, courts (state and federal), buses, subways, police, fire, garbage, teachers and so on, and they too have to pay rent and buy food for their families. Not sure what you mean about "government interventions."

Many of those things you mention can be privatized for increased quality and decreased costs.

I've been trying to decide if you're serious or not. This post puts you pretty handily in the Not column.I don't think s/he is serious, either. I don't know enough to give the solution to replacing the jobs, but I know that making even more people jobless (Hello, the government employs people.) is counterproductive to...the actual, you know, problem.

I wish I had a backyard to save money on food, but I live in an apartment in a building in the city. I am happy to work, but I need to be paid for it so I can buy food.
Since you have a job, I don't see what the problem is. Those who don't have a job, and are stuck in the city, can adjust, perhaps by moving into the countryside to find work on a farm.

You should visit NYC at rush hour and take a look at its bridges, tunnels and roads, as you might change your mind about whether people drive on them.

Only a tiny fraction of the funds will be involved in fixing NYC's roads. Most of the money will be going to sprucing up existing large stretches of underutilized roads, or building new ones, even though car traffic and rail traffic is plummeting. To build more roads and spend money on roads when traffic is decreasing is completely counterproductive.

We currently have alot of students who cannot afford to go to school and, even if they can afford it through loans or whatever, there are no jobs out there that will enable them to repay their loans and live. I am not sure who you think is misallocating the resources or how you propose to remedy that sitatuion.

There are simply too many people with college degrees. A lot of resources have been misallocated in the past decades to giving expensive college degrees to people even though there are no well-paying jobs in those fields. The root cause of this particular problem (the same as the root cause of the broader economic crisis) is excessive credit-extending policies undertaken by the central bank. Obama must allow a natural deflationary adjustment of the economy to occur to wash out all the fiscal and monetary garbage that accumulated over the past few decades due to government interventions and manipulations.

I don't think s/he is serious, either. I don't know enough to give the solution to replacing the jobs, but I know that making even more people jobless (Hello, the government employs people.) is counterproductive to...the actual, you know, problem.
I think you are both right. I think the same is true with respect to the other poster who recommended job sharing and growing food in your backyard. I guess he is lucky to have a backyard to grow food and dry laundry!

Since you have a job, I don't see what the problem is. Those who don't have a job, and are stuck in the city, can adjust, perhaps by moving into the countryside to find work on a farm.



Only a tiny fraction of the funds will be involved in fixing NYC's roads. Most of the money will be going to sprucing up existing large stretches of underutilized roads, or building new ones, even though car traffic and rail traffic is plummeting. To build more roads and spend money on roads when traffic is decreasing is completely counterproductive.



There are simply too many people with college degrees. A lot of resources have been misallocated in the past decades to giving expensive college degrees to people even though there are no well-paying jobs in those fields. The root cause of this particular problem (the same as the root cause of the broader economic crisis) is excessive credit-extending policies undertaken by the central bank. Obama must allow a natural deflationary adjustment of the economy to occur to wash out all the fiscal and monetary garbage that accumulated over the past few decades due to government interventions and manipulations.
So what jobs do you recommend to replace the more than 2.5 million lost?

Why not just fiddle the employment figures?

So what jobs do you recommend to replace the more than 2.5 million lost?

I don't know, since I'm not a Soviet economic planner, and Obama shouldn't try to be one either. If you eliminate government interventions on the free market, the free market will most efficiently allocate resources to produce the jobs that are actually in demand and capable of producing useful goods and services. I have a hunch that farming and manufacturing jobs will increase in the US after the free market is "freed" and allowed to function.

We currently have alot of students who cannot afford to go to school and, even if they can afford it through loans or whatever, there are no jobs out there that will enable them to repay their loans and live. I am not sure who you think is misallocating the resources or how you propose to remedy that sitatuion.


For those students saddled with student debt, they can restructure their debt and enter bankruptcy. They may have to find a job in a field they didn't study for. That's not the end of the world. There are plenty of Soviet-era nuclear engineers driving taxi cabs. All these examples of mis-educated people victimized by government economic planners giving out educations that don't match the jobs that are actually in demand, and not allowing the free market to produce these jobs.

I don't know, since I'm not a Soviet economic planner, and Obama shouldn't try to be one either. If you eliminate government interventions on the free market, the free market will most efficiently allocate resources to produce the jobs that are actually in demand and capable of producing useful goods and services. I have a hunch that farming and manufacturing jobs will increase in the US after the free market is "freed" and allowed to function.

Currently only 3% of Americans farm, and produce vastly more food than we can use. Many of those farmers stay afloat only via government subsidies.

You fail.

Why not just fiddle the employment figures?
I don't thiink the Labor Department fiddled, but I was incorrect in the total amount of jobs lost in the header to this post because it does not account for the additional 500,000 jobs lost since December, 2007, for a grand total of 3 million jobs lost.

Now what kind of jobs do you recommend replacing 3 million jobs with? Don't you want USA to be productive in any way?

I would release 10 quadrillion hamsters and people would have to be hired to catch them all. *nod*

For those students saddled with student debt, they can restructure their debt and enter bankruptcy. They may have to find a job in a field they didn't study for. That's not the end of the world. There are plenty of Soviet-era nuclear engineers driving taxi cabs. All these examples of mis-educated people victimized by government economic planners giving out educations that don't match the jobs that are actually in demand, and not allowing the free market to produce these jobs.
Well, assuming the students all declare bankruptcy as you suggest, what do you think about the idea of them entering new fields relating to energy production and reducing dependency on oil? How about new fields relating to infrastructure or science technology? All of those fields might need mathmeticians, accountants, marketers, lawyers, technicians, as well as welders, steel makers and so on.

How would you employ people, more than 3 million?

I don't thiink the Labor Department fiddled, but I was incorrect in the total amount of jobs lost in the header to this post because it does not account for the additional 500,000 jobs lost since December, 2007, for a grand total of 3 million jobs lost.

Now what kind of jobs do you recommend replacing 3 million jobs with? Don't you want USA to be productive in any way?

He wants the US to descend to an Amish agrarian society wherein the government is a far off and ineffectual entity. So still 3 million jobless, they'll just subsistence farm.

He wants the US to descend to an Amish agrarian society wherein the government is a far off and ineffectual entity. So still 3 million jobless, they'll just subsistence farm.

Cool! I just got an Aerogarden for Christmas! :)

Are we talking about America restoring optimum employment levels or any nation? Because if it's America, that's easy. Put all the unemployed 18-40 year olds into the Army and invade Mexico or Canada or both.
Then use the conscripts to assist in the national reconstruction of those countries. Then call yourselves the United States of North America and prepare for invading Central and South America. And then you can simply call yourself "America"

Otherwise, and more peacefully, your country could make carbon trading anart form and pay everyone to plant trees, put solar collectors on every roof, develop green tachnologies etc. Then find a way to get the Asian countries to pay for that stuff too.
Mind you, you would have to find a way for that to work economically but the planet would thank you.

The USA economy has officially been in a recession since December, 2007, it has lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 6 months, and Obama has been president since 1/20/09, about 3 weeks.

As there is a great debate on the stimulus package and what should be done, I wondered what some of your ideas were?

Do you think more tax cuts for the rich and corporations will replace these jobs based on a "trickle down" theory at this point?

Do you think the government needs to create jobs? What kind?

Do you think a combination approach is needed? What?

What about overseas jobs--more or less? What about jobs across all sectors of the economy that have been lost, not just banking, finance, etc? (For the scope and extent of the problem, see posts below).

job loss: Worst in 34 years - Feb. 6, 2009.
money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Employment Situation SummaryU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics ... In January, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors. ....
www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm - 49k

Are we being realistic?

Or can I push through anything?

If I can push through anything - we have 10 million Public Works employees added to the books, next week.

Are we being realistic?

Or can I push through anything?

If I can push through anything - we have 10 million Public Works employees added to the books, next week.
If you mean 10 million federal, state and city workers across the nation losing their jobs, I would not be surprised, but I am surprised to hear there are 10 million Public Works employees in the USA.

10 million more jobs lost means a depression and there is not enough land for us all to go farming. . . .

Since you have a job, I don't see what the problem is. Those who don't have a job, and are stuck in the city, can adjust, perhaps by moving into the countryside to find work on a farm.



Only a tiny fraction of the funds will be involved in fixing NYC's roads. Most of the money will be going to sprucing up existing large stretches of underutilized roads, or building new ones, even though car traffic and rail traffic is plummeting. To build more roads and spend money on roads when traffic is decreasing is completely counterproductive.



There are simply too many people with college degrees. A lot of resources have been misallocated in the past decades to giving expensive college degrees to people even though there are no well-paying jobs in those fields. The root cause of this particular problem (the same as the root cause of the broader economic crisis) is excessive credit-extending policies undertaken by the central bank. Obama must allow a natural deflationary adjustment of the economy to occur to wash out all the fiscal and monetary garbage that accumulated over the past few decades due to government interventions and manipulations.
I don't think you are interested really in answering the questions posed in this thread--your discussion seems more appropriate for your own thread on the infrastructure which, I gather, you are not in favor of shoring up. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could answer the post here, which is seeking ideas on how to employ 3 million americans, 2.5 million of whom have lost their jobs in the last 6 months.

If you mean 10 million federal, state and city workers across the nation losing their jobs, I would not be surprised, but I am surprised to hear there are 10 million Public Works employees in the USA.

10 million more jobs lost means a depression and there is not enough land for us all to go farming. . . .

No, no - I mean I would put 10 million people (I'm giving or taking a little here - the January figures were about 11.6 million, I believe, but I'm assuming there MUST be a million in that figure that CAN'T be doing public works next week) to work on Public Works projects.

From fixing roads to rebuilding bridges to watering flowers.

I can't see this not reaching Depression stage, I'd argue we're already in it (and given I was arguing Recession before the 2004 elections, I might unfortunately see it come to pass). There's not much possibility that the unemployment isn't going to spiral, at this stage... not without some action so drastic we won't likely see it happen.

I don't think you are interested really in answering the questions posed in this thread--your discussion seems more appropriate for your own thread on the infrastructure which, I gather, you are not in favor of shoring up. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could answer the post here, which is seeking ideas on how to employ 3 million americans, 2.5 million of whom have lost their jobs in the last 6 months.

I already answered your question in a posting on the previous page:

I don't know, since I'm not a Soviet economic planner, and Obama shouldn't try to be one either. If you eliminate government interventions on the free market, the free market will most efficiently allocate resources to produce the jobs that are actually in demand and capable of producing useful goods and services. I have a hunch that farming and manufacturing jobs will increase in the US after the free market is "freed" and allowed to function.

Well, assuming the students all declare bankruptcy as you suggest, what do you think about the idea of them entering new fields relating to energy production and reducing dependency on oil? How about new fields relating to infrastructure or science technology? All of those fields might need mathmeticians, accountants, marketers, lawyers, technicians, as well as welders, steel makers and so on.

How would you employ people, more than 3 million?

Sure, they can enter those fields if there are jobs in those fields.

No, no - I mean I would put 10 million people (I'm giving or taking a little here - the January figures were about 11.6 million, I believe, but I'm assuming there MUST be a million in that figure that CAN'T be doing public works next week) to work on Public Works projects.

From fixing roads to rebuilding bridges to watering flowers.

I can't see this not reaching Depression stage, I'd argue we're already in it (and given I was arguing Recession before the 2004 elections, I might unfortunately see it come to pass). There's not much possibility that the unemployment isn't going to spiral, at this stage... not without some action so drastic we won't likely see it happen.
Oh, I misunderstood. I think that is part of the plan regarding creating jobs for the infrastructure--getting people to work on public works projects--we shall have to see because they are reporting tonight that the stimulus is 2/3 jobs and 1/3 tax breaks.

I am not an economist, but it seems that putting people back to work would be the quickest way to get them to spend money, now we still need the banks to loan money again.

We will have to see what the plan looks like, but if people are working in the steel or automaking businesses, it seems they might be able to segue into jobs rebuilding bridges, working on run down plants and working in alternative energy and transportation areas, as well as in other construction areas (no more housing construction though--we have a glut).

Perhaps the trick is to figure out how to re-utilize or adapt the talents of the 3 million who no longer have jobs. I also know we have lost way too many manufacturing jobs over the last XX years and I think some of those jobs have to be restored/recreated in an alternative way? Somehow too, we need to get jobs back from abroad I think. . . . without being too protectionist.

I hope someone is thinking of how to do this besides me!

The USA economy has officially been in a recession since December, 2007, it has lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 6 months, and Obama has been president since 1/20/09, about 3 weeks.

As there is a great debate on the stimulus package and what should be done, I wondered what some of your ideas were?

Do you think more tax cuts for the rich and corporations will replace these jobs based on a "trickle down" theory at this point?
No, because it did not do that the first time around. "Trickle down" is a bullshit ideological slogan.

Do you think the government needs to create jobs? What kind?
Yes. I think the government should be initiating infrastructure repair and improvement projects, and also launching programs to expand activity in new technology development, and green industry/building conversion programs. For starters. There are lots of things the government should be doing that, if they started doing them now, would generate jobs over the next few years.

Do you think a combination approach is needed? What?
I do not know what the mix should ideally be, but right now, I think the bulk of stimulus must be, you know, stimulus. That means spending.

What about overseas jobs--more or less? What about jobs across all sectors of the economy that have been lost, not just banking, finance, etc? (For the scope and extent of the problem, see posts below).
What about them?

Why not just fiddle the employment figures?
Oh, they'll get around to it.

Oh, I misunderstood. I think that is part of the plan regarding creating jobs for the infrastructure--getting people to work on public works projects--we shall have to see because they are reporting tonight that the stimulus is 2/3 jobs and 1/3 tax breaks.

I am not an economist, but it seems that putting people back to work would be the quickest way to get them to spend money, now we still need the banks to loan money again.

We will have to see what the plan looks like, but if people are working in the steel or automaking businesses, it seems they might be able to segue into jobs rebuilding bridges, working on run down plants and working in alternative energy and transportation areas, as well as in other construction areas (no more housing construction though--we have a glut).

Perhaps the trick is to figure out how to re-utilize or adapt the talents of the 3 million who no longer have jobs. I also know we have lost way too many manufacturing jobs over the last XX years and I think some of those jobs have to be restored/recreated in an alternative way? Somehow too, we need to get jobs back from abroad I think. . . . without being too protectionist.

I hope someone is thinking of how to do this besides me!
What is it you are asking about?

Do you want to restore jobs that have been lost since the economy crashed? There are jobs that will come back as the economy is stimulated/rebounds. They are in any field that cannot be off-shored.

Do you want to bring back jobs that were lost to off-shoring? I do not think that can be done, unless you either (a) offer tax benefits to companies hiring within the US and tax penalties to companies that move work overseas, or (b) nationalize industries.

Do you want to replace off-shored jobs with new kinds of jobs? That is something I would be very excited about seeing happen. There are plenty of industries in which the US could take the lead in developing new directions due to the fact that the old ways of doing things are quickly becoming obsolete and/or unsustainable. They include energy technology, security technology, public transportation technology, environmentally friendly construction, environmental management and waste management/resource recycling, paper manufacturing -- those are the major areas I can think of off the top of my head. All of them are hard goods/technology/manufacturing type industries. All would add value to the economy. All could be jumpstarted by government works programs and small business support programs.

All these examples of mis-educated people victimized by government economic planners giving out educations that don't match the jobs that are actually in demand, and not allowing the free market to produce these jobs.lolwut? :rolleyes:
I was unaware that the government could dictate what I could and could not take, within reason.

Originally Posted by Trilateral Commission
All these examples of mis-educated people victimized by government economic planners giving out educations that don't match the jobs that are actually in demand, and not allowing the free market to produce these jobs.
lolwut? :rolleyes:
I was unaware that the government could dictate what I could and could not take, within reason.
It's very simple. I'll explain: You probably did not notice this if you happened to be high when the memo came around, but every year, the Commerce Department assigns every American child to a "track" that determines what they will learn in school. You may think you are studying chemistry, but if you were tracked into automotive mechanical arts, then that is what you are learning, and they just call it "chemistry" to keep the masses from rising up. Typically of non-Austrians, the Commerce Department victimizes us by mis-educating us into tracks that do not match the jobs that...um...somebody requires. But they adjust for that by preventing the free market (which I guess is not all that free, then, but anyway) from actually creating the jobs that are in demand. That way, society is burdened with a whole shitload of jobs that are not in demand but for which there is a high demand becuase they are the only jobs we've got thanks to the nefarious meddling of the government. Somehow the not-in-demand jobs that the free market is forced to create just happen to match whatever we were mis-educated to do. I'm not sure how that worked out. Probably a clerical oversight.

lolwut? :rolleyes:
I was unaware that the government could dictate what I could and could not take, within reason.

The government can easily distort the educational demographic by manipulating interest rates and making excessive college education loans available to students, which otherwise would not have been available had not the government intervened in the credit market to force down interest rates (the same process of government intervention in the credit market resulted in the overproduction of houses and the famous "real estate" bubble). Just as we have a glut of high rise condominiums in Miami Beach, what we have in the US (and other parts of the world where government intervention exists) is an entire generation of mis-educated students whose future work will not be related to their field of study. Furthermore they are now saddled with student loans that they'll have difficulty paying back.

My version makes more sense.

It's very simple. I'll explain: You probably did not notice this if you happened to be high when the memo came around, but every year, the Commerce Department assigns every American child to a "track" that determines what they will learn in school. You may think you are studying chemistry, but if you were tracked into automotive mechanical arts, then that is what you are learning, and they just call it "chemistry" to keep the masses from rising up. Typically of non-Austrians, the Commerce Department victimizes us by mis-educating us into tracks that do not match the jobs that...um...somebody requires. But they adjust for that by preventing the free market (which I guess is not all that free, then, but anyway) from actually creating the jobs that are in demand. That way, society is burdened with a whole shitload of jobs that are not in demand but for which there is a high demand becuase they are the only jobs we've got thanks to the nefarious meddling of the government. Somehow the not-in-demand jobs that the free market is forced to create just happen to match whatever we were mis-educated to do. I'm not sure how that worked out. Probably a clerical oversight.This "free market" sounds like a...bad idea. Who on earth would want such a piece of junk?

The government can easily distort the educational demographic by manipulating interest rates and making excessive college education loans available to students, which otherwise would not have been available had not the government intervened in the credit market to force down interest rates (the same process of government intervention in the credit market resulted in the overproduction of houses and the famous "real estate" bubble). Just as we have a glut of high rise condominiums in Miami Beach, what we have in the US (and other parts of the world where government intervention exists) is an entire generation of mis-educated students whose future work will not be related to their field of study. Furthermore they are now saddled with student loans that they'll have difficulty paying back.I'm guessing you're one of the people who got a degree in a field that's no longer in use?

My version makes more sense.Yes, it does.

I know how to not restore 2.5 million jobs: keep letting the Republicans dictate how the bill should be tailored from the back seat.

I know how to not restore 2.5 million jobs: keep letting the Republicans dictate how the bill should be tailored from the back seat.
+1 with an Amen! At what point can we just stop being polite to them?

Technically the US government is obliged to provide unskilled work to anyone who doesn't have a job.

They don't, of course, but they are supposed to.

Interestingly - or frighteningly, depending on how you look at it - the actual unemployment number is much higher than is reported. About 15%. And really 3.6 million jobs were lost last year.

I guess if I was in the hot seat, I'd nationalize the entire financial industry to stabilize it, then I'd use the revenue from there (because now they are all GS level employees) to offset all the bankruptcies which would happen under my new liberal bankruptcy regime.

Then I'd nationalize the healthcare system, which would free up about 5-6% of GDP to play with (there is going to be rationing, especially for people in the last years of their life, get over it) but everyone gets a basic level of care.

Then I'd be able to provide basic employment at some level above the poverty line - maybe around 200% - for anyone who needed it.

I'd forget the 'stimulus' plan and balance the budget.

It's all a bit socialist, and the standard of living is going to take a big ding, but until the debt excesses are worked off, I don't see much in the way of alternative. The whole idea of getting 'back on track' or winding the clock back to 2004 is completely unrealistic. The past twenty years, at least, have been based upon accumulation of debt and the government has pursued a policy of not allowing a normal economic cycle which would ordinarily correct these sorts of things.

And at least my way, nobody is going to starve, and there won't be much of a homeless problem.

But the country also needs to be honest with itself about structural unemployment. Productivity gains over the past fifty years have meant that there just isn't the need for the entire labor force to be deployed to meet our needs.

It's a big problem. Not everyone can have a good job, no matter how keen they are, or how hard they are prepared to work. There just isn't the need.

There needs to be a national debate about the shape of society in the future. Maybe most of us will end up being government supported artists or something (I'd prefer not). But the idea that we are all going to spend until our early twenties in education then the next forty all working in some middle class job then retire at sixtyish is wholly unrealistic, and the political classes should stop pretending it isn't.

I'd suggest much shorter working weeks. That's never a popular idea though because the anglo-sphere is so imbued with the stupid protestant work ethic.

Hire 2 million people to dig holes.
Hire another 2 million to fill them back in.

4 million new jobs. Problem solved!

:D

Canceling medicare, social security and minimum wage seems rather cruel -- how would the poor, children, elderly who cannot work and disabled people get medical care and how would they pay for their shelter and food?
They don't, they'll die and thus save the country even more money.

You have to understand how these Social Darwinists think. They don't have a slight bit of empathy.

Technically the US government is obliged to provide unskilled work to anyone who doesn't have a job.

They don't, of course, but they are supposed to.

Interestingly - or frighteningly, depending on how you look at it - the actual unemployment number is much higher than is reported. About 15%. And really 3.6 million jobs were lost last year.

I guess if I was in the hot seat, I'd nationalize the entire financial industry to stabilize it, then I'd use the revenue from there (because now they are all GS level employees) to offset all the bankruptcies which would happen under my new liberal bankruptcy regime.

Then I'd nationalize the healthcare system, which would free up about 5-6% of GDP to play with (there is going to be rationing, especially for people in the last years of their life, get over it) but everyone gets a basic level of care.

Then I'd be able to provide basic employment at some level above the poverty line - maybe around 200% - for anyone who needed it.

I'd forget the 'stimulus' plan and balance the budget.

It's all a bit socialist, and the standard of living is going to take a big ding, but until the debt excesses are worked off, I don't see much in the way of alternative. The whole idea of getting 'back on track' or winding the clock back to 2004 is completely unrealistic. The past twenty years, at least, have been based upon accumulation of debt and the government has pursued a policy of not allowing a normal economic cycle which would ordinarily correct these sorts of things.

And at least my way, nobody is going to starve, and there won't be much of a homeless problem.

But the country also needs to be honest with itself about structural unemployment. Productivity gains over the past fifty years have meant that there just isn't the need for the entire labor force to be deployed to meet our needs.

It's a big problem. Not everyone can have a good job, no matter how keen they are, or how hard they are prepared to work. There just isn't the need.

There needs to be a national debate about the shape of society in the future. Maybe most of us will end up being government supported artists or something (I'd prefer not). But the idea that we are all going to spend until our early twenties in education then the next forty all working in some middle class job then retire at sixtyish is wholly unrealistic, and the political classes should stop pretending it isn't.

I'd suggest much shorter working weeks. That's never a popular idea though because the anglo-sphere is so imbued with the stupid protestant work ethic.

Bloody hell.

This might be the first time in I-don't-know-how-long of posting - that I've practically agreed with every single word you've typed.

I'm not sure the 'standard of living' would to take a beating - for 10% of the population it would be the first time they'd HAD a standard of living, and for the next 20% it'd be a big improvement.

Stopping people starving, minimising homelessness. If you'd have put something in there about universal healthcare, I'd probably be willing to vote for you.

Hire 2 million people to dig holes.
Hire another 2 million to fill them back in.

4 million new jobs. Problem solved!

:D

Tongue in cheek, but not actually a bad idea. Drop seeds in the holes in between, or bridge pilings, or induction coils for paired induction, so we can run electric cars without ever having to recharge them, and it would be perfect.

I don't think those jobs will return, but I have a few ideas on how to replace them.

I would start a massive public works and infrastructure investment program, I would invest in our telecommunications infrastructure because I believe one of the major sectors of our future economy will be IT, alongside service and hopefully industry.

Next I would increase incentives for businesses willing to invest in green technology. I would give all Americans a tax incentive to install solar technologies for both electricity and water heating, this would help reduce our green house gas emissions and help create a larger solar industry.

Next I would remove tax incentives that encourage farmers not to grow produce, we should not have land that would otherwise be producing bountiful food just sit there. We sell the food we don't consume on the international market and help reduce our trade deficit.

I would encourage states to expand education scholarships for those who are out of work.

I would legalize innocuous drugs, like marijuana, and set taxes on them similar to tobacco and alcohol, this would make a niche industry for some farmers.

Nationalization of the health care system is going to be a problem, but certain immediate steps can take place to make the transition easier. I would eliminate tier systems on drugs and disallow drug companies from directly marketing their products to physicians. I would give drug companies a limited, non-renewable, 5 year time period (from the time their drug product first comes on the market) until their product must become generic.

I would increase the minimum wage to around 9 dollars an hour and raise the minimum amount a person would have to make before they pay income taxes.


Just a few ideas, some of them might not be feasible.

If you'd have put something in there about universal healthcare, I'd probably be willing to vote for you.

It's in there. That's how I'd pay for it in part.

The standard of living would take a big ding. If for no other reason than the fact that the consumer credit spigot would be shut off - by design - and I am going to encourage bankruptcy at all times and all places to speed up working off the debt. I'd do my best to make sure the 'risk takers' suffer the most, but there is going to be lots of people hurt by this. There's going to be nasty deflation - but that's going to happen anyway* - so there will be a lot less money around. I'd just try and manage the way down so we don't end up with legions of homeless and hungry. It's triage though. It's all about keeping social cohesion, and functioning society. We can have a chat about what society ought to be like once the worst has been muddled through.

But the current approach is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. I think we are still collectively in the denial phase of the Kubler Ross model. But there is a reason why when you catch them off guard, so many of those fuckers look really frightened.

(Actually, come to think of it, the enormous number of people I'd be prosecuting would also provide a nice slice of employment).

*Unless the government goes really nuts, which is possible, and actually starts printing money Zimbabwe style. I'd put nothing past them at this point. One thing is clear at this point, they are not serving the voting public.

The USA economy has officially been in a recession since December, 2007, it has lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 6 months, and Obama has been president since 1/20/09, about 3 weeks.

As there is a great debate on the stimulus package and what should be done, I wondered what some of your ideas were?

Do you think more tax cuts for the rich and corporations will replace these jobs based on a "trickle down" theory at this point?

Do you think the government needs to create jobs? What kind?

Do you think a combination approach is needed? What?

What about overseas jobs--more or less? What about jobs across all sectors of the economy that have been lost, not just banking, finance, etc? (For the scope and extent of the problem, see posts below).

job loss: Worst in 34 years - Feb. 6, 2009.
money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Employment Situation SummaryU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics ... In January, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors. ....
www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm - 49k

I would have people started building planes, tanks, bombs, ammunition etc.
Increase the sized of the armed forces.
Declare foreign gangs in the US terrorist cells. Attack said terrorists at home, and abroad. So basically attacking Mexico and El Salvador. :eek:

I like Lacadaemon's ideas. Also, some jobs I'd like to see created are for a) reconstruction in disaster areas like New Orleans b) additional inspections to ensure that our food supply is safe and humanely produced c) better traffic patrol. The idea behind the last two is that there are plenty of people who could afford to pay the fines that they would pay if the laws were actually enforced, and this would raise revenue at the same time as it would improve public safety.

stop worshiping big money and big business and start building little trains.

relax building codes in rural areas

and let government itself make low interest encouragement loans to clean
alternative,
i.e. NON-combustion of any sort at all, based
energy and infrastructure component makers and contractors.
also increase revenue sharing to local neighborhoods and rural communities for support of public transportation projects and public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle oriented development and redevelopment, while drastically cutting such support where it is currently being abused for exploitive 'gentrification'.

also a two year embargo on residential foreclosures, but allow real estate prices to continue to drop. they're still inflated by about 200% (which is down from something like 500% before the beginning of the big implosion we've started beginning to see).

start UNpaving streets, parking lots and arterials, replacing them with park strips with public transit guideways and bikepathes aesthetically meandering down through them. (this latter does several positive things, besides making neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly, it also provides atmospheric oxygen recharge zones, much, even desperately needed in many urban areas, and begins the reversal of prevailing disastrous effects of wide areas of pavement on local micro-climates.

i would also propose eliminating homelessness by providing code exempt 'barrio reservations' in high density urban areas, with access to building material suppliers, trade schools, thrift shops (with the option of evolving them into cashless 'mathom houses'), and 'hobby' craft shops (similar to those on college campuses and military bases, with the option of evolving them into craftufacturing centers), and of course encourage the development of cooperative community vegitable gardening in such places as well.

insist law enforcement regulars and temps be trained in conflict resolution and the "gentler" martial arts, and allow them to hire carefully screened part timers trained and certified in these areas. eliminate possession bans, replacing them with restrictions only on sale, mass production and wholesale importation of currently banned articles and substances, freeing law enforcement to actually prevent violence, which needs to be made universally their highest priority, above property, even especially above "continuation of government".

and even, at least consider, such 'extreme' social measures as 'land reform'. yes i'm talking about in 'first world' countries, not just stop bombing third world nations for attempting to protect their environments and civil rights in this manor.

really just wake up and smell the reality that machiavellian capitalism has just as many and just as serious shortcomings as marxist procustianism, and thet both are equally and absolutely unnecessary.

Leave Iraq. Balance the budget.
Raise interest rates stabilize the currency.
These will help the Us economy because we current hold seigneurial privilege in regards to currency.

Next
Expand NAFTA(require a change of name)
get Japan, South Korea, and if politics allow Taiwan.
Within the expanded Nafta recreate the Breton woods system with the possible exception of using a super dollar that's tied to gold and everyone uses fixed exchange to the super dollar. The gold for the super dollar would be stored at IMF which would have the authority to regulate the all countries involoed especially the US. That's solves the currency issue.

For factory work set up boarder factories with Mexico. the mangers will be American (out of work from Detroit) the low end factory workers will be Mexican. Environmental/safety law will be American, employment/pay law will be based on the country of origin of the worker. 90% of the output of the factory will be considered American.

This lowers the labor cost of American goods. And opens up markets for American goods. It also creates a stable currency for labor and selling markets which encourages investments.

How would I put 2.5 million people back to work? Start a few new wars. Massive military buildup + everything that's needed to support it would put most of those unemployed to work. The wars would also kill off some of the surpluss population.

How would I put 2.5 million people back to work? Start a few new wars. Massive military buildup + everything that's needed to support it would put most of those unemployed to work. The wars would also kill off some of the surpluss population.

Copy cat!

I've actually stopped reading threads mostly so I really didn't know.

obviously i don't see job creation (or even "productivity") as an end in and of itself, but rather universal quality and gratification of life.

we seriously need to start looking at the real effects of real policies on (ALL, and without bias) real people, places and things, instead of prioritizing the dynamics of symbolic value ahead of it.

until we do that, i don't care what ideology labels we come up with, they're all "made of fail", and their reality checks will continue to bounce.

(and so is every sovereign nation, whatever ideology it pretends to)

So your idea is to have fewer jobs and have people work fewer hours so they can job-share the jobs that do exist?
Why not? The fundamental needs of people, a la food, water, housing, energy, clothing and transport, actually don't take that much manpower to satisfy in a world of industry. It seems sensible that we should allow the currently unemployed to assist in the unskilled aspects of these areas. That way, the surplus of human effort will be distributed, and the same amount gets made with each individual contributing less of their time to it.

There is an obvious concern with this, which is that there are some positions which not everyone is skilled enough to fill. But that's where state-assisted part-time education comes in to play. After all, if everyone is working part time and training part time, then we get the best of both worlds, since there'll never be a shortage of unskilled workers (even the newly skilled workers can do unskilled work).

What is it you are asking about?

Do you want to restore jobs that have been lost since the economy crashed? There are jobs that will come back as the economy is stimulated/rebounds. They are in any field that cannot be off-shored.

Do you want to bring back jobs that were lost to off-shoring? I do not think that can be done, unless you either (a) offer tax benefits to companies hiring within the US and tax penalties to companies that move work overseas, or (b) nationalize industries.

Do you want to replace off-shored jobs with new kinds of jobs? That is something I would be very excited about seeing happen. There are plenty of industries in which the US could take the lead in developing new directions due to the fact that the old ways of doing things are quickly becoming obsolete and/or unsustainable. They include energy technology, security technology, public transportation technology, environmentally friendly construction, environmental management and waste management/resource recycling, paper manufacturing -- those are the major areas I can think of off the top of my head. All of them are hard goods/technology/manufacturing type industries. All would add value to the economy. All could be jumpstarted by government works programs and small business support programs.
I am not "asking about" or "looking for" anything in particular, just ideas. I am not sure whether jobs can be restored or not. I assume that if some of the companies taking TARP money become healthy, they might be able to restore some jobs, but I doubt they can restore all of the jobs because the underlying reasons for why they went belly up--building and selling real estate with no money or guarantees--will not be repeated. Therefore, alot of the people who worked in those areas will have to be redeployed.

I guess if we worry just about them, they could be redeployed to newer industries like infrastructure investment (selling bonds for cities), but they certainly won't be making the kind of money they saw before and will have to adjust.

Some companies who did layoffs and went out of business because money/credit is not being loaned would probably rehire too if that situation changed but, again, they may not be able to return to their pre-"meltdown" production rates as there won't be as many buyers as before.

You have great ideas for replacing offshore jobs with more environmentally friendly manufacturing and other obs! I think we need alot more manufacturing jobs and "information technology jobs" or whatever they are called (i.e. answering phones for banks like we now see people in India doing when you call your local bank). Public transportation system creation/improvement would also be right up there, to get people out of their cars and start converting to different modes of transport, where possible. Thanks for the ideas!

I know how to not restore 2.5 million jobs: keep letting the Republicans dictate how the bill should be tailored from the back seat.
Yes, I think you are right. As someone else said, they are the party of "no" and only want to continue pursuing their "trickle down" theory, even in the face of the fact that, at this point, the masses are trickling money up to provide corporate welfare.

I don't think those jobs will return, but I have a few ideas on how to replace them.

I would start a massive public works and infrastructure investment program, I would invest in our telecommunications infrastructure because I believe one of the major sectors of our future economy will be IT, alongside service and hopefully industry.

Next I would increase incentives for businesses willing to invest in green technology. I would give all Americans a tax incentive to install solar technologies for both electricity and water heating, this would help reduce our green house gas emissions and help create a larger solar industry.

Next I would remove tax incentives that encourage farmers not to grow produce, we should not have land that would otherwise be producing bountiful food just sit there. We sell the food we don't consume on the international market and help reduce our trade deficit.

I would encourage states to expand education scholarships for those who are out of work.

I would legalize innocuous drugs, like marijuana, and set taxes on them similar to tobacco and alcohol, this would make a niche industry for some farmers.

Nationalization of the health care system is going to be a problem, but certain immediate steps can take place to make the transition easier. I would eliminate tier systems on drugs and disallow drug companies from directly marketing their products to physicians. I would give drug companies a limited, non-renewable, 5 year time period (from the time their drug product first comes on the market) until their product must become generic.

I would increase the minimum wage to around 9 dollars an hour and raise the minimum amount a person would have to make before they pay income taxes.


Just a few ideas, some of them might not be feasible.
I like all your ideas--particularly the one about legalizing innocuous drugs as we would cut down alot on the cost of imprisoning people over trivial issues! You and other posters have also suggested more nationalization of healthcare and more regulation of the financial industries, and I think doing that would create more safety valves in those systems and redeploy those who have lost jobs in those areas.

Changing the income tax laws is also a good idea.

I think to do these things though, we have to get certain states to vote out more republicans and install more democrats and independents!

You wouldn't. And you wouldn't try, because you're setting yourself up for either an embarrassing failure, or state over-intervention in future.

Make prostitution and drug selling legal.

Make prostitution and drug selling legal.

That would also help the British Economy.

That would also help the British Economy.

And lead to a reintroduction of the teaching of the imperial system in British schools.

I see what you sneaky Americans are doing. *narrows eyes*

And lead to a reintroduction of the teaching of the imperial system in British schools.

I see what you sneaky Americans are doing. *narrows eyes*

From when does your massive suspicion, measured in slugs, come? I assure, we wish only to keep the coffers full of pennyfarthings of wealth.

The USA economy has officially been in a recession since December, 2007, it has lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 6 months, and Obama has been president since 1/20/09, about 3 weeks.

As there is a great debate on the stimulus package and what should be done, I wondered what some of your ideas were?

There's one sure way... Go to war. Not a little trifling thing like Iraq or Ashcanistan, but a big, epic war on the scale of the Second World War.

Or we could eliminate income and payroll taxes and replace them with a retail sales tax. We'd have industry from all over the world coming to the US to take advantage of the tax laws.

Legalize prostitution and reinstate the draft. You didn't ask if I liked the answers.

There's one sure way... Go to war. Not a little trifling thing like Iraq or Ashcanistan, but a big, epic war on the scale of the Second World War.


Not going to happen. There's no one we could go to war with on that scale, that we could AFFORD to go to war with on that scale. The days of paying for your own war are dead.


Or we could eliminate income and payroll taxes and replace them with a retail sales tax. We'd have industry from all over the world coming to the US to take advantage of the tax laws.

Ingenious. Send money overseas as fast as we can print it.

Legalize prostitution and reinstate the draft. You didn't ask if I liked the answers.

How about drafting prostitutes?

For a pretty good start see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal

And as far as Corporate Tax Cuts go, Id offer them on a basis of how many people they hire back...Say, if you hire X number of people, we'll cut X numbers of your taxes, lol...

Sortof a Forced Trickle-Down ethic...

Make prostitution and drug selling legal.

Legalize prostitution and reinstate the draft. You didn't ask if I liked the answers.

There was a story on nightline? dateline? one of those type of shows... where a brothel owner in Nevada is looking to expand... and he's hoping some of the cities like Reno and Vegas will allow legalized prostitution.

apparently, his business is growing.

How about drafting prostitutes?

Hey, why not, as long as their clean, they can provide a vital service to the War effort...

How about drafting prostitutes?

Only the fat ones. I don't get the same wind reduction from drafting the crack hos.

Not going to happen. There's no one we could go to war with on that scale, that we could AFFORD to go to war with on that scale. The days of paying for your own war are dead.

See, I tend to disagree with that. Idiots got us into this, and idiots will make it worse.

So I tend to think that six or seven years from now, when there has been years of crushing endstage weimar poverty the idea that banging the drum of war in some ridiculous plan to conquer south america to gain needed natural resources/protect sovereignty/other pretext is not inconceivable.

As to being able to pay for it, there is no doubt in my mind that there is going to be some kind of currency reset if we continue on this path. The sort of nasty brutish governments that get 'elected' in the aftermath of those sort of events have no problems running command economies that let them do these sort of things.

I'm not saying any of this is a certainty, of course. But it's not that far out there.

None of that would solve the instant unemployment problem tho'.

There was a story on nightline? dateline? one of those type of shows... where a brothel owner in Nevada is looking to expand... and he's hoping some of the cities like Reno and Vegas will allow legalized prostitution.

apparently, his business is growing.

Yeah, the pigmen are keen on the sex industry. Keeps the peons in their place.

Technically the US government is obliged to provide unskilled work to anyone who doesn't have a job.

They don't, of course, but they are supposed to.

Interestingly - or frighteningly, depending on how you look at it - the actual unemployment number is much higher than is reported. About 15%. And really 3.6 million jobs were lost last year.

I guess if I was in the hot seat, I'd nationalize the entire financial industry to stabilize it, then I'd use the revenue from there (because now they are all GS level employees) to offset all the bankruptcies which would happen under my new liberal bankruptcy regime.

Then I'd nationalize the healthcare system, which would free up about 5-6% of GDP to play with (there is going to be rationing, especially for people in the last years of their life, get over it) but everyone gets a basic level of care.

Then I'd be able to provide basic employment at some level above the poverty line - maybe around 200% - for anyone who needed it.

I'd forget the 'stimulus' plan and balance the budget.

It's all a bit socialist, and the standard of living is going to take a big ding, but until the debt excesses are worked off, I don't see much in the way of alternative. The whole idea of getting 'back on track' or winding the clock back to 2004 is completely unrealistic. The past twenty years, at least, have been based upon accumulation of debt and the government has pursued a policy of not allowing a normal economic cycle which would ordinarily correct these sorts of things.

And at least my way, nobody is going to starve, and there won't be much of a homeless problem.

But the country also needs to be honest with itself about structural unemployment. Productivity gains over the past fifty years have meant that there just isn't the need for the entire labor force to be deployed to meet our needs.

It's a big problem. Not everyone can have a good job, no matter how keen they are, or how hard they are prepared to work. There just isn't the need.

There needs to be a national debate about the shape of society in the future. Maybe most of us will end up being government supported artists or something (I'd prefer not). But the idea that we are all going to spend until our early twenties in education then the next forty all working in some middle class job then retire at sixtyish is wholly unrealistic, and the political classes should stop pretending it isn't.

I'd suggest much shorter working weeks. That's never a popular idea though because the anglo-sphere is so imbued with the stupid protestant work ethic.
Sounds like it wouldn't be much fun. Sounds like it would need some tweaking when it moves from plan to action. But other than that -- where's the paperwork? I'm ready to check the "yes" box.

I'd just make one correction: I do not think shorter work weeks would meet with the resistance you expect. In the past few years, annual studies conducted by various efficiency and productivity consultants who advise industry about such matters, have reported that increasing numbers of workers would welcome a four-day work period (which has been a back burner labor issue for many decades, btw) and in some cases, even a three-day work period (staggered, of course). The studies have indicated two things:

1) That time is the most precious and limited resource available in the modern world, and that most workers would rather be rewarded for extra effort with more time off than even with pay raises; and

2) That when workers spend fewer hours on the job, but in a better structured, more objective-oriented way, productivity per hour actually increases. Not only does it increase enough to cancel out the lost hours per worker, in some cases it rises above the total per-week productivity the worker maintained when working more hours. The researchers/consultants generally attribute this to more free personal time leading to lower stress and higher worker satisfaction on the job.

I have been a proponent of the four-day work week for many years, and I believe the four-day work week should definitely be considered. With proper staggering of shifts, you could even increase the business week from five days to six, or eliminate the work week/weekend split altogether -- while still giving everyone their three days off.

As to restructuring of society, once upon a time, people got a good enough education by the end of high school that they could work in almost any field, not just unskilled labor jobs. Only advanced academic study and highly technical professions (such as medicine, law, engineering, etc) required college degrees. Your average high school graduate not only could type and fix a car but had solid grounding in the arts and literature, in history, in math, and in the sciences. I would advocate a return to that high standard for high school education, thus lowering the need for college degrees.

In addition, once upon a time, businesses valued proven ability over paper credentials. Rather than hiring on as managers MBA's fresh out of the university wrapper who had passed all the business theory tests but never held a full time job of their own, companies would promote from within. How would that work? Something like this: (1) I worked at a large law firm -- 450 attorneys plus support staff running 24/7 -- where the job of Office Manager was a huge undertaking. The guy who had that job had been with the firm almost 20 years. He had started as an interoffice messenger when he was 16 years old. (2) My mom once worked for a corporate CEO. He had started with the company several decades earlier, as a clerk in the mail room. He had worked his way up, working in just about every single department in the company, until finally he earned an executive position and from that position the board of directors elected him CEO. I would further advocate a return to the standard that experience is better than a degree and that a good employee is worth keeping, nurturing and rewarding.

I would also suggest that we might want to look at decentralization of industries such as farming and other light manufacturing, so that there can be more, if smaller, venues for workers to find jobs. (It might also have other benefits, such as fresher and less adulterated food getting into the markets.)

EDIT: Further, and finally, considering the longer lifespans and length of working life of most people in the first world, I would advise a system in which it is perfectly acceptable for a person to spend a number of years in one industry, then "retire" from that industry, take more education and training, if necessary, and start over again in another industry. At modern, first-world, life expectancies, a worker could easily complete two, maybe even three full careers (including advancements) in each industry of interest. This, of course, would necessitate the need for a society that does not discriminate against older workers.

Those are just some thoughts from a layperson.

Here is what got cut from the stimulus bill as of today (2/7/09), in case it alters your ideas on how to replace 3 milliion jobs lost:

"(CNN) -- A coalition of Democrats and some Republicans reached a compromise that trimmed billions in spending from an earlier version of the Senate economic stimulus bill.


Senators worked late into the night to trim billions from the original stimulus bill.

CNN obtained, from a Democratic leadership aide, a list of some programs that have been cut, either entirely or partially:

Partially cut:

• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Fully eliminated

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters

• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization

• $50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $100 million for distance learning

• $98 million for school nutrition

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology

• $50 million for detention trustee

• $25 million for Marshalls Construction

• $300 million for federal prisons

• $300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program

• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program

• $10 million state and local law enforcement

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees

• $4.5 billion for General Services Administration

• $89 million General Services Administration operations

• $50 million from Department of Homeland Security

• $200 million Transportation Security Administration

• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $20 million for working capital fund

• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement

• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management

• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start

• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity

• $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants

• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)

• $16 billion for school construction

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

• $1.25 billion for project based rental

• $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization

• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing

• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants) "

I don't think those jobs will return, but I have a few ideas on how to replace them.

I would start a massive public works and infrastructure investment program, I would invest in our telecommunications infrastructure because I believe one of the major sectors of our future economy will be IT, alongside service and hopefully industry.

Next I would increase incentives for businesses willing to invest in green technology. I would give all Americans a tax incentive to install solar technologies for both electricity and water heating, this would help reduce our green house gas emissions and help create a larger solar industry.

Next I would remove tax incentives that encourage farmers not to grow produce, we should not have land that would otherwise be producing bountiful food just sit there. We sell the food we don't consume on the international market and help reduce our trade deficit.

I would encourage states to expand education scholarships for those who are out of work.

I would legalize innocuous drugs, like marijuana, and set taxes on them similar to tobacco and alcohol, this would make a niche industry for some farmers.

Nationalization of the health care system is going to be a problem, but certain immediate steps can take place to make the transition easier. I would eliminate tier systems on drugs and disallow drug companies from directly marketing their products to physicians. I would give drug companies a limited, non-renewable, 5 year time period (from the time their drug product first comes on the market) until their product must become generic.

I would increase the minimum wage to around 9 dollars an hour and raise the minimum amount a person would have to make before they pay income taxes.


Just a few ideas, some of them might not be feasible.
More good ideas -- even the unfeasible ones could be used with tweaking.

One thing about the health care system: While we're disallowing pharma from marketing directly to doctors, I think we should also ban the practice of marketing directly to potential patients.

More good ideas -- even the unfeasible ones could be used with tweaking.

One thing about the health care system: While we're disallowing pharma from marketing directly to doctors, I think we should also ban the practice of marketing directly to potential patients.
I think all those ideas are feasible, but I hope that some of the things that were elmiinated from the stimulus today don't end all hope for great ideas!

See Post 75.

I think all those ideas are feasible, but I hope that some of the things that were elmiinated from the stimulus today don't end all hope for great ideas!

See Post 75.
I did see post 75 and my blood pressure spiked just a little. To vent: Those moronic fucktards just cut out all the stimulus from the stimulus package. Almost everything they cut were things likely to generate jobs.

Last night, Rachel Maddow lost it a bit and went on a rant about all this bullshit and she made what I think is an apt analogy: When your house is on fire, and the fire department tells you to pour gasoline on the flames, they are not making a good faith effort to help you put out the fire. They are a bad fire department. Likewise, when these people insist on mutilating this stimulus package into the same failed policies that put us into this crisis and which were so roundly repudiated in the last two elections, they are not making a good faith effort to stimulate the economy. They are bad at making policy and they should not be allowed to do so.

The USA economy has officially been in a recession since December, 2007, it has lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 6 months, and Obama has been president since 1/20/09, about 3 weeks.

As there is a great debate on the stimulus package and what should be done, I wondered what some of your ideas were?

Do you think more tax cuts for the rich and corporations will replace these jobs based on a "trickle down" theory at this point?

Do you think the government needs to create jobs? What kind?

Do you think a combination approach is needed? What?

What about overseas jobs--more or less? What about jobs across all sectors of the economy that have been lost, not just banking, finance, etc? (For the scope and extent of the problem, see posts below).

job loss: Worst in 34 years - Feb. 6, 2009.
money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Employment Situation SummaryU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics ... In January, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors. ....
www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm - 49k

Reopen the "Frontier" to settlement and development, issue volunteers the gear they need to settle the area, and have at it.:p

seriously, now. you need to alter the production-possibilities curve so that growth is possible with the available resources-this isn't done by dumping money into pork-barrel projects in already developed areas, and it's not done by running the printing presses to the breaking point. It isn't enough to just give people work to do, it has to be work with meaning and purpose for it to be more than a temporary short-term fleeting benefit.

I did see post 75 and my blood pressure spiked just a little. To vent: Those moronic fucktards just cut out all the stimulus from the stimulus package. Almost everything they cut were things likely to generate jobs.

Last night, Rachel Maddow lost it a bit and went on a rant about all this bullshit and she made what I think is an apt analogy: When your house is on fire, and the fire department tells you to pour gasoline on the flames, they are not making a good faith effort to help you put out the fire. They are a bad fire department. Likewise, when these people insist on mutilating this stimulus package into the same failed policies that put us into this crisis and which were so roundly repudiated in the last two elections, they are not making a good faith effort to stimulate the economy. They are bad at making policy and they should not be allowed to do so.
I am shocked that the republicans cut funding for "No Child Left Behind"--they don't even support their own bullsh**

Cuts for energy, school construction, aid to the states? Here come the bread lines.

My only hope is that another stimulus comes before another 8-10 million are unemployed.

Sounds like it wouldn't be much fun. Sounds like it would need some tweaking when it moves from plan to action. But other than that -- where's the paperwork? I'm ready to check the "yes" box.

I'd just make one correction: I do not think shorter work weeks would meet with the resistance you expect. In the past few years, annual studies conducted by various efficiency and productivity consultants who advise industry about such matters, have reported that increasing numbers of workers would welcome a four-day work period (which has been a back burner labor issue for many decades, btw) and in some cases, even a three-day work period (staggered, of course). The studies have indicated two things:

1) That time is the most precious and limited resource available in the modern world, and that most workers would rather be rewarded for extra effort with more time off than even with pay raises; and

2) That when workers spend fewer hours on the job, but in a better structured, more objective-oriented way, productivity per hour actually increases. Not only does it increase enough to cancel out the lost hours per worker, in some cases it rises above the total per-week productivity the worker maintained when working more hours. The researchers/consultants generally attribute this to more free personal time leading to lower stress and higher worker satisfaction on the job.

I have been a proponent of the four-day work week for many years, and I believe the four-day work week should definitely be considered. With proper staggering of shifts, you could even increase the business week from five days to six, or eliminate the work week/weekend split altogether -- while still giving everyone their three days off.

I agree about this. When I say it would be unpopular, I mean unpopular with the powers that be and the media. People who actually work would love to see a reduction in working hours. But for those at the top who benefit from increased GDP or inflated asset prices (politicians, the aristocracy, the finance and insurance industry) it is a deeply unpopular idea. It doesn't get much currency with the academy either for some reason. Most likely because they are the lap-dogs of the elites these days (whether they admit it or not).

And there is a deep strain of anglo-saxon culture that regards hard lengthy pointless work as somehow character building and the sign of a deeply moral person. I disagree, personally I believe targeted laziness is more important, but I'm a heretic.

As to restructuring of society, once upon a time, people got a good enough education by the end of high school that they could work in almost any field, not just unskilled labor jobs. Only advanced academic study and highly technical professions (such as medicine, law, engineering, etc) required college degrees. Your average high school graduate not only could type and fix a car but had solid grounding in the arts and literature, in history, in math, and in the sciences. I would advocate a return to that high standard for high school education, thus lowering the need for college degrees.

I completely and 100% agree with this.

The whole drive to relentlessly expand further education has been a complete scam foisted upon an unsuspecting public. It has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with manipulating statistics and vast sums of money. It's actually quite criminal. But there are a lot of vested interests there, so you get treated like a mental patient if you say it out loud.

In addition, once upon a time, businesses valued proven ability over paper credentials. Rather than hiring on as managers MBA's fresh out of the university wrapper who had passed all the business theory tests but never held a full time job of their own, companies would promote from within. How would that work? Something like this: (1) I worked at a large law firm -- 450 attorneys plus support staff running 24/7 -- where the job of Office Manager was a huge undertaking. The guy who had that job had been with the firm almost 20 years. He had started as an interoffice messenger when he was 16 years old. (2) My mom once worked for a corporate CEO. He had started with the company several decades earlier, as a clerk in the mail room. He had worked his way up, working in just about every single department in the company, until finally he earned an executive position and from that position the board of directors elected him CEO. I would further advocate a return to the standard that experience is better than a degree and that a good employee is worth keeping, nurturing and rewarding.

Yup. Professional credentialism is another huge problem. It's created all sorts of silly problems. People also pay far too much attention to professional credentials. Obviously in some cases it is necessary, such as medicine. But even then, it would seem to me, that a great deal of that is actually learned within the hospital setting after completing a core competence in pre-med. (The UK system for example, 2yrs pre-clinical 3.5 clinical, for an MBBS, no undergrad).

I don't advocate the end of university, of course, but it should go back to being a more rarefied place that really is interested abstract theory. A few select superb schools, which can concentrate on pushing the boundaries of knowledge back, rather than the current degree mill system that is supposed to stand as a place holder for on the job training.

I would also suggest that we might want to look at decentralization of industries such as farming and other light manufacturing, so that there can be more, if smaller, venues for workers to find jobs. (It might also have other benefits, such as fresher and less adulterated food getting into the markets.)

Well, I'd like to encourage that sort of thing too. Lots of smaller farms and farmstand type things. Heritage livestock and crops, all organic. And more small high quality type craft industries (clothes, hand made shoes, furniture type stuff). But that's just 'cos I like that stuff.

EDIT: Further, and finally, considering the longer lifespans and length of working life of most people in the first world, I would advise a system in which it is perfectly acceptable for a person to spend a number of years in one industry, then "retire" from that industry, take more education and training, if necessary, and start over again in another industry. At modern, first-world, life expectancies, a worker could easily complete two, maybe even three full careers (including advancements) in each industry of interest. This, of course, would necessitate the need for a society that does not discriminate against older workers.

The increased lifespan thing is a bit intractable. I'd like to think with a saner work/life balance people would get less burned out and could delay retirement in many cases.

That said, there's going to have to be a return to the multi-generational family I think. With the oldest generation less active professionally, but making up for it with more involvement in raising the kids, care of the house, that sort of thing.

I'll admit that doesn't sound very appealing in many cases, but maybe with this hanging over people they'll learn to get on a bit better.

I agree about this. When I say it would be unpopular, I mean unpopular with the powers that be and the media. People who actually work would love to see a reduction in working hours. But for those at the top who benefit from increased GDP or inflated asset prices (politicians, the aristocracy, the finance and insurance industry) it is a deeply unpopular idea. It doesn't get much currency with the academy either for some reason. Most likely because they are the lap-dogs of the elites these days (whether they admit it or not).
Well, yeah, that's absolutely true, but that's what labor uprisings are for. ;)

And there is a deep strain of anglo-saxon culture that regards hard lengthy pointless work as somehow character building and the sign of a deeply moral person. I disagree, personally I believe targeted laziness is more important, but I'm a heretic.
You're not a heretic. You're enlightened. And I say that in my pajamas. :D

I have a good, strong, active inner Puritan, but she is far more of the Quaker/Congregationalist/Unitarian type and far less of the other kinds of Calvinists, and she believes it is just as much of a sin to work too much as too little. Convenient, huh?

I completely and 100% agree with this.

The whole drive to relentlessly expand further education has been a complete scam foisted upon an unsuspecting public. It has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with manipulating statistics and vast sums of money. It's actually quite criminal. But there are a lot of vested interests there, so you get treated like a mental patient if you say it out loud.
Another part of the criminality is the degree to which elementary and high school education has been downgraded compared to earlier generations. Even as recently as the 1960s, I was seeing work in the fifth grade that I did not see again until I read some college course descriptions. Let me say that again: What the 1990s called "college level" work, I got in the fifth grade in the 1960s. That's just what-the-fuck. Seriously, What. The. Fuck. are those assholes doing with our school system?

Yup. Professional credentialism is another huge problem. It's created all sorts of silly problems. People also pay far too much attention to professional credentials. Obviously in some cases it is necessary, such as medicine. But even then, it would seem to me, that a great deal of that is actually learned within the hospital setting after completing a core competence in pre-med. (The UK system for example, 2yrs pre-clinical 3.5 clinical, for an MBBS, no undergrad).

I don't advocate the end of university, of course, but it should go back to being a more rarefied place that really is interested abstract theory. A few select superb schools, which can concentrate on pushing the boundaries of knowledge back, rather than the current degree mill system that is supposed to stand as a place holder for on the job training.
I am all for university educations. Knowledge even just for its own sake is nothing to sneer at (the way some people around here do at times). But it should not be necessary for getting a good job, and it wasn't until relatively recently.

Well, I'd like to encourage that sort of thing too. Lots of smaller farms and farmstand type things. Heritage livestock and crops, all organic. And more small high quality type craft industries (clothes, hand made shoes, furniture type stuff). But that's just 'cos I like that stuff.
Me too. In fact, I intend to try and start such an "artisan" business (in publishing and bookbinding). But I also believe such small "artisan" start-ups become the seeds of new large industries, as well as new ways of running businesses.

The increased lifespan thing is a bit intractable. I'd like to think with a saner work/life balance people would get less burned out and could delay retirement in many cases.

That said, there's going to have to be a return to the multi-generational family I think. With the oldest generation less active professionally, but making up for it with more involvement in raising the kids, care of the house, that sort of thing.

I'll admit that doesn't sound very appealing in many cases, but maybe with this hanging over people they'll learn to get on a bit better.
Another good point, and another thing I've been saying for years. The modern lifestyle of the so-called "nuclear family" is a very recent invention (since the 1950s, really), and I think we've seen for some time now that it just is not as functional as the multi-generational and extended family units were.

It feels strange to be so much on the same page with a stranger. Nice, but strange.

I think one area we could look at is creating a National Job Skills Training Program.

We would need a lot of teachers. The idea works like this anyone on social assistance and unemployment benefits would be offered a chance to update their skills.

So we ask them what did you do before you were laid off?

Let's say they worked in Information Technology. We provide classes in programming, hardware repair, systems analysis etc. We give them a chance to update their skills.

If people are interested who have not lost their current job we allow them to train and we set a reasonable tuition. This will also help in funding this effort. The course would be short term classes, not like a degree program at a university. They would focus more on practical applications than on theoretical.

We provide a place to practice their job hunting skills, refine their resume, take mock interviews.


From the Government side we look for public work project which are slated and we look into putting them out there quicker. Road, bridges, tunnels, dams.

we can grow jobs if we develop our seaports and expand our airports

We look at creating security personnel to patrol our subways, train stations, air ports, power stations, seaports. This would be a twofold benefit, it would allow the police to get back to whatever else they have to do and it would create jobs. We would of course provide training in the new National Job Skills Training Program institutions.

So far we have

Teachers
Security personnel
Construction workers

We would expanded investment in environmental infrastructure (e.g. mass transit, inter-city rail, sewage treatment)

Hopefully these would translate into more people being hired.

We put pressure on the military to increase hiring/recruiting

We increase incentives for police to hopefully put more people in uniform or to increase hiring/recruiting

Apply pressure to FEMA and any other federal agencies to hire more people and find out what they need budget-wise to do that.

We ask each and every public utility, cable company, and petroleum refinery how much money would it take to increase your workforce by say 25%. We ask them to provide training for those position in our National Job Skills Training Program so we can make more skilled employees for them.

We create a new position in my cabinet that specifically focuses on this problem (unemployment) and on how to solve it.

We need to restore confidence in the stock markets. We need to go after the Bernie Madoff's out there and get them out of the market.

That is just a start

I think one area we could look at is creating a National Job Skills Training Program.

We would need a lot of teachers. The idea works like this anyone on social assistance and unemployment benefits would be offered a chance to update their skills.

So we ask them what did you do before you were laid off?

Let's say they worked in Information Technology. We provide classes in programming, hardware repair, systems analysis etc. We give them a chance to update their skills.

If people are interested who have not lost their current job we allow them to train and we set a reasonable tuition. This will also help in funding this effort. The course would be short term classes, not like a degree program at a university. They would focus more on practical applications than on theoretical.

We provide a place to practice their job hunting skills, refine their resume, take mock interviews.


From the Government side we look for public work project which are slated and we look into putting them out there quicker. Road, bridges, tunnels, dams.

we can grow jobs if we develop our seaports and expand our airports

We look at creating security personnel to patrol our subways, train stations, air ports, power stations, seaports. This would be a twofold benefit, it would allow the police to get back to whatever else they have to do and it would create jobs. We would of course provide training in the new National Job Skills Training Program institutions.

So far we have

Teachers
Security personnel
Construction workers

We would expanded investment in environmental infrastructure (e.g. mass transit, inter-city rail, sewage treatment)

Hopefully these would translate into more people being hired.

We put pressure on the military to increase hiring/recruiting

We increase incentives for police to hopefully put more people in uniform or to increase hiring/recruiting

Apply pressure to FEMA and any other federal agencies to hire more people and find out what they need budget-wise to do that.

We ask each and every public utility, cable company, and petroleum refinery how much money would it take to increase your workforce by say 25%. We ask them to provide training for those position in our National Job Skills Training Program so we can make more skilled employees for them.

We create a new position in my cabinet that specifically focuses on this problem (unemployment) and on how to solve it.

We need to restore confidence in the stock markets. We need to go after the Bernie Madoff's out there and get them out of the market.

That is just a start

There has to be Job Openings for Job Training to be worth anything. The Labour equation has to be in favour of the job seeker before the job seeker becomes a job holder.

This means you need MORE JOBS to train people to do. Jobs require markets, markets require someone to have excess resources that they intend to trade for other things.

Wars are good for generating demand in the short term, but they crush an economy if they go on too long without ending, and there's always a hangover after-a contraction of employment combined with an increase in unemployed people entering the system.

All of these suggestions so far are about like rearranging deck-chairs on the titanic. There needs to be something for people to demand, which in turn requires workers to fill that demand, who will then provide demand for other things.

"Jobs Training" is meaningless without an industry (or family of industries) that need the bodies.

Ingenious. Send money overseas as fast as we can print it.
But they would buy things here. And they would hire workers that would buy things here. Just because we wouldn't tax their profits, doesn't mean we wouldn't profit.

I did see post 75 and my blood pressure spiked just a little. To vent: Those moronic fucktards just cut out all the stimulus from the stimulus package. Almost everything they cut were things likely to generate jobs.

Last night, Rachel Maddow lost it a bit and went on a rant about all this bullshit and she made what I think is an apt analogy: When your house is on fire, and the fire department tells you to pour gasoline on the flames, they are not making a good faith effort to help you put out the fire. They are a bad fire department. Likewise, when these people insist on mutilating this stimulus package into the same failed policies that put us into this crisis and which were so roundly repudiated in the last two elections, they are not making a good faith effort to stimulate the economy. They are bad at making policy and they should not be allowed to do so.

We need to fire 1/2 of the Senate. Which BTW would be savings totalling up to about 8.5 Billion a year in tax revenue.

*snip the excellence*

EDIT: Further, and finally, considering the longer lifespans and length of working life of most people in the first world, I would advise a system in which it is perfectly acceptable for a person to spend a number of years in one industry, then "retire" from that industry, take more education and training, if necessary, and start over again in another industry. At modern, first-world, life expectancies, a worker could easily complete two, maybe even three full careers (including advancements) in each industry of interest. This, of course, would necessitate the need for a society that does not discriminate against older workers.

And we are so very not there yet. Not even close.

More good ideas -- even the unfeasible ones could be used with tweaking.

One thing about the health care system: While we're disallowing pharma from marketing directly to doctors, I think we should also ban the practice of marketing directly to potential patients.

OMFG, yes.

And we are so very not there yet. Not even close.



OMFG, yes.
I think we should get rid of the medical insurance industry bureaucrats--they can be redeployed in MD offices or as bureaucrats elsewhere. They have no business denying coverage for treatments deemed medically necessary by the physician or surgeon. They should not be making money on people's illnesses, and doing away with them will get us a long way to national healtcare insurance.

Invade Poland?

Reopen the "Frontier" to settlement and development, issue volunteers the gear they need to settle the area, and have at it.:p



I don't know how Canada will take being labeled a frontier.
I also don't know how they will take being shoved on reservations with the people they shoved on reservations.

That would also help the British Economy.

Indeed it would.

Pay people ten dollars every time they locate cheney and post it quickly. twenty bucks if they hit him with pie.

Draft people into the military or some type of civilian corps. Kinda like forced work, but imagine all the things that would get done!

But they would buy things here. And they would hire workers that would buy things here. Just because we wouldn't tax their profits, doesn't mean we wouldn't profit.

You eliminate the income tax - so foreign companies set up over here, funnel their profits back overseas, and don't pay any taxes. Because they're not stupid.

Then they hire locals, who don't spend their money here, with ALL the taxation now being done through retail sales. They spend their money overseas, because they're not stupid.

You didn't really think it through, did you?

Draft people into the military or some type of civilian corps. Kinda like forced work, but imagine all the things that would get done!

Awful idea.

Awful idea.

Really? A civilian corps that does construction projects etc. sounds like a pretty good idea...

Really? A civilian corps that does construction projects etc. sounds like a pretty good idea...

Not if its forced.

Not if its forced.

Depends how you apply the 'force'. Making any kind of social aid for long term unemployed CONTINGENT on joining such an organisation, for example.

(Assuming that such a thing is done rationally, you don't want people that can't work because they're injured being 'forced', for example)

Depends how you apply the 'force'. Making any kind of social aid for long term unemployed CONTINGENT on joining such an organisation, for example.

(Assuming that such a thing is done rationally, you don't want people that can't work because they're injured being 'forced', for example)
First of all, you must be aware that American workers have already paid for their unemployment benefits via a payroll tax, right? So why should they have to sign away their liberty to get something they've already paid for?

Second, why would you set up a system whereby they have to WORK to get UNEMPLOYMENT benefits? You know...because if they're working, they're not unemployed...? Why don't you just call it a jobs program and pay them a fair wage already?

Third, if you are forcing them into a work program, aren't you taking away their time to look for another "real" job? That is kind of the whole point of unemployment benefits, you know -- to tide people over while they look for a job. So if, to get their UNEMPLOYMENT benefits, they have to WORK for the state in whatever jobs the state includes in the program, what will that do to all the industries/professions that aren't in the program but which those workers would be applying for jobs in?

People are either employed or unemployed, either working or not working. I think it would be a bad idea to mix the two conditions.

there is no way to restore the jobs(with a few exemptions student, health). Shoot those who have been unemployed more then 9 months then donate their organs for use by those who are working.

2 quick and easy measures to increase employment:

Abolish patents on pharmaceuticals. Since drug patents are simply a way for drug companies to artificially limit supplies and fix prices, abolishing patents would result in new factories popping up everywhere manufacturing generic pharmaceuticals. This would bring healthcare costs down too.

Exempt small time farmers from food inspection laws. Since food inspection laws give an unfair competitive advantage to big agribusinesses who can afford to absorb the costs of hosting FDA inspectors, exemptions for small farmers would allow small farmers who can't afford to host inspectors to compete more effectively. This would attract and maintain employment in agriculture, especially small local farms.

2 quick and easy measures to increase employment:

Abolish patents on pharmaceuticals. Since drug patents are simply a way for drug companies to artificially limit supplies and fix prices, abolishing patents would result in new factories popping up everywhere manufacturing generic pharmaceuticals. This would bring healthcare costs down too.

Exempt small time farmers from food inspection laws. Since food inspection laws give an unfair competitive advantage to big agribusinesses who can afford to absorb the costs of hosting FDA inspectors, exemptions for small farmers would allow small farmers who can't afford to host inspectors to compete more effectively. This would attract and maintain employment in agriculture, especially small local farms.
Food inspection is a good thing for public health, and there are WAY more things affecting the cost of running a farm than having to pay inspection fees.

There has to be Job Openings for Job Training to be worth anything. The Labour equation has to be in favour of the job seeker before the job seeker becomes a job holder.

This means you need MORE JOBS to train people to do. Jobs require markets, markets require someone to have excess resources that they intend to trade for other things.

Wars are good for generating demand in the short term, but they crush an economy if they go on too long without ending, and there's always a hangover after-a contraction of employment combined with an increase in unemployed people entering the system.

All of these suggestions so far are about like rearranging deck-chairs on the titanic. There needs to be something for people to demand, which in turn requires workers to fill that demand, who will then provide demand for other things.

"Jobs Training" is meaningless without an industry (or family of industries) that need the bodies.

Wars are more of drain in the long run. It can take decades to recover. While you are fighting the war people qare forced to ration everything. Building, power station, bridges get destroyed. The temporary growth is huge drain once the war is over.

I leery to say tax cuts because I am not really sure they do anything to create jobs. Investing R&D works put it takes a long time to work. Investing infrastructure is a good idea but mostly for construction markets.

Also I keep hearing how the current labor market does not have the skill required to get high tech job. The companies are unwilling to train. In the meantime you have an untapped potential in the current labor market which we should invest in.

As for spuring job growth I am not sure there is much a government can do in 6 months. It would probably take about 2 to 3 years at the shortest to make any difference.

We are looking at 2010 at best.

Depends how you apply the 'force'. Making any kind of social aid for long term unemployed CONTINGENT on joining such an organisation, for example.

(Assuming that such a thing is done rationally, you don't want people that can't work because they're injured being 'forced', for example)

I like this idea too. Pretty easy to do as well. The problem is you maybe cutting into construction companies so we just have to be careful about projects.

Draft people into the military or some type of civilian corps. Kinda like forced work, but imagine all the things that would get done!
I think the Peace Corps covers your idea; however, members do not get "drafted" and they do get paid, although not greatly. I think an expansion of the Peace Corps was one of the ideas Obama had to keep people employed and to help improve the USA with public works of all kinds, but am not sure what the republicans did to that idea the past few days.

I would be in favor of the institituion of the draft nationwide for our military forces though, because that would ensure there was never another war again. Right now, people (senators, congresspeople, the wealthy and the republicans) are content with the idea of war and are quite willing to fund it because their children aren't in it. That would change quite dramatically if their kids were drafted at 18 (male and female) and had to serve until they were all 21, and it wasn't just the poor and middle classes who serve "voluntarily" because there are no jobs for them and they can't afford school otherwise.

I think the Peace Corps covers your idea; however, members do not get "drafted" and they do get paid, although not greatly. I think an expansion of the Peace Corps was one of the ideas Obama had to keep people employed and to help improve the USA with public works of all kinds, but am not sure what the republicans did to that idea the past few days.
It has the word "peace" in it. They probably killed it. I'm just guessing based on the amount of thought they seem to have been giving things lately.


I would be in favor of the institituion of the draft nationwide for our military forces though, because that would ensure there was never another war again. Right now, people (senators, congresspeople, the wealthy and the republicans) are content with the idea of war and are quite willing to fund it because their children aren't in it. That would change quite dramatically if their kids were drafted at 18 (male and female) and had to serve until they were all 21, and it wasn't just the poor and middle classes who serve "voluntarily" because there are no jobs for them and they can't afford school otherwise.
I would absolutely not be in favor of bringing back the draft. First because I think it is a bad thing to begin with. Second because everyone who has ever predicted that it would put an end to war because the rich would never want to send their own children to fight has been made a fool of -- because the rich have always bought their way out of every draft we've ever had.

I would absolutely not be in favor of bringing back the draft. First because I think it is a bad thing to begin with. Second because everyone who has ever predicted that it would put an end to war because the rich would never want to send their own children to fight has been made a fool of -- because the rich have always bought their way out of every draft we've ever had.

sometimes they buy their way into an officer position for glory and war booty and such.

I don't know how Canada will take being labeled a frontier.
I also don't know how they will take being shoved on reservations with the people they shoved on reservations.

The suggestion was tongue-in-cheek (mostly). The problem is one of demand for labour, that's usually the root of all rampant unemployment situations-lots of people need work, but not a lot of work to do, so you end up with lots of unemployed people.

"Make-work" programmes don't solve the underlying problem, and DO absorb resources besides labour, stalling any recoveries.

Two and a half million people without jobs is a serious problem, but it isn't going to be solved by taking half of them, having them dig a hole, and the other half having to fill it-all you're doing in that situation is making a bad situation worse-the work needs to PRODUCE something, and the market needs to be there for the Product.

Printing more money doesn't help, because that more money buys less-you're not ever going to be able to print value, and by printing more money to pay workers to do, essentially, worthless work, you're just devaluing the labour of the people who still have jobs, and are still contributing to the system.

There were a couple of factors that fueled the tech-boom of the nineties:

The first, was the Y2K scare. It generated an artificial market for technology companies and start-ups. The Global Warming scare might be able to do the same, provided you have available technology that provides adequate energy-density and can be adapted to existing distribution networks and infrastructure...and also requires enough raw bodies to produce, maintain, and install it-a revamping of the American Energy Grid to "Clean Technology" could provide sufficient worker-demand to make the effort worth the cost in the short-term (because, y'know, it only takes so long before you run out of places you need to run power lines or build power plants.) I believe sufficient fear maybe has been created to make this a viable step in solving the short-term unemployment problem.

The second, was the rise of an unregulated, but accessable, marketplace-the Internet, which, for a time, was growth-opportunity enough to (again) fund start-ups in the technology fields, which in turn provided (for a time) a supply of well-paying positions in web development, IT, and associated activities-many of which are now priced downward as you can't swing a dead cat these days and not hit someone who can't at least do a little java-script or XML, and a lot of the old positions are now automated away or offshored. Internet services, and associated technologies created their own marketplace, and with it demand. It is now, imho, a matured market that's stabilized (witness the number of white-collar layoffs in the last ten years in the web-based fields and e-commerce.)

Real-estate in the 2000's was a growth market because of the capital generated in the nineties, combined with manipulations of Credit by the banks and by the Legislators and Regulators-it hit a wall of sorts in which value failed to continue escalating at the inflated rates it was-so we can't really use the "build another row of housing" as a method-the prices need to come down, or wages need to go up-and wages will not rise in a tight labour market where unemployment is on the rise. If they do, it's inflation-based, driven from outside factors, and simply serves to further devalue the worth of the labour you've still got working to produce value.

We need a Market, one that people are willing to pay for the products of, that requires people to work in it, and generates productive value, preferably one that can't be outsourced off-shore regardless of legal externalities (like Tariffs, trade agreements, and the like).

There aren't a lot of options for that, and fewer still are the options that don't put Government funding in direct opposition to local, existing, private companies that don't rely on taxpayer support to exist.

snip

Sounds like you take Say's Law to heart or at least in part.
My advice would be to stabilize the currency and encourage savings(which becomes capitol for investment).Both of which can be accomplished via raising the interest rate.

Sounds like you take Say's Law to heart or at least in part.
My advice would be to stabilize the currency and encourage savings(which becomes capitol for investment).Both of which can be accomplished via raising the interest rate.

My education's pretty shoddy, I passed Econ 101 and 102 pretty easily, but I'm not about to say I'm well-educated on this...but I know what happens to ME when I spend more than I make, and I know what an economy with few jobs and lots of job-seekers looks like (I was a kid in SW Colorado during the bust in the eighties and the Silverado shenanigans...)

IMHO, the U.S. as a whole (from bottom to top, private and public) has spent more than it's generated, and there's only so far you can go doing that, and no further. I've tried to live within my means ever since I moved out of my parents' house-which has insulated me, a bit, from some of the problems my peer-group (in terms of age and employment) have suffered, but it means we (the wife and I) don't have a lot of the comforts our friends do.

To generate wealth, you need to make something people want. Back in '94, I did some gun-trading and made a tidy profit selling at a mark-up at gun-shows, doing a bit of 'smithing, and the like...because of an artificial demand created by the "Assault Weapons Ban" Clinton signed, so I've participated (to an extent) in a "bubble market" before, and got out before it collapsed (with the end of said ban).

You can create a market with fear-fear of additional regulations in the firearms case, fear of oncoming catastrophe in the case of Y2K, or fear of scarcity (the rise in oil-prices last year), and kill it the same way. You can also create a bubble by having loose credit, but again, it's artificial, and it eventually resets when the prices get too far past "Willing and Able"-as happened with Housing last year, with repercussions that we're probably going to feel for the next ten, if we're really, really lucky.

But wealth is something that has to be created by Production-you can't shuffle Value into existence, and inflating quantities of money might pay your debts a little bit today, but those debts are based on the loan of a VALUE.

If the Value you generate isn't up to the Value you've borrowed against, you're going deeper into debt, no matter what you hock and promise...and that's what I see with this "Stimulus" bill. It isn't going to generate VALUE, it's just an excuse to print money-which de-values the money and puts everyone DEEPER into debt than they are already.

The problem is cultural-we have a culture that "Want it all, want it NOW, won't wait, doesn't want to work harder"-a culture that thrives on the game-show and the Lottery-winner, the idea of the "Bonanza" instead of the value of work.

This culture is backed up by a government that wants to give you it all, give it to you now, because they'll get elected if you think they're going to do so, and a corporate culture that functions on a three-month horizon, allowing quarterly reports of "Profit" with an end-of-the-year loss/deficit.

The Myth of the Bonanza has been killing us for the last fifty years. There's no "Huge Market in China" for our goods-they're producing value, and selling it here, we've been their market. There's no magickal "Service Industry Economy" that is going to save us from the consequences of gutting our production capacity and living off what our grandfathers built-which we've been doing since the seventies-there's only so long you can credit yourself before you run out of people who will prop you up, and you can only wash each other's socks so long before they wear out.

The only way out, is to produce your way out-work harder, and the only way THAT is going to work, is to produce something people will pay you VALUE for.

Abolish patents on pharmaceuticals. Since drug patents are simply a way for drug companies to artificially limit supplies and fix prices, abolishing patents would result in new factories popping up everywhere manufacturing generic pharmaceuticals. This would bring healthcare costs down too.

Hang on a second, if you are abolishing patents on pharmaceuticals, then what incentive would there be for businesses and people to research and develop new forms of medication?

Hang on a second, if you are abolishing patents on pharmaceuticals, then what incentive would there be for businesses and people to research and develop new forms of medication?

None. But it does make it easier to distribute those existing formulae through a socialized system. When Boeing eliminated the cash-prize for innovations coming from the factory floor, the net result was that those innovations stopped coming. A Patent is a prize for innovative work-it motivates people to solve problems and improve things. VERY few of the folks likely to come up with better ways to do something are going to bother if they don't get more than a pat on the head and a lapel pin for their effort.

None. But it does make it easier to distribute those existing formulae through a socialized system. When Boeing eliminated the cash-prize for innovations coming from the factory floor, the net result was that those innovations stopped coming. A Patent is a prize for innovative work-it motivates people to solve problems and improve things. VERY few of the folks likely to come up with better ways to do something are going to bother if they don't get more than a pat on the head and a lapel pin for their effort.

exactly.

None. But it does make it easier to distribute those existing formulae through a socialized system. When Boeing eliminated the cash-prize for innovations coming from the factory floor, the net result was that those innovations stopped coming. A Patent is a prize for innovative work-it motivates people to solve problems and improve things. VERY few of the folks likely to come up with better ways to do something are going to bother if they don't get more than a pat on the head and a lapel pin for their effort.

QFT - that is precisely why we have a system of copyrights and patents, to encourage people to figure out ideas to improve our world.

snip

Working on a paper or i would write longer repsonces.

I agree we cant spend our way out of this issue. and I think the Demand side economist are going about this all wrong. Running a deficit only helps if you solve the problem that caused the issue to begin with. Economist on Demand side seem to think its banking regulation among other things. Those who favor the appraoch of Say blame it on government mismanagement of currency and discouragement of savings.

On China that trade deficit is aggerated because it doesnt count intellectual property made over there with money sent back to the states. Even with a lot of it being ripped off (which is on the decline) factor in the movies, music, and computer programs and the trade deficit shrienks considerably.

Also dont discount the services industry. Another thing shrienking the trade Deficit with China is Remittance by English teachers and other professinals in China.

The Loose Idea behind Says law is that production creates demand (for other goods and services which eventually comes back to the item produces) so long as prices are flexiable enough to allow the market to reach an equaliberian.

Working on a paper or i would write longer repsonces.

I agree we cant spend our way out of this issue. and I think the Demand side economist are going about this all wrong. Running a deficit only helps if you solve the problem that caused the issue to begin with. Economist on Demand side seem to think its banking regulation among other things. Those who favor the appraoch of Say blame it on government mismanagement of currency and discouragement of savings.

On China that trade deficit is aggerated because it doesnt count intellectual property made over there with money sent back to the states. Even with a lot of it being ripped off (which is on the decline) factor in the movies, music, and computer programs and the trade deficit shrienks considerably.

Also dont discount the services industry. Another thing shrienking the trade Deficit with China is Remittance by English teachers and other professinals in China.

The Loose Idea behind Says law is that production creates demand (for other goods and services which eventually comes back to the item produces) so long as prices are flexiable enough to allow the market to reach an equaliberian.

But that deficit remains, even when you flog the numbers to make the service industries look good. The problem, I suspect, is that you have Economists each seeing only a single part-like the blind men and the Oliphaunt, they all say it is only a single thing, and give accurate descriptions of each single thing, but it's not just that single thing-it's all those parts, put together.

Maybe it's being a mechanic, but when you fix the oil-pump, it's usually a good idea to change the oil, inspect the rings, valves, and belts, etc. etc.-you fix a single symptom, but it's just a Symptom of a larger problem. If you don't fix the Problem, then it's just going to pop up in a different place, possibly doing MORE damage in the process (and always adding to the existing damage that wasn't cured when you fixed the symptom.)

But that deficit remains, even when you flog the numbers to make the service industries look good. The problem, I suspect, is that you have Economists each seeing only a single part-like the blind men and the Oliphaunt, they all say it is only a single thing, and give accurate descriptions of each single thing, but it's not just that single thing-it's all those parts, put together.

Maybe it's being a mechanic, but when you fix the oil-pump, it's usually a good idea to change the oil, inspect the rings, valves, and belts, etc. etc.-you fix a single symptom, but it's just a Symptom of a larger problem. If you don't fix the Problem, then it's just going to pop up in a different place, possibly doing MORE damage in the process (and always adding to the existing damage that wasn't cured when you fixed the symptom.)

I am A say's law adherent, to me the problem is the government restricting flexibility. And creating artificial demand for services. The Keynesian on this forum tend to disagree very vehemently. Of course the main problem with application of Say's law is it really needs to be applied on a world wide scale for ultimate flexibility. But allowing labor to move that freely across boarders would make people shit their pants.

Also on the trade deficit with China they really haven't taken over any domestic industries rather they have taken over industries that other developing countries used to produce.

though trade deficits are not really a problem. Look at the Italian city states they were able to run a trade deficit with the Arab and Berber traders for 500 years and become remarkably wealthy while doing it. The reason was because they were able to was because of currency. they were able to print and manage currency very well. The Berber's and Arabs tended to inflate their currency to worthlessness. The US is in a unique position 70% of the worlds foreign reserves are in US dollars. If the US could manage its currency correctly we could run a trade deficit for centuries and get richer every year.

this Crisis is mostly due to the US's refusal to take a major financial leadership role rather then taking a blow everything leadership role.

A Patent is a prize for innovative work-it motivates people to solve problems and improve things. VERY few of the folks likely to come up with better ways to do something are going to bother if they don't get more than a pat on the head and a lapel pin for their effort.

It all depends - having a secure job would mean that the status for developing a new system/idea would be of greater value than an increased pay rise.

Also a cash prize could be given on a one-time or one-time + utility pay (if it turns out to be useful), without the payment being excessive or the idea being restricted. Most pharmaciticals are worked on by teams who are paid just for working - if they did receive royalties (and this ignores that most initial discoveries are rarely rewarded to any great extent, at least in monetary terms) the benefit wouldn't need to be great.

My advice would be to stabilize the currency and encourage savings(which becomes capitol for investment).Both of which can be accomplished via raising the interest rate.

How do you figure raising interest rates will stabilize the currency? Raising interest rates is generally considered a tool to stop inflation while in fact we are currently experiencing deflation. There isnt too much money in the economy there is too little, and raising interest rates reduces the flow of money into the economy.

First of all, you must be aware that American workers have already paid for their unemployment benefits via a payroll tax, right?


You must be aware that, as a permanent resident, I pay for those unemployment benefits - but I'm not allowed to claim them... maybe that mean I care less about the whole situation. In the interests of full disclosure.


So why should they have to sign away their liberty to get something they've already paid for?


Sign away their liberty? To... be unemployed? I thought the point was that these people were without work.


Second, why would you set up a system whereby they have to WORK to get UNEMPLOYMENT benefits? You know...because if they're working, they're not unemployed...? Why don't you just call it a jobs program and pay them a fair wage already?


So - your complaint is that the work doesn't pay enough? I don't have a problem with paying them more for their benefits, if they're actually working. Of course, I don't know where you're going to pay for it, from.


Third, if you are forcing them into a work program, aren't you taking away their time to look for another "real" job?


In a recession of mass employment, in which I'm talking about finding work for the long-term unemployed? Are we going to rely on a good job being 'just around the corner' for... what? The next ten years?


That is kind of the whole point of unemployment benefits, you know -- to tide people over while they look for a job. So if, to get their UNEMPLOYMENT benefits, they have to WORK for the state in whatever jobs the state includes in the program, what will that do to all the industries/professions that aren't in the program but which those workers would be applying for jobs in?


I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make. The reason you get mass unemployment in recession/depression economies is because those other industries or professions can't pay for the extra labour.

If you mean - how will those companies fill vacancies when they CAN afford to pick someone up... there's no reason the people in the work programs couldn't be registered somewhere as 'looking for work'. Relocate them when eligible work comes up.


People are either employed or unemployed, either working or not working. I think it would be a bad idea to mix the two conditions.

I don't.

I can't think of a good reason why we need a 'long-term unemployed' category ever. Much less, now.

You must be aware that, as a permanent resident, I pay for those unemployment benefits - but I'm not allowed to claim them... maybe that mean I care less about the whole situation. In the interests of full disclosure.
Yeah, I know that, which is why I was so incredulous at your suggestion. I notice that you still have not answered why people should have to work to access something they already paid for.

Sign away their liberty? To... be unemployed? I thought the point was that these people were without work.
No, not their liberty to be unemployed. Nor their liberty to be non-responsive smart-asses, either. As I specifically stated, their liberty to look for work in their own fields.

So - your complaint is that the work doesn't pay enough? I don't have a problem with paying them more for their benefits, if they're actually working. Of course, I don't know where you're going to pay for it, from.
If that had been my complaint, then it would have been what I said. Since I didn't say it, it is not my complaint. Keep your words in your own mouth.

In a recession of mass employment, in which I'm talking about finding work for the long-term unemployed? Are we going to rely on a good job being 'just around the corner' for... what? The next ten years?
Did I say that, either? No? Then I'm not going to answer your questions about it. I did not make that argument, so I'm not going to defend it.

If you like, I'll knit you a sock puppet you can have this argument of yours with.

I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make.
That much is clear. When you figure it out, come talk to me. In the meantime, enjoy talking to yourself about whatever it is that interests you more than what I was saying.

I would release 10 quadrillion hamsters and people would have to be hired to catch them all. *nod*

How long would it take 2 hamsters to become 10 quadrillion hamsters?

Seriously...:tongue:

I see what you sneaky Americans are doing. *narrows eyes*

:D

The USA economy has officially been in a recession since December, 2007, it has lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 6 months, and Obama has been president since 1/20/09, about 3 weeks.

As there is a great debate on the stimulus package and what should be done, I wondered what some of your ideas were?

Do you think more tax cuts for the rich and corporations will replace these jobs based on a "trickle down" theory at this point?

Do you think the government needs to create jobs? What kind?

Do you think a combination approach is needed? What?

What about overseas jobs--more or less? What about jobs across all sectors of the economy that have been lost, not just banking, finance, etc? (For the scope and extent of the problem, see posts below).

job loss: Worst in 34 years - Feb. 6, 2009.
money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Employment Situation SummaryU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics ... In January, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors. ....
www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm - 49k

SEE POST 75 AS TO WHAT WAS CUT FROM STIMULUS PLAN TODAY 2/7/09

Well, I agree with most of what Lacadaemon and Muravyets covered earlier.

I'd also really like it if we seriously went after the sacred cow of defense spending...use the money better. But there's too many people in government who'd never argue that subject seriously...

That much is clear. When you figure it out, come talk to me.

Fair enough.

I made best guesses at everything based on what you wrote.

I don't have time to decode, and if it's not worth rephrasing, I can live without.

It has the word "peace" in it. They probably killed it. I'm just guessing based on the amount of thought they seem to have been giving things lately.



I would absolutely not be in favor of bringing back the draft. First because I think it is a bad thing to begin with. Second because everyone who has ever predicted that it would put an end to war because the rich would never want to send their own children to fight has been made a fool of -- because the rich have always bought their way out of every draft we've ever had.
You are probably right about the rich always being able to get their kids out of the draft--and I don't like the draft either--but it seems that if ever we become involved in a justified war, we might need more bodies and a draft seems to be the fairest way to get them. I don't think a draft and a war is the way to solve this economic mess--unlike others in this thread--but I don't like seeing the recruiters on street corners angling for young kids who are just out of high school and selling them on the military so they can get further training or education either. The recruiters are like predators in the neighborhoods (bronx, queens, harlem--where only the lower and middle classes live).

2 quick and easy measures to increase employment:

Abolish patents on pharmaceuticals. Since drug patents are simply a way for drug companies to artificially limit supplies and fix prices, abolishing patents would result in new factories popping up everywhere manufacturing generic pharmaceuticals. This would bring healthcare costs down too.

Exempt small time farmers from food inspection laws. Since food inspection laws give an unfair competitive advantage to big agribusinesses who can afford to absorb the costs of hosting FDA inspectors, exemptions for small farmers would allow small farmers who can't afford to host inspectors to compete more effectively. This would attract and maintain employment in agriculture, especially small local farms.
I don't see how these ideas would increase unemployment. Why would any company spend millions to develop drugs and medicine if they were not patent-protected for a reasonable amount of time to recoup their investment? I think they need some protection, but perhaps not the time period they have now? What is that time period?

How would exempting farmers from inspection laws help employment? Don't the inspectors add jobs? Why do I want to buy lettuce or spinach or peanut products that are tainted and likely to kill me (like the peanut product problem we have now and the spinach/lettuce problem of not too long ago)? Do you know China is executing the people who provided tainted milk or whatever it was to kids? Would you like us to execute farmers who sell tainted products to the public instead of just inspecting their products?

How long would it take 2 hamsters to become 10 quadrillion hamsters?

Seriously...:tongue:



:D



Well, I agree with most of what Lacadaemon and Muravyets covered earlier.

I'd also really like it if we seriously went after the sacred cow of defense spending...use the money better. But there's too many people in government who'd never argue that subject seriously...
I too would llke to cut down on defense spending--perhaps the people in the military could still be paid by the feds during their enlistment/service period but be trained and used and redeployed in the various states as "terrorist specialists" or to provide assitance to the police/coast guard/sheriffs in the various states in some capacity? Just an idea to reutilize some of them when they come home from Iraq soon (I hope).

The suggestion was tongue-in-cheek (mostly). The problem is one of demand for labour, that's usually the root of all rampant unemployment situations-lots of people need work, but not a lot of work to do, so you end up with lots of unemployed people.

"Make-work" programmes don't solve the underlying problem, and DO absorb resources besides labour, stalling any recoveries.

Two and a half million people without jobs is a serious problem, but it isn't going to be solved by taking half of them, having them dig a hole, and the other half having to fill it-all you're doing in that situation is making a bad situation worse-the work needs to PRODUCE something, and the market needs to be there for the Product.

Printing more money doesn't help, because that more money buys less-you're not ever going to be able to print value, and by printing more money to pay workers to do, essentially, worthless work, you're just devaluing the labour of the people who still have jobs, and are still contributing to the system.

There were a couple of factors that fueled the tech-boom of the nineties:

The first, was the Y2K scare. It generated an artificial market for technology companies and start-ups. The Global Warming scare might be able to do the same, provided you have available technology that provides adequate energy-density and can be adapted to existing distribution networks and infrastructure...and also requires enough raw bodies to produce, maintain, and install it-a revamping of the American Energy Grid to "Clean Technology" could provide sufficient worker-demand to make the effort worth the cost in the short-term (because, y'know, it only takes so long before you run out of places you need to run power lines or build power plants.) I believe sufficient fear maybe has been created to make this a viable step in solving the short-term unemployment problem.

The second, was the rise of an unregulated, but accessable, marketplace-the Internet, which, for a time, was growth-opportunity enough to (again) fund start-ups in the technology fields, which in turn provided (for a time) a supply of well-paying positions in web development, IT, and associated activities-many of which are now priced downward as you can't swing a dead cat these days and not hit someone who can't at least do a little java-script or XML, and a lot of the old positions are now automated away or offshored. Internet services, and associated technologies created their own marketplace, and with it demand. It is now, imho, a matured market that's stabilized (witness the number of white-collar layoffs in the last ten years in the web-based fields and e-commerce.)

Real-estate in the 2000's was a growth market because of the capital generated in the nineties, combined with manipulations of Credit by the banks and by the Legislators and Regulators-it hit a wall of sorts in which value failed to continue escalating at the inflated rates it was-so we can't really use the "build another row of housing" as a method-the prices need to come down, or wages need to go up-and wages will not rise in a tight labour market where unemployment is on the rise. If they do, it's inflation-based, driven from outside factors, and simply serves to further devalue the worth of the labour you've still got working to produce value.

We need a Market, one that people are willing to pay for the products of, that requires people to work in it, and generates productive value, preferably one that can't be outsourced off-shore regardless of legal externalities (like Tariffs, trade agreements, and the like).

There aren't a lot of options for that, and fewer still are the options that don't put Government funding in direct opposition to local, existing, private companies that don't rely on taxpayer support to exist.
Well I think your new President did put money in the stimulus package for improving the grid systems, infrastructure, decreasing dependency on gas-driven autos and oil generally and on the development of alternatives,and for reduction of global warming which is a related issue; however, I don't know what the result of those proposals is vis-a-vis the stimulus bill. I hope they are still in because some of these are the root of many problems. It would be great to get "clean" technologies and products going in this nation!

You are probably right about the rich always being able to get their kids out of the draft--and I don't like the draft either--but it seems that if ever we become involved in a justified war, we might need more bodies and a draft seems to be the fairest way to get them. I don't think a draft and a war is the way to solve this economic mess--unlike others in this thread--but I don't like seeing the recruiters on street corners angling for young kids who are just out of high school and selling them on the military so they can get further training or education either. The recruiters are like predators in the neighborhoods (bronx, queens, harlem--where only the lower and middle classes live).
I agree. They're like pimps for the government.

How do you figure raising interest rates will stabilize the currency? Raising interest rates is generally considered a tool to stop inflation while in fact we are currently experiencing deflation. There isnt too much money in the economy there is too little, and raising interest rates reduces the flow of money into the economy.

the deflation we are experiencing is because of 2 factors.

1.most Debt in the world is enumerated in dollars.
right now there is a spike for demand of dollars as people are paying off their debts.
2. the Oil price crash.
both of these deflation factors are temporary.
As the debts from reason #1 are paid off the dollars will be left floating leading to a massive devaluation of currency.
#2 as the Mideast reduces oil output oil will rise again.

Also the current deflation cycle is not a negative one. Oil is a commodity that the prospect of continued drop in price will that will not cause people to hold off on buying to see if prices dip lower.

These two factors will cause a massive upswing in inflation. The devaluation of the dollar will also hamper trade and deepen this mess.

You eliminate the income tax - so foreign companies set up over here, funnel their profits back overseas, and don't pay any taxes. Because they're not stupid.

Then they hire locals, who don't spend their money here, with ALL the taxation now being done through retail sales. They spend their money overseas, because they're not stupid.

You didn't really think it through, did you?
Better than you... Out of all the opposition I've read about a national retail sales tax, this concern is never, ever mentioned. Probably because it isn't a concern. Many large states, including large states like Florida and Texas run entirely on sales taxes. Do folks go cross borders to avoid those taxes? Of course not.

Even the scenario you paint is ridiculous. Daimler-Chrysler hires my neighbor to make something. He takes his pay and goes shopping in Europe? He's going to get hit with a huge VAT on everything he buys. How many other nations do the same thing? Where's the benefit of shopping overseas?

And don't forget the shipping charges... Last time I shipped something across either ocean, it was very slow, or very expensive. I don't think my neighbor is going to want to pay 10 Eu for a shirt, another Eu for VAT, and another 5 Eu to get the shirt back into the U.S. Not when he can go buy the same thing for half the price -- tax included -- at the Wal-Mart down the street.

...including large states like Florida and Texas run entirely on sales taxes.....

No, they don't. Florida has a corporate income tax, and Texas has a franchise tax which is nothing more than a limited income tax, and both have property taxes and other taxes.

No, they don't. Florida has a corporate income tax, and Texas has a franchise tax which is nothing more than a limited income tax, and both have property taxes and other taxes.
Florida's, at least, is managed properly, i.e. corporations pay very little.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/26/State/A_special_report_on_F.shtml. The Texas tax is similarly small. Sales tax is still the state's largest source of revenue in both cases. Property taxes are administered at the county level.

But the point -- that you want to overlook -- is that no one is going to profit by buying goods overseas and avoiding the retail sales tax.

Save 2 million jobs?


I'd legalize prostitution.

That would open up a major career opportunity for women and men in the business. It would also stimulate economy through the added need for medical services, security officials not forgetting rubber industry or the increased need of dedicated real estate.


As an additional benefit, such a move would also tackle the depression and affect crime rates by removing repressed sexual frustrations.

I would also set clients age limit to 16 and workers to 17 so frustrated teenagers shouldn't have to wait too long for guaranteed sexual intercourse or, later, source of personal income.


Welcome to a happier world!

Florida's, at least, is managed properly, i.e. corporations pay very little.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/26/State/A_special_report_on_F.shtml. The Texas tax is similarly small. Sales tax is still the state's largest source of revenue in both cases. Property taxes are administered at the county level.

But the point -- that you want to overlook -- is that no one is going to profit by buying goods overseas and avoiding the retail sales tax.

I wasn't addressing your point. Just pointing out a mistake in your post.

I want tax breaks, oh yes!

Better than you... Out of all the opposition I've read about a national retail sales tax, this concern is never, ever mentioned.


Which is irrelevent.

Your ignorance is not my concern.


Probably because it isn't a concern. Many large states, including large states like Florida and Texas run entirely on sales taxes.


Dishonest, or just ignorant?


Do folks go cross borders to avoid those taxes? Of course not.


Folks here in NE Georgia hop across the border into the Carolinas, so I suspect there's some traffic, yes.

The distance people will be willing to travel, though, will depend on the products and the differences in cost.


Even the scenario you paint is ridiculous. Daimler-Chrysler hires my neighbor to make something. He takes his pay and goes shopping in Europe?


Why Europe? Canada is closer, isn't it? Mexico?

And people already DO cross those borders for the right prices.



He's going to get hit with a huge VAT on everything he buys. How many other nations do the same thing? Where's the benefit of shopping overseas?


Even assuming value added tax, other prices may well be MORE than competetive. Especially if we're entertaining your ridiculous 'purely sales tax' idea - once you start applying the tax burden to sales, it will become cheaper to shop elsewhere.


And don't forget the shipping charges... Last time I shipped something across either ocean, it was very slow, or very expensive.


Last time I shipped something to England, it wasn't that bad. Last time I shipped something FROM Europe, it worked out a lot cheaper than buying it here, though I did have to wait about 10 days.


I don't think my neighbor is going to want to pay 10 Eu for a shirt, another Eu for VAT, and another 5 Eu to get the shirt back into the U.S. Not when he can go buy the same thing for half the price -- tax included -- at the Wal-Mart down the street.

But the prices at Wal-Mart will be higher, once you start adding the tax burden there. What - you think Wal-Mart are going to suck up the price difference, because they're so kind?

No, they don't. Florida has a corporate income tax, and Texas has a franchise tax which is nothing more than a limited income tax, and both have property taxes and other taxes.

Exactly, thank you.

Which is irrelevent.

Your ignorance is not my concern.



Dishonest, or just ignorant?



Folks here in NE Georgia hop across the border into the Carolinas, so I suspect there's some traffic, yes.

The distance people will be willing to travel, though, will depend on the products and the differences in cost.



Why Europe? Canada is closer, isn't it? Mexico?

And people already DO cross those borders for the right prices.




Even assuming value added tax, other prices may well be MORE than competetive. Especially if we're entertaining your ridiculous 'purely sales tax' idea - once you start applying the tax burden to sales, it will become cheaper to shop elsewhere.



Last time I shipped something to England, it wasn't that bad. Last time I shipped something FROM Europe, it worked out a lot cheaper than buying it here, though I did have to wait about 10 days.



But the prices at Wal-Mart will be higher, once you start adding the tax burden there. What - you think Wal-Mart are going to suck up the price difference, because they're so kind?
There's a lot of speculation built into that reply... Way too much to take seriously. "...may well be..."? Speculation. "...something from Europe..." 'Something'? Give me a break. At least I put the effort into making up a product.

Without embedded taxes on profit, labor, payroll, etc, retail prices will decrease. Competition guarantees that will happen. Why? Because companies want market share. When they see that they can increase share with reduced profit margins, they will do so. They do that now, so I don't see the disconnect.

I notice you chose not to respond to all the points on which you were obviously shown to be either lying or naive.

I take that as your concession.

There's a lot of speculation built into that reply... Way too much to take seriously. "...may well be..."?


That's not really speculation - that's market forces. I don't know EXACTLY how the market will react under those circumstances, obviously, or I'd give you numbers.

What I'm saying is - it WOULD be competetive, and may well be MORE than competetive.

"...something from Europe..." 'Something'? Give me a break. At least I put the effort into making up a product.


The last thing I ordered from Europe was CD's, ten of them, from a German online record store - because that's where I can get the music I like, cheaper than I can get it here - IF I can get it here.

All my costs included, the CD's were individually at least a couple of dollars less than I would have paid for them here. Indeed, MUCH less, because several would have been 'Import' records here.

It's not a matter of making up products, it's a matter of whether that little extra information made any difference to the point. Which it doesn't.


Without embedded taxes on profit, labor, payroll, etc, retail prices will decrease.


Except that the sales tax will increase. And Wal-Mart aren't going to suck that up.


Competition guarantees that will happen. Why? Because companies want market share. When they see that they can increase share with reduced profit margins, they will do so. They do that now, so I don't see the disconnect.

Competition doesn't guarantee that will happen, at all. The hard costs for someone like Wal-Mart aren't going to change, the soft costs would experience some flexibility, but the tax burden is going to add a new HARD cost on top of Wal-Mart's hard costs. The price would actually go UP on many items (especially subsistence level items - which is why sales taxes are punitive on the poor) - and the longer the system stays like that, the more the prices will rise... and because it's a HARD cost, it can't be offset.

I notice you chose not to respond to all the points on which you were obviously shown to be either lying or naive.

I take that as your concession.



That's not really speculation - that's market forces. I don't know EXACTLY how the market will react under those circumstances, obviously, or I'd give you numbers.

What I'm saying is - it WOULD be competetive, and may well be MORE than competetive.



The last thing I ordered from Europe was CD's, ten of them, from a German online record store - because that's where I can get the music I like, cheaper than I can get it here - IF I can get it here.

All my costs included, the CD's were individually at least a couple of dollars less than I would have paid for them here. Indeed, MUCH less, because several would have been 'Import' records here.

It's not a matter of making up products, it's a matter of whether that little extra information made any difference to the point. Which it doesn't.



Except that the sales tax will increase. And Wal-Mart aren't going to suck that up.



Competition doesn't guarantee that will happen, at all. The hard costs for someone like Wal-Mart aren't going to change, the soft costs would experience some flexibility, but the tax burden is going to add a new HARD cost on top of Wal-Mart's hard costs. The price would actually go UP on many items (especially subsistence level items - which is why sales taxes are punitive on the poor) - and the longer the system stays like that, the more the prices will rise... and because it's a HARD cost, it can't be offset.
Your purchase of ten CDs is hardly a convincing argument that the economy will shift overseas. You just aren't thinking on a household scale. I won't buy furnishings, building products, or anything else on a large scale if I have to have it shipped from some foreign country. And most people aren't going to drive to Canada or Mexico to buy a car or a couch, let alone back to school clothes.

Clearly, you have no idea of how much the cost of taxation, as well as the cost of compliance affects the prices of goods. Since companies don't shoulder the burden of taxation, anyway, there's no reason at all to keep that margin in the price. The cost of manufacture is unchanged, all that happens is that the company no longer has to charge you for the taxes that it has to pay to the federal government.

One other thing does change, however. The company no longer has to pay for compliance with federal tax laws. That's a huge burden and the lack of compliance costs should benefit the consumer, as well.

As far as Florida and Texas go, those taxes are on business, widely avoided, and provide insignificant income, compared to sales taxes. Property taxes are assessed by counties, not states.

Creating more jobs is not that hard actually, invest heavily in the state sector and in green technology and maybe even nationalise a few industries as well, doing all this will create plenty of jobs, sure its expensive but we can pay for that by scraping useless things we dont need and by raising taxes for the rich and big bussiness.

Creating more jobs is not that hard actually, invest heavily in the state sector and in green technology and maybe even nationalise a few industries as well, doing all this will create plenty of jobs, sure its expensive but we can pay for that by scraping useless things we dont need and by raising taxes for the rich and big bussiness.
A similar philosophy did turn out real well for the former Soviet Union, didn't it?

A similar philosophy did turn out real well for the former Soviet Union, didn't it?

Does great in Norway. Maybe you should use a better comparison - I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy involved here.

As far as Florida and Texas go, those taxes are on business, widely avoided, and provide insignificant income, compared to sales taxes. Property taxes are assessed by counties, not states.Doesn't Florida have a lottery, as well as Texas?

A similar philosophy did turn out real well for the former Soviet Union, didn't it?

at what point does my post also talk about starting a new cold war and curtailing peoples freedom?

Does great in Norway. Maybe you should use a better comparison - I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy involved here.

Norway's public sector really isn't that much bigger as a percentage of GDP than that of the United States. What makes them so prosperous is that they've got a very efficient tax system that provides a considerably greater return on taxes paid than the United States, thereby lessening the "burden" of taxation for companies. The scary truth is that the US has one of the highest, if not the highest, effective corporate tax rates on Earth. Our tax code is so Byzantine and the benefits of the taxes paid so pitiful that it effectively results in our companies paying more for considerably fewer benefits.

Does great in Norway. Maybe you should use a better comparison - I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy involved here.

Yeh. The claim that a mixed economy and tax rises is 'similar' to the economy of Soviet Russia is utterly bizarre. I'm not sure if there's a logical fallacy involved here, rather it seems more likely that its a simple case of someone who has not even the most basic understanding of economics talking complete and utter nonsense.

I agree. They're like pimps for the government.
Proves both our points (same point):

Opinion - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.comFeb 9, 2009 ... Search All NYTimes.com. New York Times ... Freakonomics - New York Times Blog. New York Times Blog. By Steven D. Levitt ...
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/ - 138k - Cached - Similar pages -

Yeh. The claim that a mixed economy and tax rises is 'similar' to the economy of Soviet Russia is utterly bizarre. I'm not sure if there's a logical fallacy involved here, rather it seems more likely that its a simple case of someone who has not even the most basic understanding of economics talking complete and utter nonsense.

The closest thing I can think of would be an appeal to fear (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html).

http://eh.net/graphics/encyclopedia/grytten.norway/image005.gif

Creating more jobs is not that hard actually, invest heavily in the state sector and in green technology and maybe even nationalise a few industries as well, doing all this will create plenty of jobs, sure its expensive but we can pay for that by scraping useless things we dont need and by raising taxes for the rich and big bussiness.
Ahhhh, but financial assistance to the "state sector" was exactly what was eviscerated by the 3 republicans in the senate who helped get Obama's stimulus package passed there.

What do you think will happen when the senate and house get together to reconcile their respective bills?

Do you think the republicans, who have espoused states' rights for years (while shifting federal debt to the states), will restore the $40 or so billion needed by the states to balance budgets and keep people in state, city and other local governments employed? (I remind you that these are your police, fire, garbage, teachers, court, executive and legistlative branch system and other workers).

Have you read or heard about the federal court opinion that mandates the release of thousands of prisioners from California jails because the state of California is failing to provide for their "welfare" while imprisoned (no food, overcroweded prisons, failure to prevent violence and a lack of medical care)???

Now, you may believe that people who violate the law belong in jail, or you may believe that government is "too soft" on people in jail, but that is now irrelevant because tens of thousands of them are going to be released from prison into the streets because California is no longer able to afford to keep them in jail.

What do you think will happen when this occurs across the country? Do you think that California is just an "isolated" state with "isolated" economic problems?

Even if the $40 billion is restored to states, do you think that California and other states might reconsider their laws on who should go to jail and who should not?

Exactly how do you think that California and other states will cope with these problems, absent a restoration of the $40 billion that the republicans eviscerated from the stimulus package?

RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE.

This would mean that people would have more money to spend and so would buy more goods and services in order to stimulate the economy.

RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE.

This would mean that people would have more money to spend and so would buy more goods and services in order to stimulate the economy.

An increase in the minimum wage would have to take place over time, which President Obama has stressed we don't have to deal with this crisis. Also, it would never happen. We just raised the minimum wage and even though we weren't paying those who earned it a living wage beforehand, there was still the usual griping from those claiming to defend "small business" interests. This is not a politically or economically viable option.

Your purchase of ten CDs is hardly a convincing argument that the economy will shift overseas.


I didn't say it was. Don't try to pretend that the information you practically demanded, is my argument for something else - that's not even intellectually dishonest, it's just plain ordinary dishonest.


You just aren't thinking on a household scale. I won't buy furnishings, building products, or anything else on a large scale if I have to have it shipped from some foreign country.


Most people would, if the price was right.

I suspect you would too.


And most people aren't going to drive to Canada or Mexico to buy a car or a couch, let alone back to school clothes.


Most people would, if the price was right.

I suspect you would too.


Clearly, you have no idea...


I think you're under the impression that the things the government uses tax FOR would disappear in your fantasy 'sales tax only' world.


As far as Florida and Texas go, those taxes are on business, widely avoided, and provide insignificant income, compared to sales taxes. Property taxes are assessed by counties, not states.

Ah. Okay, I'll take THAT as your concession.

Kill 2 million people. That should keep 1,5 millions people busy digging graves and the likes for a few weeks.