Why are people suddenly arguing that it's not businesses role to create jobs? Robert Reich

[ProSense]

Reich:

Obama’s Deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

<...>

In return, the President said he wants businesses to hire more Americans....

<...>

From the standpoint of the nation as a whole more Americans working may mean even higher profits overall. But publicly-traded companies aren’t in the business of spending money to help other companies. To the contrary, they’re competing with one another to show high quarterly earnings in order to boost their share prices. They’ll “get in the game” and begin to hire large numbers of Americans only when it helps their own bottom lines.

<...>

There’s no secret to creating lots of jobs by reducing the median wage, slashing benefits, compromising health and safety at the workplace, and, effectively, reducing the standard of living of millions of Americans. We’ve been doing it for years.

<...>

The alternative is to create lots of jobs with high disposable incomes.

In the short term, this means expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit wage subsidy right up through the middle class, and cutting income and payroll taxes for everyone earning less than $80,000 a year – making up the lost revenues by raising the ceiling on Social Security payroll taxes and hiking marginal taxes on the rich.

more

(emphasis added)

Summary: President Obama gave a speech about business and the social contract, but evidently didn't consider that businesses are in the business of creating jobs (as they have been for the life of this country). They will do it only when they get to exploit workers (not that I don't agree). So the solution is to expand the EITC and cut payroll taxes on everyone earning less than $80,000 while raising the income cap.

That's the solution? That's going to get businesses to create jobs: expanding the EITC and cutting payroll taxes? Really?

Reich ended by stating: "I don’t mean to sound cynical but I doubt it."

Yeah, that's way too cynical.

[KansDem]

1. Because 30 years ago, it was called "trickle down" economics!

We were told by giving the wealthy more money, they would invest in America. That would mean more jobs as businesses expanded. Well, it didn't happen. Now we're being told its not the role of business to create jobs. They're sitting on trillions of dollars in cash and not hiring.

Goddamn it! Which is it? Did the wealthy fail us? Or did business?

[golfguru]

26. Unfortunately "trickle up" has also not worked great lately n/t

[Avant Guardian]

61. "They're sitting on trillions of dollars in cash and not hiring"

The crux of supply side failure: No demand

[AndyTiedye]

2. They Get Tax Incentives For Firing Americans and Moving Jobs Overseas

We tried to repeal that in 2009, but Lieberman stabbed us in the back and supported the Repiglickin filibuster
so these provisions are still in place.

[SharonAnn]

59. THey should "Ask what they can do for their country, not what their country can do for them"

They receive a great deal from the United States, even in supporting their global market support and outsourcing to foreign labor.

It's past time for them to be held accountable.

Why on earth are we subsidizing them with U.S. taxpayer's money when they don't provide benefits to U. S. taxpayers?

Why do we help them "redistribute" our money to their pockets? Why do we help them steal?

[MadHound]

3. Businesses aren't in the business of creating jobs, they're in the business of making a profit

A business is not going to create a single job unless there is money to be made in doing so.

The federal government on the other hand, is, and has been before, the employer of last resort. The government can create jobs for the simple purpose of employing people, though such job creation does have the extra added benefit of improving our infrastructure.

So rather than asking why businesses haven't created jobs, it would be a better question to ask Obama.

[ProSense]

5. Do you agree with Reich's suggestion?

If so, how will that create jobs?

[MadHound]

7. What, expanding the EITC and cutting taxes, no.

What is needed, as I've told you before, is a large jobs creation program on par with the WPA and other such Depression era programs. But since Obama gave away the money for such a program when he caved on the tax cut extensions, it is highly unlikely that such a program will come into being. Thus, we're essentially going to be consigning a large group of people to be permanently unemployed. But Obama will still give corporations favorable cuts to regulations and taxes.

[ProSense]

17. "a large jobs creation program on par with the WPA " Right,

and that would need to be funded by Congress as the WPA was. It's a grand idea.

The WPA created 8 million jobs over 8 years. That's 1 million jobs per year.

The economy needs to create at least 3.5 million jobs per year to dig out of the hole in five years.

Business job creation is going to have to be part of the equation. There is no way around it.

[MadHound]

20. So what is the solution then?

Waiting for Godot? Again, what is going to motivate businesses to hire? Obama's offer of lower corporate tax rates, I doubt it. What will happen is what always happens, the corporations will take those tax cuts and add them to the obscene pile of money that they're sitting on, and not create a single solitary job.

Or perhaps you're in favor of Reich's solution, increasing the pay of those who are working in order to stimulate demand. Well, you can cut those payroll taxes and extend the EITC to the middle class, but the fact of the matter is that this administration, as we saw in December, is not going to raise taxes on the rich in any shape, form or fashion. So Reich's plan would lead to more deficit spending, very inefficient deficit spending at that.

Businesses are simply not going to expand hiring until there is commiserate demand. That demand isn't going to be there until more people are working. That is the vicious cycle we're in, and the only way to break out of it is through a true WPA style job creation program. You say it is impossible to pass, but really, is it so impossible? People thought that the extension of the tax cuts for the rich was impossible, yet the 'Pugs forced a crisis "hostage" situation and forced that extension through. Perhaps we should nick a page out of their play book.

Or we could simply do what Obama wants to do, throw more good money after bad, enriching corporations for nothing in return:shrug: More stupidity beyond believe.

[ProSense]

21. "Businesses are simply not going to expand hiring until there is commiserate demand.

That demand isn't going to be there until more people are working. That is the vicious cycle we're in, and the only way to break out of it is through a true WPA style job creation program. You say it is impossible to pass, but really, is it so impossible? People thought that the extension of the tax cuts for the rich was impossible, yet the 'Pugs forced a crisis "hostage" situation and forced that extension through. Perhaps we should nick a page out of their play book. "

You think it's possible? Why didn't this get done in the last Congress, when Dems had a larger majority?

The tax cuts are not a good analogy. Republicans supported part of that package. There is little to no chance that they will support funding a WPA-style program.

[MadHound]

22. So what is your solution?

Follow Obama's lead, cutting regulations, cutting corporate taxes? Like that's a real good thing, it will just be more profit in corporate pockets and won't stimulate any demand.

Like it or not, the only way to create and sustain demand in this country is to put the people to work. The only way to put people to work at this time is for the creation of a WPA type of program. If you can figure out any other way of creating and sustaining demand in this country, let's hear it. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels, much like the administration is with all this talk about deregulation and corporate tax cuts.

[ProSense]

23. " all this talk about deregulation and corporate tax cuts." The

President isn't talking about dergulation.

So we were just talking about regulations. Even as we eliminate burdensome regulations, America’s businesses have a responsibility as well to recognize that there are some basic safeguards, some basic standards that are necessary to protect the American people from harm or exploitation. Not every regulation is bad. Not every regulation is burdensome on business. A lot of the regulations that are out there are things that all of us welcome in our lives.

Few of us would want to live in a society without rules that keep our air and water clean; that give consumers the confidence to do everything from investing in financial markets to buying groceries. And the fact is, when standards like these have been proposed in the past, opponents have often warned that they would be an assault on business and free enterprise. We can look at the history in this country. Early drug companies argued the bill creating the FDA would “practically destroy the sale of … remedies in the United States.” That didn’t happen. Auto executives predicted that having to install seatbelts would bring the downfall of their industry. It didn’t happen. The President of the American Bar Association denounced child labor laws as “a communistic effort to nationalize children.” That’s a quote.

In fact, his administration has been introducing new regulations. Also, he prosed reforming the tax code.

Interestingly, why didn't Reich suggest a WPA-style program? Likely because it has no chance of being funded by Congress.

[MadHound]

24. First of all, I'm asking you what your solution is?

More of the same Obama talking points that lead nowhere? Or do you actually have something original for a change?

Secondly, do you even read the things you post. Right there, right there in the first sentence Obama is talking about deregulation: "So we were just talking about regulations. Even as we eliminate burdensome regulations,. . . "

This is Obama's deal with the corporate devil, eliminate regulations and lower corporate taxes, all for more of those magic beans we've gotten before:eyes:

[ProSense]

27. Encourage businesses to create jobs

spend their reserve. The President already implemented a payroll tax holiday to stimulate demand.

What's your plan B since a WPA-style program isn't on the Republican House's agenda?

[MadHound]

29. And again, why should businesses create jobs when there isn't any demand?

Businesses aren't in it to be social welfare agencies, they're in it to make a profit. In fact if publicly held companies went out on a hiring spree with no commiserate increase in demand, guess what, they could be held liable in court by their shareholders.

The only organization that can put people to work when there demand is slack in this country, and unemployment is high, is the federal government. Businesses can't and won't do it, so that leaves the government as the employer of last resort.

And if you think that tax cuts, tax holidays or tax credits truly stimulate demand, you know less about economic basics than even I thought, and given your idea that businesses will create jobs out of the goodness of their heart, that's saying something.

I mean really now, why in the hell should a business put its surplus money towards hiring extra workers when there is no demand. They can take that money and put it in the market and get a much better return, which is what a lot of corporations are doing, which is why the market is doing so well while Main St. is still stuck in neutral. Geez:eyes:

There is no Plan B, there is only dicking around at the edges, bribing corporations in one form or fashion, which is what Obama is doing now. FDR had the good common sense to recognize this when he was faced with a similar problem, a shame that neither you nor Obama seem to recognize it, Obama because he is infatuated with Reagan, what's your excuse?

[ProSense]

31. Wait

didn't I just say: "The President already implemented a payroll tax holiday to stimulate demand."

Also, from the President's speech:

<...>

So if I’ve got one message, my message is now is the time to invest in America. Now is the time to invest in America. (Applause.) Today, American companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets. And I know that many of you have told me that you’re waiting for demand to rise before you get off the sidelines and expand, and that with millions of Americans out of work, demand has risen more slowly than any of us would like.

We’re in this together, but many of your own economists and salespeople are now forecasting a healthy increase in demand. So I just want to encourage you to get in the game. As part of the bipartisan tax deal we negotiated, with the support of the Chamber, businesses can immediately expense 100 percent of their capital investments. And as all of you know, it’s investments made now that will pay off as the economy rebounds. And as you hire, you know that more Americans working will mean more sales for your companies. It will mean more demand for your products and services. It will mean higher profits for your companies. We can create a virtuous circle.

<...>

Demand = job creation, and it's still business creating the jobs.

Again, what's your plan B since a WPA-style program isn't on the Republican House's agenda?

[MadHound]

32. Yes, and I as I told you

Tax holidays, tax cuts, tax credits are the worst form of economic stimulus going. So much for the payroll tax holiday creating demand.

As far as economic forecasts, well, economic forecasts by this government and by corporations have been proven wrong time and again (or need I remind you that unemployment was supposed to be under eight percent by now, according to umm, Obama's economic forecasts).

The fact of the matter, again, as I told you upthread, is that there is no Plan B, from myself or anybody else. The Gordian knot of no increase in employment without an increase in demand, which needs an increase in employment, can only be broken through a government jobs creation program. That's it, there is no Plan B. Obama's deregulation efforts and lowering corporate taxes is going to do two things, make life more dangerous in the workplace for those who do have a job, and create even more obscene profit for corporations. It won't stimulate demand, and corporations won't hire more workers out of some noblesse oblige, they will simply invest that extra money in the financial sector and make their money that way.

Let me make this clear to you, corporations aren't going to hire unless there is increased demand. There isn't going to be increased demand until more people are working. Therefore, the only way to left to increase jobs, thus increasing demand, is for the government to create a WPA style jobs creation program. Period, that's it, there is no Plan B, that is the hard economic reality we're facing.

If this doesn't happen, then we're going to continue to suffer from a lax economy. Wages will remain stagnant or worse, fall. People will continue to suffer and despair, while corporations continue to make obscene profit, and our country will decline and possibly fail. Without a job creation program, the only way employment will increase is slowly, through population growth, and that will take years.

So which is it you want? A jobs creation program and a return to economic prosperity, or more of the same old shit, with devastating economic and political results?

[ProSense]

33. Interesting. So

<...>

Let me make this clear to you, corporations aren't going to hire unless there is increased demand. There isn't going to be increased demand until more people are working. Therefore, the only way to left to increase jobs, thus increasing demand, is for the government to create a WPA style jobs creation program. Period, that's it, there is no Plan B, that is the hard economic reality we're facing.

If this doesn't happen, then we're going to continue to suffer from a lax economy. Wages will remain stagnant or worse, fall. People will continue to suffer and despair, while corporations continue to make obscene profit, and our country will decline and possibly fail. Without a job creation program, the only way employment will increase is slowly, through population growth, and that will take years.

...you believe there will be no recovery without a WPA-style program?

Also, what does job creation via such a program have to do with improving stagnant wages? That issue has to be addressed. Still, even if all the jobs businesses create are high-paying ones, unless something is done to address the issue, it will have no impact on income disparity.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

37. "A large pool of unemployed drives wages down, basic supply and demand." Hmmm?

Returning people to the payrolls will bring wages back up, but how does that address wages that have become stagnant over the long term?

Is job creation going to address the fact that a person earning $60,000 now should be earning far more (about $90,000) if wages had kept pace with growth over the past four decades?

"And again, no, there will be little or no recovery unless there is a WPA style jobs creation program that is instituted...It's that simple. If you have some other plan, one that doesn't violate the basic tenants of Econ 101, I'm all ears."

You keep asking me for a plan, which I have offered, but your plan seems to be nothing will be done so we are doomed.

[MadHound]

39. And your plan is?

More of Obama's corporate tax cuts and loosening of regulations? That's it then, is that your plan? If so, then we are doomed, because as I've said, along with many top flight economists, tax cuts are the least effective form of economic stimulus, period. Furthermore, as I've shown, businesses, despite tax cuts and deregulation, aren't going to increase their workforce until there is demand. There isn't going to be demand until there are more people employed. There is only one way out of this vicious circle, a jobs creation program. You don't think it could be done, well, if you take that attitude, it won't be done because nothing is ever accomplished by defeatism. How about you get on the phone to your reps, and I'll get on with mine(again), and perhaps if we started pushing this with our reps, and other people start pushing with theirs, hey, perhaps it will get done.

Or we can wallow in defeatism, crying that nothing can be done, and guess what, nothing will be done. That might be alright with you, but it certainly isn't alright with me.

[hollowdweller]

67. Rescind Bush Tax Cut For Rich

Then dedicate 100% of the increase in revenue to creating gov't jobs cleaning up communities, sprucing up national parks and forests, laying fiberoptic cable in rural areas.

Keep the tax increase and jobs in place until the employment rate falls below 5%. That will get the rich off their duffs creating jobs.

[Telly Savalas]

64. So if he had held firm on the tax cut extensions

the GOP-run House would have passed a WPA-style job program? Really?

[happyslug]

12. Did you read the Article? That is what is Reich is saying the Government should do,

Now, that is NOT what is stated in the small part cited above, but the small size of the snippet is small do to DU's rules. If you want details you have to read the actual Article.

All Reich is saying that Business is NEVER going to hire workers UNLESS it makes them money, thus the only way to get this economy moving is for the GOVERNMENT to do something about getting money to Workers. The fastest and most efficient way is to increase the Earned Income Credit and reduce payroll taxes with those tax cuts being paid for by removing the Cap on Social Security Taxes AND increasing other taxes on the top 1% of the population.

[MadHound]

19. Umm, thanks for treating me like a two year old who can't read or follow a link

I really appreciate somebody who thinks that I'm a child and treats me accordingly.

Now then, back to the actual article, which yes, I did read.

What Reich is proposing is horribly inefficient, and unlikely to happen. Rather than making those who are working even better paid, why not let the true employer of last resort go to work and create a true jobs creation program. That is much more likely to happen than "raising the ceiling on Social Security payroll taxes and hiking marginal taxes on the rich. " After all, what happened the last time we tried raising taxes on the rich? Oh, yeah, Obama caved and gave them their tax cut.

So, if we can't balance the ledger sheet by raising those taxes, are we are left with is more deficit spending. If we are going to deficit spend, then we might as well do so in an efficient and cost effective manner by creating a true WPA style jobs program. You will, as economist have shown, get a bigger bang for your buck.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. It is the nature of business to be in the business of making a profit...

for its owners/investors.

I do believe that as citizens there is a social contract between the people and the government. But business, even if business has free speech rights, is not in the business of creating jobs. Jobs are a by product of the real purpose of any business, which is to make money. This happens because the means of production is controlled by private, non-government entities. As long as that is true, those private (I will call them persons) engage in business for their profit, and jobs are just a side affect.

[happyslug]

13. Reich would agree with you, his point was Business will NOT create the jobs needed

And since Business can not and will not create the jobs, then the Government must and the quickest way to do so is increase the Earned Income Credit to those people making less then $80,000 a year, reduce payroll taxes and pay for both programs by eliminating the cap on Social Security Taxes AND raising taxes on the top 15 of the population.

[ProSense]

15. " And since Business can not and will not create the jobs,

then the Government must and the quickest way to do so is increase the Earned Income Credit to those people making less then $80,000 a year, reduce payroll taxes and pay for both programs by eliminating the cap on Social Security Taxes AND raising taxes on the top 15 of the population."

How will that create jobs?

[happyslug]

34. Basic economics, more money to the lower income groups, the more money being spent

Lower income groups do NOT tend to save such money, they tend to spend it. Thus as income goes to such groups it is spent, unlike higher Income groups that tend to save such money,

Remember a healthy economy is an economy with the maximum number of transactions. It is transactions that make an economy healthy NOT the money in the system. Money is just a means to facilitate such transactions, it is a medium of exchange. Money is NOT a sign of how the economy is doing. Thus even in a money less economy (pre-money economies i.e. "Barter" Economies) it is the number of transactions that show the economy is doing well, NOT who owns what.

Thus when the Government lower taxes on low income people it gives the economy the biggest boost (Or provides such people more money in some other way) it tends to give an economy a boost. Low income people tend to spend all of the money they have and in numerous ways (For example, the best return on money spent to get the economy going is money spent on Food Stamps and Welfare, the people who get either saves neither and spend both food stamps and welfare among a wide range of people). This was even known in the 1920s, when Herbert Hoover formed a list of projects that the government would build doing any downturn to get the economy back on its feet (In hindsight it is clear Hoover's efforts were to small, it took a more massive program of spending then Hoover was willing to commit to in the early 1930s to get the economy rolling along).

Thus my point is get the most money to the most people is to give it to the lowest economic group possible.

[MadHound]

36. Tax credits, tax cuts, tax holidays are the least effective form of economic stimulus

And it is past time we stopped fucking around with such small measures that don't do a damn thing to help people.

If you truly want to get this economy rolling again, institute a true jobs creation program. That would do magnitudes more to help out the people in this country than tax credits and tax holidays. In fact, outside of increasing food stamp benefits, a WPA style jobs program is the most effective form of economic stimulus going.

[Ozymanithrax]

44. But how do you get a bill like that through the House?

Republicans will not enact a WPA style stimulus. It is antithetical to their ideology. If we can not enact the best means of creating jobs, should we do nothing?

[MadHound]

47. How did 'Pugs manage to ram through tax cuts for the rich?

Oh, yeah, the took the government hostage. If there is a will, there is a way. Trouble is, this administration and Congressional Dems don't have the will.

[happyslug]

45. Actually the most effective stimulus package is increase Food Stamps and Welfare payments

A job creation problem is secondary to Food Stamps and Increase welfare payments, but tend to be more politically acceptable then increase Food Stamps and Welfare payments.

What Reich is advocating may be better then a job program, as far as the economy as a whole is concerned. Reich's plan is to reduce the tax burden on lower income people and reaching into the lower ends of the upper middle class (Median Income is roughly $42,000 (The point where half the people earn less, half more, not including anyone making over $1 million dollars a year), thus something like 70-80% of the population earn less then $80,000 and why Reich picked that number).

[MadHound]

48. I believed I mentioned that, but it is neither here nor there,

What is important is recognizing that tax cuts, tax credits, tax holidays, are the least effective form of economic stimulus. In this era of tough economic times, why should we continue to settle for the least effective forms of economic stimulus?

[Ozymanithrax]

43. If you give money to a hundred million consumers, they will spend it...

on consumer goods. When business can not meet supply, they will hire more workers. Some of those workers will be here. But it won't be enough to put all Americans back to work.

The to 15% of the population is making far more income than they will spend in ways that put people to work. Taxing them more would make up lost revenue from the 85%. However, you could get a better return if you change the way the top 15% were taxed. Put heavy taxes on capital gains and lower taxes on investments in actually creating a new business that hires people. Money people make of investments in the stock market or similar investment might create a few high end jobs, but Will create no low end jobs. Tax policy, especially for the wealthy, should encourage them to create businesses that hire people and discourage them making money that does nothing but attract more money.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. In our consumer driven society, business will create jobs that meet their needs...

in order to service their customers to make a profit for their investors.

Before globalism, many jobs were lost to automation. It became cheaper to make a machine that did what several humans did.

Globalism has added the ability to move jobs to another country because an incredibly cheap form form of transportation allowed those goods to be delivered.

If we have a roaring economy, with lots of consumers buying products there were be more jobs. But as long as it is cheaper to make goods in China or elsewhere, most of those jobs will not be here.

It is possible that the population is now too large to service the machines that deliver our goods because bussiness is not in the bussiness of creating jobs, and will not create a single unncessary job.

[On the Road]

6. OK, So Let's Go With That Philosophy

Now the public sector can get busy starting some productive enterprises and creating jobs. Works well in China, and it would help to cut the deficit.

[LiberalEsto]

8. So business won't create jobs, and government

isn't supposed to create jobs, according to the rethugs.

Who or what the hell IS supposed to create jobs? The Tooth Fairy?

Their idea seems to be that we average folk do not deserve jobs, particular jobs that pay enough to live on.

[mrcheerful]

10. What didn't get the right wing memo? See what you do when you find yourself out of work with your ba

accounts empty is pull yourself up by your boot straps and start your own business. Really business ownership is really simple plus you don't need to sell, produce or buy anything, you just open a business and the gravy train starts rolling in! That is what the R's have been selling since Reagan told the story of the welfare queen that he made up in his own demented mind.

[LiberalEsto]

11. Darn! I should have known that.

Been unemployed almost 2 1/2 years, but it's obviously all my fault: I should have started a BUSINESS of my own. What could I sell? How about rethug bullshit as compost?

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Businesses exist only for profit, that is their role

If they make jobs on the road to profit, fine, if not also fine. The idea that they have other objectives is naive.

[ProSense]

14. "If they make jobs on the road to profit, fine, if not also fine. "

Right, but they are still the primary job creators, and the unemployed are primarily people they let go.

Also, Reich's proposal is also about businesses creating jobs. It just seems to be far-fetched.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Demand creates jobs, not businesses

They are not job creators they are demand suppliers. You are a job creator, as am I. We create jobs for business owners and their employees. Without that demand, the CEO is on the skids too, you know?

[ProSense]

56. Demand stimulates job creation.

Demand without a business to fulfill that demand does nothing for job creation.

[provis99]

16. business, in all of history, has never created a single job.

Demand for goods and services create jobs, not businesses. Any first year economics student learns that.

[ProSense]

18. "Demand for goods and services create jobs, not businesses. " Here is

what the President said:

<...>

So if I’ve got one message, my message is now is the time to invest in America. Now is the time to invest in America. (Applause.) Today, American companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets. And I know that many of you have told me that you’re waiting for demand to rise before you get off the sidelines and expand, and that with millions of Americans out of work, demand has risen more slowly than any of us would like.

We’re in this together, but many of your own economists and salespeople are now forecasting a healthy increase in demand. So I just want to encourage you to get in the game. As part of the bipartisan tax deal we negotiated, with the support of the Chamber, businesses can immediately expense 100 percent of their capital investments. And as all of you know, it’s investments made now that will pay off as the economy rebounds. And as you hire, you know that more Americans working will mean more sales for your companies. It will mean more demand for your products and services. It will mean higher profits for your companies. We can create a virtuous circle.

<...>

Right, so demand = job creation, and it's still business creating the jobs.

[Yavin4]

25. All American Labor, White and Blue Collar Alike, Are Being Economically Disenfranchised

The levels of employment/unemployment that we've grown accustomed to are changing for the worst. 10% -15% unemployment will be the norm and we will have a huge number of impoverished Americans. In fact, if you really took an honest accounting of housing values, the middle class is in the minority, with the poor and working poor comprising the majority.

In a democracy, one would think that in a country, where the majority is working poor, governmental policies would be enacted to correct for this. However, our current situation just goes to show how fragile and easily manipulated democracy can be.

[starroute]

28. But "creating jobs" is not the be-all and end-all

Far too many jobs are essentially busy-work. It was obvious by the 1930's that it no longer took the entire working population to supply the needed food, services, and goods for everyone. So the solution to the Great Depression that was put in place after world World War II was to create a consumer society of artificial demand for unnecessary and largely disposable products.

But consumerism is destroying out planet -- using up irreplaceable resources for no real reason other than to keep all those workers busy.

I've been arguing for a while that the ultimate solution is to divorce "work" from the process of meeting essential needs. Just as health care should not be tied to the increasingly fragile foundation of employment, neither should food, shelter, or education.

Perhaps the largest impediment in the way of getting from here to there, though, is that the whole system has to be removed from the concept of profit. Almost nothing gets done in our society unless some kind of middleman can make a buck off it -- and at the same time, the concept of "work" has been fetishized, so that people are seen as unworthy if they're not employed by one of those middlemen.

In the long run, this system is unsustainable. But in the short run, the devil's knot of "work" and "profit" is only digging its claws into us more tightly. And trying to figure out how to bribe businesses into creating millions of essentially unnecessary jobs is only postponing the day of reckoning.

[county worker]

30. You have an alternative?

I guess we could all plant money trees in our yards, provided we have yards.

[BobbyBoring]

40. I still have a yard.

Do you have any money tree seeds or do we have to get the GMO seeds from Monsanto?

[Scottybeamer70]

38. Actually........

it's pretty sad when the president of THIS country has to ask the business owners in THIS country to
hire people who live in THIS country!

[robcon]

41. It's never been business's role to create jobs.

Business is just focused on making money. Hiring people is just a means towards that end.

[baldguy]

46. +1000

[ProSense]

49. "Business is just focused on making money. Hiring people is just a means towards that end."

Yeah, and that end wouldn't be possible without the means.

Greed is inherent, but it's not like businesses can survive without employees. They can't even take advantage of the potential for greed without employees.

Government programs via the SBA take job creation into consideration. When a startup grows, usually more hiring is part of the package. It they want to keep up with demand, deliver more services and sell more product, they need more people.

Technology is changing that, but that isn't significant in every sector.






edited word.

[uponit7771]

51. Business's can automate their way out of hiring as little as possible and then the employees can be

...from another country and don't have to be American.

Business's aren't patriotic citizens and we see that everyday.

[ProSense]

52. Yeah, but

weren't millions of the currently unemployed working for businesses before the economic crisis began in 2007?

[robcon]

53. This is nothing new. Econ 101: profit maximization is business's role.

Just as income maximization is the individual's role.

If it's news to you that profit maximization is the reason why companies hire people, you haven't been paying attention, IMO.

[ProSense]

54. Actually,

"If it's news to you that profit maximization is the reason why companies hire people, you haven't been paying attention, IMO."

...it's not news to me. As I said:

"Greed is inherent, but it's not like businesses can survive without employees. They can't even take advantage of the potential for greed without employees.

Government programs via the SBA take job creation into consideration. When a startup grows, usually more hiring is part of the package. It they want to keep up with demand, deliver more services and sell more product, they need more people."

That appears to be news to everyone who suddenly believes businesses aren't in the business of hiring.

The motivation is profit, but it still leads to hiring.

In a country where about 90 percent of the workers are employed by the private sector, why is anyone even attempting to make the argument that jobs creation isn't a significant part of the dynamic?

Even if one considers outsourcing, which is all about greed, it still creates jobs, low-wage, exploitive jobs, but still jobs.

[davidpdx]

50. I can't speak for Reich personally

But the way I understand what he is saying is the EITC will give people more disposable income which they can spend to stimulate the economy. His argument is that we should do more to help people who are in the lower tax brackets and pay for it by closing some of the loopholes used by the rich. I just finished reading his book Aftershock, which he does talk about that. I strongly recommend it.

[quaker bill]

57. He is right of course

The solution is to increase aggregate demand. You do this by pumping money in at the bottom, and pay for it by taxing the top.

Businesses will create jobs when they need people to make more stuff to sell. This will only happen if the people who spend nearly every cent have more to spend.

[mstinamotorcity]

58. They want us to compete

with countries and businesses who employ people for .23 an hour. And who will let them pollute the country with every known carcinogen in the world. Or be blown up from safety violations that added cost factors to their wittle oil rigs. What's a few dozen deaths compared to the billions of dollars made. Make us work jobs with no health care benefits but insure the worker for an unknown amount just in case they kick the bucket, because they are only peasants anyway.:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EndElectoral]

62. Reich for President!

[saras]

63. More regulations would create more jobs

IF

A. the corporations can't dodge them by running off to countries without them
B. fulfilling them required well-paid, educated, local workers
C. the regulations benefited the country as a whole

one example would be much more strict anti-pollution laws. It is POSSIBLE to produce most things with no pollution whatsoever. It's just that it's currently cheaper to pollute, and move production to places where more pollution is tolerated. End that vicious cycle, and a large number of people are employed in jobs they would actually find rewarding as well as well-paying...cleaning up the planet, something many want to do and don't know how to contribute to.

For that matter, enforcing the law would create more jobs. Remove all the criminals from upper management, and suddenly there's a huge shortage of managers. Again, high-paying, demanding, high-skill jobs. Everyone moves up.

Another reasonable tack would be for the feds to start supporting localization instead of globalization. More jobs, more local production, more self-sufficiency, more money repeatedly circulating in local economies. Fringe benefits would include more jobs for creative people, less pressure towards sheepledom, and for that matter, more jobs for the difficult-to-employ, who usually do better in small companies with like-minded people.

[robcon]

65. Nonsense. Regulations often destroy jobs, and rarely create them.

The ones created are usually the jobs by the regulators themselves.

I think in the U.S. you have to accept that regulations reduce jobs: the regulations may be worth it (make the situation safer, fairer, more secure, etc.) But i don't think that regulations create jobs.

[polichick]

66. Very short-sighted thinking - Republicans would be proud of you...

Just one case: Without environmental regulations you wipe out entire industries, as we saw just this year in the Gulf.