This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should "Jobs" be artificially created, since most people seem to need them?
The whole idea of the Industrial Revolution is replacing physical labor by mechancal power, computers, robots, electricity, etc. Summed up by saying : to eliminate jobs. (for humans) This process seems to be accelerating, not slowiing down. We very well might face an economy with lots of "Productivity" , but few consumers,or "jobs". Analogous to what wealthy families have always been like. Except that they usually " take care of their own," i.e. create jobs for those who need them, however useless and inefficient. So, are we willing to face the consequences of doing that for everybody?! We would have to drop the idea of efficiency , or "merit"Just as in the Army; they pay you and feed you regrardless. Call it Radical, or Nepotism, which?
shawn disney 10+
Don Anderson 20+
*National water exchange line/channel:, so when one state has floods they could send some of the water to states that is having a drought.
*A Nation Major Disaster Response Force: instead of helping people rebuild after a disaster, how about helping them survive a disaster.
*National home insulating service: a government service that bring ever home in America up to a recommend R-value.
*National pollinator aid program: to reduce the current stress levels on pollinators like bees by planting flowering plants and their migration paths and were needed.
* Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Robert Haacke
Once the question is boiled down to whether or not people should have to provide for themselves you have to ask a big question. Where will the resources to support the non-workers come from? The only possible source is those who actually work. This then leads to more big questions. Why should those who work have to support those who don't? Who decides who works and who doesn't? Isn't all of this just slavery hidden behind a vale of democracy or socialism or whatever other ism you care to employ in your rationalization?
shawn disney 10+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Robert Haacke
One of the reasons that many people like to work is because they want to be useful and they want the independence that comes from paying their own way. If that is taken from them I suspect most of them won't want to work anymore.
shawn disney 10+
Robert Haacke
shawn disney 10+
Robert Winner 50+
Not only do we 'manufacture jobs" but we over pay them to do it.
The private sector could not afford this "loss". The government has no problem burdening the citizens with this "loss".
shawn disney 10+
Robert Winner 50+
The fed is spending us to death on more stimuluses via QE 3 and the buy up of the acid loans on money that does not exist ... depression is all but guarenteed ... inflatuations a drop of the hat away .. and the administration does not understand what caused the fall of Argentina.
We have developed the same welfare mentality and government sponsorship that has taken most of the EU down and yet we still do not understand. Obamacare the "free" medical answer will bankrupt 28 states that have made statements to the impact. But we still want "our free stuff".
You want to solve some of the issues ... reduce the government ... reduce spending ... reduce the generational wefare and the entitlement people it has spawned ... stop Obamacare as employeers are already laying off people to compensate for the loss ... stop killing small business ... stop all the taxing, policies, directives, that are driving the jobs overseas ... make right to work a reality and return unions back to their root causes .. get the feds out of the states business as the 10th Amendment demands.
No welfare reciepent would give up all they get for a minimum wage job that is about $70, 000 VS 20,000 in kind monies. Obama has promised education, welfare, medical, citizenship, and protection from existing laws costing the taxpayers billions and breaking states.
Start with these and then we will have the funds for the people.
Another program is not my opinion of a solution.
Sorry if that sounds rude ... gotta start some place .. if we survive this and that a maybe.
Bob.
carolyn mcauley 10+
shawn disney 10+
Brock Hardwood
When WWII started, the US government dramatically increased it's role in the economy. It became a major consumer of production and a key provider of jobs. The consequence was good as well. For the first time, labor markets were tight enough to allow unions to become effective. This accelerated the growth of our middle class which in turn, increased overall demand for goods and services.
It is good policy to keep the labor markets tight. There are plenty of projects that can be imagined - more roads, better mass transit, more education opportunities by hiring more teachers and building more schools, NASA, Hospitals and clinics for all, solar on a massive scale, and the list goes on and on. I don't think it is necessary to artificially create anything. I listed off a few useful things, but I bet you can also think of some things too. Many ideas can end up being very pro business by making the cost of doing business in the US cheaper - transportation costs, electricity prices, etc. It just depends on how creative we want to be.
The key thing is this: The government should be the example on how to treat employees. That is, good pay, good benefits, safe work environment, etc. I think the real future is ultimately going to be shorter work weeks and more leisure time for most.
Gail . 50+
This fiscal model would work if things hadn't gone so wonky - in part because of government-encouraged outsourcing, TBTF, automation, oil, incentives for wealthy to hold $$$ off-shore in secret bank accounts.. Oh - and by pols selling you out for money $ & power.
This is not 3rd world I am discussing. It is our own. Germany made a strong come-back when Hitler threw out the banks, created fiat money, and based the value of the dollar on an hour of labor rather than a promise to pay as we do. When he printed a mark, a mark was put into circulation. There was no interest to pay on top of it. After WWII, banks were reinstalled. Germany is having its problems 2
What gave U the idea that U. S. money is backed by taxable material goods? Far from it. 5 banks = 60% of GDP through automated trades. (No human involvement after the algorithm is in the computer). Untaxed trades. The next 5 largest banks make it 77%. Govn't is a big spender, but small by comparison.
Lenders know how to look beyond the propaganda fed 2 you 2 keep U silent.
As to militarism being the death of the USSR, you're misinformed. It WAS an economic war. We won because people in USSR worked for government. Productivity suffered. Quality suffered. Creativity suffered. People waited in line for hours to buy a pair of jeans or a loaf of bread. The black market thrived.
WWII fixed our economy. Not FDR. Our economy is war-based.
John Smith 30+
Why not just shorten the workweek? To us a 20 hour job (there could be two of those instead of one 40 hour job) might not seem like a real job, but a worker from 1850, used to working 72 hours a week would say the same about our 40 hour jobs.
shawn disney 10+
John Smith 30+
Tom Preusser
The presumption here is that more productivity is the main cause of this - but another major factor is the "baby boom"
which will soon enough pass into perhaps a "baby bust".
I think a more relevant solution to "not enough jobs" is "spreading the existing jobs around". In the US a major obstacle to this is medical care which is primarily tied to full time employment. The cost to an employer for providing medical care is the same for part time employees as it is for full time employees - so "career" part time work and "job sharing" are not done. I think if we had government provided health care not tied to employment and policies that encouraged less than full time work for those that desired it we would have all kinds of "jobs to spread around'. This would be particularly beneficial for young parents that want to "cut back" to better care for their young children and older workers that want to ease into retirement.
With government provided, single payer, healthcare we also address the US problem of global business competitiveness. The US spends about twice the level of GDP that other developed countries with government provided health do - yet health outcomes are no better. If we bring our health care cost differential more in line we are more competitive and fewer jobs will be exported over seas.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
What has received more focus recently, though, is how in every corner of the globe entrepreneurship continues to arise in the sense of people's figuring out things they can do that offer other people value.
There was a recent TED talk about the informal economy, for example, which I will link if I can find it. http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_neuwirth_the_power_of_the_informal_economy.html
Gail . 50+
In Oregon, for instance, law requires gas station attendants to pump people's fuel. This created a lot of new jobs, but not nearly enough - and they were all low-paying. There really seems to be no way to do this on a large enough scale to maintain enough consumers to keep our economy afloat. Government would have to be the employer, and that's a form of communism based on a cruel fiscal model. It doesn't work either. The cold war was an economic war & USSR lost.
Also consider that our current fiscal paradigm was intentionally designed to benefit the wealthy and reduce the number of poor people through what was called "natural law". Poor people - especially the children of poor people - were intended to die in large enough numbers (of poverty-related causes) to keep the system working for the wealthy.
The problem is not jobs. It's money itself.
Money is a man-made social construct. We can devise other social constructs that are not as harmful and dangerous, but we are not yet willing to. Few are able to even conceive of how a moneyless society works. Because of this, the very idea of shifting over to a moneyless society is terrifying. It need not be, but I understand why it would be if we wait until the economy collapses (which is is guaranteed to do) before we make the shift. But if you control the crash and pre-plan, it need not be terrifying at all. It can be inspiring because freedom always is.
When you combine increased automation (that increases dramatically with every recession because automation is cheaper than human labor and robots don't need health care or retirement plans) with spiraling population, you have a recipe for disaster. Add to that a fiscal system that doesn't care whether you live or die if you don't have enough money (food/clean water/heat in winter/clothing) and the stage is set for disaster.
I advocate fixing the system before the system fixes us
shawn disney 10+
egalitarianism, except in demolishing the former class structure, and replacing it with a Party elite. No real change there, other than propaganda wise. I am not advocating a Spartan kind of State, that was just an example that many could relate to.
Gail . 50+
The money that pays your salary is not created by fiat. It is borrowed from private banks who "invent" it into existence, and then interest is attached. (The interest part of the debt is never printed, so there is no way to pay it off.)
Money has value for as long as the people believe that it has value, because people think that money is backed by value, thought it is not. Money is backed by a promise to pay (hence the dollar is really a promissory note). If too much money is borrowed, lenders will refuse to lend. So who pays your salary then?
Only a government could undertake what you suggest, but as our credit rating has already been down-graded (Lenders risk goes up, their willingness to lend goes down so interest rates go up so there is more debt due with no printed money to pay for it.)
I know this sounds bizarre, but that's how the system works.
Add to this factional banking, and look what happens
The US borrows a billion from the national bank that can lend 90% of its assets at interest (Its seed assets come from buying US bonds). Let's say that the bank turns around and buys 1 billion worth of bonds in order to get more $$ into the economy. It then lends 900 billion to other banks, who can lend 810 billion to other banks who can then lend 720 billion to other banks, etc. (each level increases the debt by 90%). Each of these debts carry interest that is never printed so it can never be paid without borrowing more money - because, again, the US doesn't print money into existence - it borrows it into existence and bankers invent it from thin air.
What lender would be willing to invest in a skyrocketing national debt that would exist if your suggestion were to become fact? No lender. The global economy would collapse in a heartbeat - as it probably will sooner rather than later in any case.
Brock Hardwood
It amazes me how much you ALMOST know what you are talking about.
It is PRIVATE banks that borrow from the FED, who in turn, can loan 90% of that out to consumers and businesses. However, private banks don't necessarily loan out 90% on a whim. They assess risk in a free market way.
The concept you are sort of talking about is called the money multiplier. It is why the FED can buy $100 Billion in bonds and it's effect on the money supply can be as much as $1 Trillion. The FED can do the opposite as well. It can sell bonds and reduce the money supply in exactly the same way.
Gail . 50+
shawn disney 10+
Gail . 50+
This fiscal model would work if things hadn't gone so wonky - in part because of government-encouraged outsourcing, TBTF, automation, oil, incentives for wealthy to hold $$$ off-shore in secret bank accounts.. Oh - and by pols selling you out for money $ & power.
This is not 3rd world I am discussing. It is our own. Germany made a strong come-back when Hitler threw out the banks, created fiat money, and based the value of the dollar on an hour of labor rather than a promise to pay as we do. When he printed a mark, a mark was put into circulation. There was no interest to pay on top of it. After WWII, banks were reinstalled. Germany is having its problems 2
What gave U the idea that U. S. money is backed by taxable material goods? Far from it. 5 banks = 60% of GDP through automated trades. (No human involvement after the algorithm is in the computer). Untaxed trades. The next 5 largest banks make it 77%. Govn't is a big spender, but small by comparison.
Lenders know how to look beyond the propaganda fed 2 you 2 keep U silent.
As to militarism being the death of the USSR, you're misinformed. It WAS an economic war. We won because people in USSR worked for government. Productivity suffered. Quality suffered. Creativity suffered. People waited in line for hours to buy a pair of jeans or a loaf of bread. The black market thrived.
WWII fixed our economy. Not FDR. Our economy is war-based.
shawn disney 10+
And the S.U. was certainly defective, but it took 70 years to collapse. You seemed to be suggesting that there was some fundamental economic reason why we couldn't at least modify our "system".
Brock Hardwood
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + Net exports
Lastly, the USSR allocated too many resources to the military out of fear of what the US was doing. They had too many gun makers and not enough bakers. It wasn't due to any kind of government worker inefficiencies. Even the private sector has bureaucracy.
Gail . 50+
Gail . 50+
The federal reserve banks are private,for profit institutions. The Federal Reserve board is not a bank.
The thousands of trades (stock market) per second are part of the GDP. that is what I was referring to. The biggest 10 banks are responsible for 77% of GDP. Is that sound fiscal policy?
As to Russia, I've was there soon after the fall of the USSR. I saw the conditions. I remember thinking that if I were to move here with $2,500, I could be a multi-multi-millionaire (this was before billionaires) in less than two years. The blank looks in peoples' eyes. The stooped shoulders. The lack of ability to see opportunities where I saw them everywhere. These people seemed to be in a state of learned helplessness. A few saw them after they had a chance to travel outside of the country. The number of millionaires skyrocketed only a couple of years later.
Because the USSR spent too much on military spending as a result of perceived threats by the USA, that makes it an economic war. We simply outspent them to the point where they couldn't continue. It wasn't that they had too many guns and not enough bankers. It was because people had too few ideas and no ability to think outside a very narrow box.
Yes, even the private sector has bureaucracy, but in a system of true capitalism (no government subsidies and favors), the market takes care of them and forces them to adapt. Today, if you are a large enough company, the tax-payers take care of you rather than consumers. Most big businesses no longer respond to the people's market demands. They respond to political favors in the form of advantageous tax policies. And because of the close alliance between them and our politicians, they get to decide (and even write the laws that effect) the type of government support that they want.
If big businesses responded to market demand, they would stop out-sourcing and being hiring more consumers who can afford to buy their products.
Brock Hardwood
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
As for GDP
The value of a Stock trade is NOT computed in GDP. At most, the service fee for the trade is, but that doesn't even come close to being significant.
GDP is a measure of the final production of goods and services produced within our borders. By final, I am referring to the end products that people buy. i.e. if you buy a new tire for your car, that is counted, but the tires produced for a new car are not counted - the new car is what is counted. GDP isn't a government conspiracy, it is a term invented by economists (economics is a science) to provide a meaningful way of tracking production.
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + Net exports
Private consumption is approximately 70% of GDP. It is the measure of what we buy at the store, or the Wal-mart. Only new goods count - a used car doesn't.
Gross investment is the capital expenditures companies make in preparation to do business. Examples of this include a pizza oven for a restaurant, robots for a factory, etc..
Government spending within GDP is what the government buys or pays to its employees. It doesn't not include transfer payments (money that is moved from one place to another - i.e. welfare, unemployment benefits, etc). It does include things like military expenditures, teacher salaries, etc..
Net exports is the value of goods leaving the country minus the value of goods coming into the country.
As for USSR,
You are arguing semantics. Also, innovation and thinking outside the box is only necessary when you can't simply steal the ideas from your competitors. The USSR didn't allocate enough farmers and bakers. They would have survived if they did.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
because new jobs have been created. who created them? nobody. jobs are just there. jobs are things to do. jobs are things that can be done in order for us to have a better life. better can be more healthy, safer, more entertaining, whatever. whatever we desire to have. the possibilities are endless. if is incomprehensible that at any time, people will be out of ideas how to make each other's life better. any idea how to make things better: a job.
but we don't have enough time to to all the jobs. we do the most important jobs, and simply skip the less important ones. so as soon as one job gets automated, work hours get freed up, and we can put those work hours to some other tasks. and the result is, more of our desires can be satisfied.
so no, it is not nepotism or radical, it is just false.
John Smith 30+
shawn disney 10+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i don't know what dropping the bottom line would be. i also don't understand that why would anyone have to accept lower living standards in the future. the opposite is happening for 200-300 years. what will change?
russell lester
shawn disney 10+