Who Creates Jobs?

[GGT]

We can't eat iPads.

[Veldan Rath]

Then we should do better. We can, and we should. It's got less to do with money or funding, and more to do with educating our children so they can succeed. For years the US used to operate on the assumption that we were so educated (and enlightened) that we'd send missionaries or embassadors to other countries. I think the time has come to utilize our own resources to help our own people. We have a pathetic HS drop out rate, teen pregnancy rate, unemployment and poverty rate. We can't really help others until we help ourselves, IMO.

So...public education has been a failure.

Good we agree, now let's move on.

[GGT]

So...public education has been a failure.

Good we agree, now let's move on.

You are a parent now. Do you think the only way your son can get a good education is from private schools? If so, what's that say about the other children in his/your community that relies on public education?

[Enoch the Red]

No, I'm saying a US business should act in its own self-interest by making sure others can be part of the "good life". What wealthy CEO would want to live behind gates and hired security, because everyone "outside" is poor, hungry, desperate? That's the scenario of angry mobs with torches and pitchforks, being told to "eat cake". The top income tiers should start to realize....their lives are only as good as everyone's lives around them.

So they should drive their business into the ground so everyone can have a good week or so? Sounds like you've been taking pointers from the federal government.

[Dreadnaught]

Usually there are angry mobs outside because the government is corrupt and/or strangles the economy, so the only people with any wealth are part of a narrow coterie that can enjoy prosperity while the masses languish in a social-democratic limbo.

[GGT]

So they should drive their business into the ground so everyone can have a good week or so? Sounds like you've been taking pointers from the federal government.

Way to take it out of context Ford made sure his workers earned enough to buy the cars they were making. Walmart is now asking for minimum wage to be raised, so more people can afford to shop and buy at their stores, and they will be "forced" to pay their workers more without unionization.

Driving a business into the ground isn't good for anyone. But neither is off-shoring jobs to China or India while Americans are unemployed. The trade deficit, tariffs, taxes and fuel costs might be better spent on American workers. It would certainly make the US a more pleasant place to live, without millions of unemployed or homeless people, or a high crime rate.

[Enoch the Red]

Way to take it out of context Ford made sure his workers earned enough to buy the cars they were making. Walmart is now asking for minimum wage to be raised, so more people can afford to shop and buy at their stores, and they will be "forced" to pay their workers more without unionization.

Driving a business into the ground isn't good for anyone. But neither is off-shoring jobs to China or India while Americans are unemployed. The trade deficit, tariffs, taxes and fuel costs might be better spent on American workers. It would certainly make the US a more pleasant place to live, without millions of unemployed or homeless people, or a high crime rate.

So pulling out of the global economy and restricting how companies do business will enable them to give more Americans a living wage?

[GGT]

So pulling out from the global economy and restricting how companies do business will enable them to give more Americans a living wage?

Not pulling out from globalization, but employing US workers and exporting the products. Some things will cost more because we don't pay our workers slave wages. Apple only has 2,000 US employees, but pays some 20,000+ overseas workers to assemble iPhones and iPads, then imports the end product to sell back to Americans. Their products could probably be just as successful and popular if assembled in the US, even at a higher price. These days that might even be a selling point (Buy American).

[Enoch the Red]

Not pulling out from globalization, but employing US workers and exporting the products. Some things will cost more because we don't pay our workers slave wages. Apple only has 2,000 US employees, but pays some 20,000+ overseas workers to assemble iPhones and iPads, then imports the end product to sell back to Americans. Their products could probably be just as successful and popular if assembled in the US, even at a higher price. These days that might even be a selling point (Buy American).

I doubt their products would be remotely as successful if assembled in the US, (due to the increased cost) and if they were the process would likely be nearly fully automated, something I seem to recall you complaining about here before.

Essentially you want unskilled/outmoded labor to make wages and benefits that go beyond what they could conceivably be worth to the company that employs them.

Being a weaver and making textiles in your house is no longer a good, (or perhaps not always a reliable) way to make a living in this country. The same is becoming true of many manufacturing jobs.

[GGT]

Automation and robotics can employ skilled US workers. I'm not anti-progress (contrary to how others portray me, including you.)

I'd like to see more American companies consider the benefits of employing fellow Americans, instead of off-shoring or out-sourcing just to make a few more bucks. No laws, no force. But a decided choice to make an American product with American workers. How else are we going to get some 14-15 million people who want to work--working--and growing by the thousands every month?

[CitizenCain]

How else are we going to get some 14-15 million people who want to work--working--and growing by the thousands every month?

I would suggest that abandoning socialism might be a good start.

Instead of forcibly depriving everyone of half their output to finance an army of liars and paper-pushers who stunt economic growth at the best of times, and make everyone fearful of having [the rest of] their capital seized during the worst of times (like when an asshat-ed socialist with the same name as an Iraqi dictator takes power), we could let the people who actually earned it, keep it. And in so doing, encourgae people to try to generate more capital in assorted free-market "business ventures." "Business ventures," which necessarily create employment.

Or you can keep scratching your head, wondering why people don't feel like starting new businesses or expanding existing ones, when right off the bat, half their profits are forfeit, President Hussein may or may not come after them for more money, and the current regulatory environment and judicial process effectively makes every business owner and upper manager in the country a federal felon. Of course, filing federal RICO charges against legitimate businessmen and seizing billions of dollars from average Americans a couple months probably didn't help that perception much, but that's the bed we made for ourselves. Not like you'd tolerate a smaller government that doesn't intrude on everyone's private business and weigh on the economy like an anchor tied 'round the neck.

"...A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have..."

So here's to our powerful-enough government, may it stand for a thousand years and punish its citizenry with everything they ask for!

[Enoch the Red]

Automation and robotics can employ skilled US workers. I'm not anti-progress (contrary to how others portray me, including you.)

By its nature automation means you are cutting back on the number of jobs. That's a trend that is only going to continue. Even if Apple brought all of its 20,000 overseas jobs back, I somehow doubt that would translate into 20,000 Americans being given cushy union jobs with all the fix'ns. You might see a couple hundred, maybe a thousand jobs at a plant or two in the South, but nowhere near the numbers employed over seas. Not only that, but their costs and overhead would shoot through the roof as their sales plummet. So now you've plucked and cooked the goose that's laying the golden, corporately taxed eggs, (a goose that is already looking pretty anemic thanks to our ridiculous corporate tax levels).

I'd like to see more American companies consider the benefits of employing fellow Americans, instead of off-shoring or out-sourcing just to make a few more bucks. No laws, no force. But a decided choice to make an American product with American workers. How else are we going to get some 14-15 million people who want to work--working--and growing by the thousands every month?

I think Cain had a couple pretty good suggestions. In short, we are not going to get people back to work until companies, big and small, feel like there's a value to doing so. I'm doubting they'll start feeling that way in the near future.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I would suggest that abandoning socialism might be a good start.

Wouldn't you first have to acquire it?

like when an asshat-ed socialist with the same name as an Iraqi dictator takes power

Can you explain to me what the "socialist with the same name as an Iraqi dictator" (good one by the way, you thought of that yourself? Well done ) has changed with regard to taxes in contrast to Bush's policies? I keep hearing from lesser people he's continuing Bush's tax policies.

[CitizenCain]

Wouldn't you first have to acquire it?

In what way is the US not socialist?

Can you explain to me what the "socialist with the same name as an Iraqi dictator" (good one by the way, you thought of that yourself? Well done ) has changed with regard to taxes in contrast to Bush's policies? I keep hearing from lesser people he's continuing Bush's tax policies.

Other than the tax hike he [president Hussein] passed near the beginning of his term? What about all the "soak the rich" and "unpatriotic corporate tax-evasion" rhetoric, hinting of more tax increases to come? (Or at the very least, that he'd very much like more tax increases, should he become able to get them passed.) Just because president Hussein may be continuing Bush Jr.'s tax cuts doesn't mean he's got a similar taxation policy. Might just mean he doesn't think he can handle the public backlash against more tax increases, after his previous tax increase impacted a lot more than just the rich fat cats he said it would.

[Wraith]

president Hussein

Are we really stooping to this?

[CitizenCain]

Been doing it since he was just a presidential candidate, and see no reason to stop now. It's a succinct, factually accurate pejorative that doesn't involve remembering (and then typing out) the 847 reasons the guy's a piece of human refuse.

Though, if it's that important to you, I suppose I could type of three pages on why he's a piece of shit, then copy-and-paste it in place of every iteration of his name...

[GGT]

I think Cain had a couple pretty good suggestions. In short, we are not going to get people back to work until companies, big and small, feel like there's a value to doing so. I'm doubting they'll start feeling that way in the near future.

What about the value that comes from getting Americans back to work? That would mean fewer needing food stamps or welfare, less poverty, more people able to buy "stuff", and more tax revenue for schools and infrastructure. Restructuring taxes would help, including scrapping corporate welfare and loopholes, simpler is fine by me. Trade deficits and currency manipulation puts China at an advantage that's not freee market competition at all.

The jobs wouldn't necessarily be manufacturing, but certain services that are internet-tradable. People have lowered expectations enough now that $10/hr or $15/hr is better than zero, and it's not like corporate profits would vanish. With the trends in corporate ethics (living wages, equal employment, renewable energy or carbon footprints, etc.) I'd think at least some businesses would find re-building America as important as building up China, India (or Iraq and Afghanistan).

GE is moving its x-ray global HQ, hiring hundreds of engineers, building research centers, and investing $2 Billion...in China. Good for China and GE's profits and shareholders, not so good for the US workers or communities who need those jobs.

[CitizenCain]

What about the value that comes from getting Americans back to work? That would mean fewer needing food stamps or welfare, less poverty, more people able to buy "stuff", and more tax revenue for schools and infrastructure. Restructuring taxes would help, including scrapping corporate welfare and loopholes, simpler is fine by me. Trade deficits and currency manipulation puts China at an advantage that's not freee market competition at all.

The jobs wouldn't necessarily be manufacturing, but certain services that are internet-tradable. People have lowered expectations enough now that $10/hr or $15/hr is better than zero, and it's not like corporate profits would vanish. With the trends in corporate ethics (living wages, equal employment, renewable energy or carbon footprints, etc.) I'd think at least some businesses would find re-building America as important as building up China, India (or Iraq and Afghanistan).

GE is moving its x-ray global HQ, hiring hundreds of engineers, building research centers, and investing $2 Billion...in China. Good for China and GE's profits and shareholders, not so good for the US workers or communities who need those jobs.

This whole thing just goes to show how little you know of economic theory. For starters, the only thing a trade deficit indicates is prosperity. As in, we have so much wealth over here, we can afford to import goods and luxury products from poorer countries, where the most skilled job 99% of the workforce can do is assemble crap on an assembly line. As to why we have the Chinese (etc) do it, rather than hire Americans to do it is that Chinese kids will do it for $1.73 a day, and any American worker would cost over 100 times more to do it. If you want to see the price of goods and services spike a couple orders of magnitude, by all means, bring the iPod assembly plants back stateside, and get a painful reminder of just why Mercantilism was abandoned so long ago. On top of that, assigning much more productive [American] workers to assemble shit is a mismanagement of human capital anyway, and we really should be leveraging our technological and educational advantages while we can, because we're sliding fast.

Not that you care, so long as you have a pretense to bitch out corporations, which, as you seem to have forgotten, are the entities that actually create jobs. Perhaps a better approach would be to encourage businesses to stay in this country and hire American workers, instead of doing everything we can to force them to seek out greener pastures, and then whine and bash them when they do. And, of course, there are countless ways to do this, but unfortunately none of those ways include taxing corporations at the highest (or 2nd highest?) effective tax rate in the world, drowning them in red tape, expecting them to operate as charities and constantly attacking them as an unholy force bent on evil world conquest, or whatever the populist, leftie bitch du jour is. Welcome to the world of commerce - when you can't force people to do what you want (as is the government way), you've got to entice them instead.

You know, or just keep doing what we're doing, in trying to emulate the economic model of Marx, on account of how well it's worked for every other country that's tried it.

[GGT]

Corporations are creating jobs, just not in the US. And what's your rant about Marxism or forcing business to be charities? I've never suggested gov't force, not even close. I agreed our taxes should be changed, yeah....to encourage business to stay here and hire American workers. China has tariffs on our exports but expects us to import their crap basically free, even Walmart CEOs complain about that imbalance. Chinese labor may be cheap, but so is some unskilled labor here, willing to work at minimum wage at McDonald's. When 10,000 people apply for 2,000 burger flipping jobs, that should be seen as trouble ahead.

The "cost" of millions of unemployed Americans is fairly steep. That's not a leftie bitch du jour, but something even righties acknowledge, related to patriotism or national pride. USA #1! It's a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. If more people were working and making a living wage, finding $1 toothpaste (with melamine) or $3 shitty t-shirts (that fall apart in the washing machine), or 0.50 ramen soup....wouldn't be necessary to make ends meet.

Of course, we can keep doing what we're doing, and begin to look more third world. Crumbling roads, tenement housing or tent cities, wandering hobos and street beggars, people leaving the country to find work, falling even lower down the scale of quality education and competition. Maybe once we're desperate enough, and folks will work for $2/day, the tide will swing back our way? yay

[Veldan Rath]

You are a parent now. Do you think the only way your son can get a good education is from private schools? If so, what's that say about the other children in his/your community that relies on public education?

Your first question: Since I can't choose which public school he goes to: The odds decrease that he will get a good, well rounded education.

2nd question, they in the same boat..duh.

Now, I'm not saying that every public school sucks, but for those THAT DO SUCK, many people are STUCK with the SUCK. That's the problem.

[GGT]

We already did the school voucher debate. It's worth a try but not a panacea. Some of the stuck is due to housing and employment suck, and parents not able to move to better districts.

[Veldan Rath]

Wow...my neck hurts trying to keep up with the speed you use to keep moving the goal posts.

[GGT]

So...public education has been a failure.

Good we agree, now let's move on.

Wow...my neck hurts trying to keep up with the speed you use to keep moving the goal posts.

We had an aside about education, and I recognized/replied to your post. Unless vouchers for public schools is your answer for creating millions of jobs....how is "moving on" changing the goal posts?

[Veldan Rath]

We already did the school voucher debate. It's worth a try but not a panacea. Some of the stuck is due to housing and employment suck, and parents not able to move to better districts.

This is what I consider moving the posts...you dance around with no clear signs of which discussion you are having. If the bolded part was about people not having jobs to move...okay. But the bolded part has always been that way, current recession/depression is irrelevant.

I have a great job, my spouse has a better job. But guess what...still only have 1 choice on the public school. Yeah we could move...and then find out that the area we moved to (after ALL that expense) also only has one choice and that school could still suck too...so I should MOVE again? Really?

[GGT]

I.....what's your solution for our problems? How can we create jobs?

Again...we (as in Government) don't.

How about we (as in Society) might?

Stop electing idiots and get Government out of the way of small business.

oh...and an educated electorate wouldn't hurt either.

An educated electorate would mean some gummint involvement in public education, wouldn't it?

This is what I consider moving the posts...you dance around with no clear signs of which discussion you are having. If the bolded part was about people not having jobs to move...okay. But the bolded part has always been that way, current recession/depression is irrelevant.

I have a great job, my spouse has a better job. But guess what...still only have 1 choice on the public school. Yeah we could move...and then find out that the area we moved to (after ALL that expense) also only has one choice and that school could still suck too...so I should MOVE again? Really?

How contextually "contained within goalposts" do you expect this thread to be? It sucks you live in a small population place with few choices of schools. Parents are known to "buy school districts" they choose for their kids, but that's not available in all areas, especially if the jobs and homes were picked well before starting a family.

The current recession/depression is different because 25% of all homeowners are underwater on their mortgage, the housing and job markets suck, people can't sell and move easily anymore (to where the jobs and/or better schools are), and we're stuck with the suck because of a new immobility.

[Veldan Rath]

How contextually "contained within goalposts" do you expect this thread to be? It sucks you live in a small population place with few choices of schools. Parents are known to "buy school districts" they choose for their kids, but that's not available in all areas, especially if the jobs and homes were picked well before starting a family.

The current recession/depression is different because 25% of all homeowners are underwater on their mortgage, the housing and job markets suck, people can't sell and move easily anymore (to where the jobs and/or better schools are), and we're stuck with the suck because of a new immobility.

Again irrelevant as before this recession/depression, people didn't/couldn't move willy nilly as you seem to imply.

Also (again), there are THREE grade schools in my town, but I don't have a choice which one my little booger goes to..

[Aimless]

How well has that been working?

In much of the civilised world it's been working pretty well. Why has it been failing so totally in the US in the past couple of decades? answer me damn you

[Veldan Rath]

In much of the civilised world it's been working pretty well. Why has it been failing so totally in the US in the past couple of decades? answer me damn you

Aint there a few countries over in Urope that have the money follow the kids (ie Vouchers)??

[Aimless]

Sure they do. Sweden's been doing it for a while, and no-one can really say for sure if it's been a good thing (on the whole, although undeniably some kids have gained from it). But that's focusing on the wrong question. Sweden was doing a fairly good job with education even before vouchers, so what was Sweden doing right that the US hasn't been doing recently? Come to think of it, I've heard a few times on these forums that the US was also doing a fairly good job up until a couple of decades ago.

[Veldan Rath]

Sure they do. Sweden's been doing it for a while, and no-one can really say for sure if it's been a good thing (on the whole, although undeniably some kids have gained from it). But that's focusing on the wrong question. Sweden was doing a fairly good job with education even before vouchers, so what was Sweden doing right that the US hasn't been doing recently? Come to think of it, I've heard a few times on these forums that the US was also doing a fairly good job up until a couple of decades ago.

About when the Dept of Education was created?

A few decades ago, I think we had a big culture shift. And political.

And politics has really gotten inserted into education
Has Sweden been mostly the same (for the lack of a better word) this whole time?