Job, jobs, jobs

Job, jobs, jobs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

StrangerThan -> Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 5:46:52 AM)
Two stories on yahoo this morning, both covering jobs, and a good lead in to the speeches this week. http://news.yahoo.com/unemployed-face-tough-competition-underemployed-163805688.html and http://news.yahoo.com/dismal-jobs-data-shakes-world-markets-095629181.html We have two speeches this week, one from Republicans in a lead up to Obama on Thursday. Since we're all tired of the partisan bickering, let's not do it here. Lay out your vision for creating jobs. In fact, if you think you can nail the other side and predict where the bickering will occur, lay out your estimation of both sides. Too bad we can't run a tip board. I'd be willing to toss in dollars to the person who nails them both.

Epytropos -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 5:50:24 AM)
Keynsians want stimulus, Austrians want tax and spending cuts, politicians want power. Any questions?

Termyn8or -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 6:33:26 AM)
Nice sheepesian. Is that language in the books yet ? Nothing matters. We can discuss this until the cows go to China. Oh, and yes that is where they are going to go. Think I'm kidding ? Look Man, we can ship all the steel and shit to another country and import cars and TVs and everything else, you bet you believe they are working on food. In fact you would be surprised how much food the US imports, especially in light of how much we produce. But somehow when this shit crosses the border it is a good thing - for someone. I see this whole situation for what it is, so don't wonder why I am half crazy, wonder why I am only half crazy. T^T

DarkSteven -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 7:19:29 AM)
Excellent topic. I've been wondering about this myself lately. I'd like to limit it to what I consider sustainable jobs. Not short term, and not created by government regs. (Example - if there was a new requirement that all DoD deliverables include a seventy page analysis of impacts to bluebirds, then there will be a boom in hiring of bluebird specialists, but their value add would be nil.) Also, not through deficit spending - the government always has the power to create new jobs, but since it will likely simply increase the deficit, it's simply creating jobs today at the expense of tomorrow.) Some random thoughts: One general rule is that if people in the lower economic strata get money, they spend it. Hell, sometimes they spend it when they don't have it. The wealthy sometimes do this, but they also invest/save money more than the poor folks. So any income redistribution that favors the wealthy will drag the economy, and any that favors low-income will stimulate it. The idea of simply favoring business creation is ridiculous. If the new business simply does what existing businesses do, it will simply siphon jobs from them. OTOH, businesses that provide NEW products or services WILL create new jobs. In other words, we should be focusing efforts on developing new technologies, not simply helping new businesses start. That's as far as I've gotten thus far....

Epytropos -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 7:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven One general rule is that if people in the lower economic strata get money, they spend it. Hell, sometimes they spend it when they don't have it. The wealthy sometimes do this, but they also invest/save money more than the poor folks. So any income redistribution that favors the wealthy will drag the economy, and any that favors low-income will stimulate it. It's not like they bury it in their back yard. It stays in the economy, it just goes towards intelligent investment to build wealth instead of random trash. I'm not saying we should redistribute to the wealthy, either, but the implication there is that if you give it to them it quits working in the economy which doesn't make sense. Fractional reserve lending means that even if they put it in a standard savings acct it still gets lent back out for one thing or another.

DarkSteven -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 7:41:15 AM)
Epytropos, there are two reasons why I believe that money in the hands of the lower classes will stimulate the economy more: 1. The velocity of money. If someone goes and buys a pack of cigarettes or food, it will happen quickly. Thus, that money is returned to the economy, to be reused many times during a year. If it goes into an investment vehicle, it will be held up for a while. 2. Investment money is vital to build corporate infrastructure. But right now, we don't need more investment - we need more purchasing. The reason that businesses are hurting and not hiring, is because people aren't buying. We need more money used for buying, not for investment, and that's why I favor money going to the lower classes.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 7:43:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven One general rule is that if people in the lower economic strata get money, they spend it. Hell, sometimes they spend it when they don't have it. The wealthy sometimes do this, but they also invest/save money more than the poor folks. So any income redistribution that favors the wealthy will drag the economy, and any that favors low-income will stimulate it. Not quite right DS. Lower economic strata gets money, they spend it. Correct and stimulative Sometimes they spend it when they dont hav it. Correct and stimulative The wealthy sometimes spend Correct and stimulative The wealth invest and save Correct and MORE stimulative Income redistribution from the wealthy to low income DRAGS the economy, because it is taking money out of the more stimulative activity.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 7:50:00 AM)
Everyone on CM send me 5 bucks a week, for 52 weeks straight. I will create 3 jobs: 1: The person opening the envelopes. 2: The person making the deposits. 3: The person spending the money (that of course, I would take on selflessly. Why? Because I'm a giver).

DarkSteven -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 7:53:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven One general rule is that if people in the lower economic strata get money, they spend it. Hell, sometimes they spend it when they don't have it. The wealthy sometimes do this, but they also invest/save money more than the poor folks. So any income redistribution that favors the wealthy will drag the economy, and any that favors low-income will stimulate it. Not quite right DS. Lower economic strata gets money, they spend it. Correct and stimulative Sometimes they spend it when they dont hav it. Correct and stimulative The wealthy sometimes spend Correct and stimulative The wealth invest and save Correct and MORE stimulative Income redistribution from the wealthy to low income DRAGS the economy, because it is taking money out of the more stimulative activity. Huh? Right now businesses are claiming that they're hurting because nobody's spending money to buy their products. The problem is no spending, not no investment. How could investment be more stimulative than spending under these circumstances?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 8:01:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Huh? Right now businesses are claiming that they're hurting because nobody's spending money to buy their products. The problem is no spending, not no investment. How could investment be more stimulative than spending under these circumstances? Partially correct (semantics). Investment is spending, ergo stimulative. How much it is ultimately, is the question. Depends on the amount and what for. Raising Congressman's salaries, stimulative. They'll spend the extra money on alcohol and tittie bars (a rare combination I myself have found favor with on occasion). Those girls will buy crack and give money to their pimps. Stimulative. Pimps will buy stupid looking cars that suck gas, with big fat aluminum rims and spinners. Stimulative. Give it to me and I'll pay down debt. Not stimulative.

DarkSteven -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 8:12:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie Partially correct (semantics). Investment is spending, ergo stimulative. NO. Just throwing money, willy-nilly, on the basis that it will stimulate is stupid. Bush and Obama did it in tax cuts, and Obama did it in a stimulus. Neither worked. Before you do something like that, you need to find out what the problem is. In this case, the problem is that people are not spending. Increasing investment money will STILL not fix the problem. The investment money will find its way to growing economies like China and India.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 8:14:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven One general rule is that if people in the lower economic strata get money, they spend it. Hell, sometimes they spend it when they don't have it. The wealthy sometimes do this, but they also invest/save money more than the poor folks. So any income redistribution that favors the wealthy will drag the economy, and any that favors low-income will stimulate it. Not quite right DS. Lower economic strata gets money, they spend it. Correct and stimulative Sometimes they spend it when they dont hav it. Correct and stimulative The wealthy sometimes spend Correct and stimulative The wealth invest and save Correct and MORE stimulative Income redistribution from the wealthy to low income DRAGS the economy, because it is taking money out of the more stimulative activity. Huh? Right now businesses are claiming that they're hurting because nobody's spending money to buy their products. The problem is no spending, not no investment. How could investment be more stimulative than spending under these circumstances? That no one is investing doesnt mean that WHEN they invest it isnt more stimulative. Money that is sitting on the sidelines isnt being redistributed ...it isnt earning anything to be taxed and redistributed, so under these circumstances there is neither spending nor investment stimulus.

DarkSteven -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 8:51:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy That no one is investing doesnt mean that WHEN they invest it isnt more stimulative. Money that is sitting on the sidelines isnt being redistributed ...it isnt earning anything to be taxed and redistributed, so under these circumstances there is neither spending nor investment stimulus. 1. Your contention is that money used for investment is more stimulative than money used for purchases. I disagree. That said, there's more than enough stuff out there in support of both viewpoints. 2. In the short term, we gotta get the economy started again. Whatever the merits of investment money longterm, we need spending in the short term.

Fellow -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 9:10:30 AM)
It can be predicted with high certainty: there will be no significant net jobs creation during Obama administration. What goods and services are in short supply? The answer: none. Unless you change the structure of the US economy (that requires revolutionary change in the US government) nothing will change. We are stuck with high unemployment for decades. Who made the decision to ship jobs overseas? Last 10 years the only net increase of jobs has been in government or in government supported sectors. During this time the total number of people employed has not changed. At the same time ~40,000 factories have left US. [ http://www.businessinsider.com/deindustrialization-factory-closing-2010-9#the-united-states-has-lost-approximately-42400-factories-since-2001-1 ]. It is not possible to significantly increase the government sector because of the fiscal constraints. Therefore within the current economic environment large net job creation is highly unlikely. Everybody who thinks otherwise belongs to a group who would buy many lottery tickets being certain to win a jackpot very soon. Somebody called this "magical thinking".

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 9:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy That no one is investing doesnt mean that WHEN they invest it isnt more stimulative. Money that is sitting on the sidelines isnt being redistributed ...it isnt earning anything to be taxed and redistributed, so under these circumstances there is neither spending nor investment stimulus. 1. Your contention is that money used for investment is more stimulative than money used for purchases. I disagree. That said, there's more than enough stuff out there in support of both viewpoints. 2. In the short term, we gotta get the economy started again. Whatever the merits of investment money longterm, we need spending in the short term. 1. At least with regard to spending based on redistribution there is virtually no one from Keynesians to Austrians who dont agree that investment is more stimulative. The only disagreement is whether the multiple is somewhere between 1.25 and 2.5. 2. Agreed. And it was said very well on one of the business shows yesterday...The best short term stimulus right now would be long term policy changes.

Termyn8or -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 11:38:15 AM)
FR Jobs - quality or quantity ? We could hire 200,000,000 new social workers, caseworkers, cops, city inspectors and bill collectors, and for what ? People seem to have lost sight of what really matters, which is to produce something for which someone is willing to pay; money. Even willy said something the other day that showed intelligence - that part of the bump in the GDP was caused by government spending. Astute at the time of course but it only addresses the bump. How much of this "GDP" is a fucking waste ? We seem to be a nation of salesmen with nothing to sell. Other countries make the goods. We import plasma TVs for about a hundered bucks a screen, and sell them for a thousand. OK someone in this country makes $900. But nothing is produced, that money was simply swindled out of a fellow citizens, just like when they charge you $100 for five minutes work, saying that you are paying for knowledge. Believe me, I've done it. It has become a moral problem sometimes. Because I can. But then I look around and the people who produce the most get the least, almost always. We no longer value work, invention or innovation. In fact in our society people get paid more to play than to work. Call me wrong here if you can. If you can I want to come and move to where you live. I fucking ain't wroong, you get paid more to play than to work. How the fuck did this happen ? I'll tell you right now. Because we have lost sight of what actually has value and what does not. Argue with me, I will revel in it. T^T

FirstQuaker -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 11:43:27 AM)
Realistically, on either side of the border, the only way you are going to get new jopbs in this environment, is to motivate people to start their own businesses. The corporations have been raking in money hand over fist, but are not creating any jobs, playing games at the financial casino, is a better description of their conduct. But in short, it is gonna be small businesses and small contractors that will be doing the hiring, if there is hiring to be done. It still isn't cost effective to build washing machine plants in North America.

joether -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 12:07:18 PM)
During the Depression one thing that did seem to help was the goverment spending money (either by taxes or debt) to artifically stimulate the economy. Most of those were jobs directed at building infrastructure (roads, waterways, dams, etc). While the goverment did go in to debt, the money spent did improve both the economy and the infrastructure of the nation. Was it an immediate effect? Not really. Will it work again? Possible. The infratrustrure of our technology across the control is sorely lacking for an upgrade. Some systems are still running on 1950's equipment. Sections of the country are actually running at an inferior quality (like power distribution). Bridges also need fixing or out-right replacement. For decades we have learned better ways of construction yet have poorly instituted those changes into our infrastructure as upgrades (i.e. benefit from the research). Those working construction will be buying things with the money they are paid. They'll use it on a wide assortment things that are both needed to surivive and disposable income. That would create jobs 'down stream', creating another group of people that would spend money on needed/wanted items. Right now, busineses are not hiring because there is no need for additional workers due to the amount of demand being so low. Throwing money at large companies (i.e. 'trickle down theory') is not going to be a useful vehicle of change for the money invested. Hell, the taxes are so low, a company should be by all rights creating stellar job increases. We would be seeing massive job fairs with relatively low lines to see a recruiter. How much would this concept cost? Alot. I dont have the specifics largely because I'm not fully informed of what things need/should be improved across our great nation. Will it add on to the debt? Most likely. Should we add to the debt? No, but given circumstances, things are not improving by the current actions. If Republicans didn't run up the credit card bill, or created the circumstances to which our 'wonderful' deficit is behaving; paying for this infrastructure improvements wouldnt be so hard to stomach. When will things start improving, assuming we went down this road? That's largely hard to tell as the number of variables makes it to hard to predict with accuracy. However, during the first two years of Mr. Obama's time in office, the use of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act seem to slow the decent towards a depression. By nearly the end of those two years, some industries were showing improvements. Will my ideas be used? I have no idea. But I rather us Americans stop with the bickering and blaming. It hasn't been useful to getting the economy started. Why not use our brains to create the solution rather than allowing the problems to persist.

joether -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 12:14:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow It can be predicted with high certainty: there will be no significant net jobs creation during Obama administration. What goods and services are in short supply? The answer: none. Unless you change the structure of the US economy (that requires revolutionary change in the US government) nothing will change. We are stuck with high unemployment for decades. Who made the decision to ship jobs overseas? Last 10 years the only net increase of jobs has been in government or in government supported sectors. During this time the total number of people employed has not changed. At the same time ~40,000 factories have left US. [ http://www.businessinsider.com/deindustrialization-factory-closing-2010-9#the-united-states-has-lost-approximately-42400-factories-since-2001-1 ]. It is not possible to significantly increase the government sector because of the fiscal constraints. Therefore within the current economic environment large net job creation is highly unlikely. Everybody who thinks otherwise belongs to a group who would buy many lottery tickets being certain to win a jackpot very soon. Somebody called this "magical thinking". Thank you 'Chicken Little' for your assement of things. Do you regularly walk the streets with a big postard card on your front and back that reads "The End is Near, REPENT!" ??? Your whole post is one thinly veiled attack on President Obama. Like the whole of the economic situation in America is absolutely his fault. How about instead of your petty attacks and doomsday moanings you actually get with the topic, and put forth suggestions and ideas that might improve the situation?

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Job, jobs, jobs (9/5/2011 12:17:03 PM)
Some of you people don't have the foggiest clue about jobs and what makes an economy thrive. First of all, government jobs are a noose around the taxpayers neck. The more government jobs you create or jobs that depend on government spending, the more you have to raise taxes, pass backdoor taxes, and/or borrow money which makes it even worse. Think about it. If we have a government employee making $50 grand a year, then it takes at least 10 people working in the private sector paying $5,000 a year in taxes to pay their salary. And we all know that 47% of all American households no longer pay any taxes due to loopholes, and dependents. So obviously we are headed in a very bad direction and I would say we have already passed the tipping point of no return. It will take some drastic measures to tip it back in our favor and that doesn't include spending more taxpayer money. 2nd of all, If I'm going to give someone my money, I expect to receive a product or a service for it. For some strange reason, I have an aversion to giving my money to artificially prop up an economy just so numbnutts can get reelected.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125