- Politics and Social Issues»
- United States Politics
Waking Up To Reality
Where Are The Jobs?
Did you notice the recent uptick in the unemployment figures. Don't mean to poke a stick in the eye of those of you looking for gainful employment but the line just got longer. Now according to Obama the first thing he thinks about when he wakes up is how he's going to create more jobs. Guess what Obama? The federal government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. You might create bureaucratic, paper shufflers which you have excelled at since taking office.
Look at you track record son. The size of the federal bureaucracy has grown by 17% since you parked yourself regally in the Oval Office. How much production are we to expect coming off the federal hob-nob assembly line? I don't believe for a skinny minute that he thinks of anything but himself, and his poll numbers, when he first opens his peepers.
What I tend to think about the first thing after I wake up is, "What have the idiots at The Whine House done overnight to cause more damage to our nation's economy?" Now there's a sharp contrast in thoughts as the alarm clock does its merry jing-a-ling. Every time I hear a new economic report it seems to contain the word "unexpected." I'm beginning to expect the "unexpected" but I sure don't expect any jobs to be created anytime soon with the federal government growing ever more intent on running the job market. You see, my fellow Americans, it is a known fact that the very entities (businesses) that create jobs are sitting on a big pile of money. That decision is based upon the uncertainty of the brand of ka-ka swirling around the cesspool we know as Capitol Hill.
So lets swing over and take a look at the dampeners of what we are seeing. The first is the cost of labor. Now you know Obama is a big union guy. He's never worked for one in his life but he loves their votes. His buddy Trumpka's vision is to make union membership mandatory throughout the private sector. If that were to happen imagine how the cost of labor would spiral upwards. Take a look at the budgetary crisis issues being faced in Wisconsin and Ohio concerning the exorbitant payouts in fringe benefits. Just transpose those problems over to the private sector employers and let your imagination run wild. All those government workers produce what? How much are they adding to the Gross Domestic Product? The answer is they aren't adding a thing except excessive demands so they can live the life of luxury they've become accustomed to.
There's a new concept just created by Obama called the "ATM Doctrine." Interesting concept but it fails to address some keys issues about production. A little research on Obama's part would have prevented his foot-in-mouth statement. There hasn't been a decrease in bank teller employment since the advent of ATMs. Just a slight oversight of the facts as usual. So banning advances in technology is the ticket? Forget about making the means of making widgets more efficient. Albeit totally unconstitutional the carnage that would result equates to the loss of the jobs of the people who innovate and create new technologies to stream line business operations.
Open Wide Now...
Or how about this? They could write a new law that mandates a 32 hour work week, sprinkle in more vacation time and "personal" days. Viola!. Everyone would cheer for that as long as their pay and benefits remained geared to the 40 hour week. That's the European model and nations on the other side of the pond have tried that. We are now seeing the carnage of that move. The upside is that more people could be employed to fill in for the necessary shifts that would be magically created. That won't work either though. DRATS! FOILED AGAIN!!
Here's how things really work in the private sector Prez. I know you have zero experience in this so close your yap and use your eyes and ears. If you do things to cause the cost of labor to rise it squelches anything remotely close to job creation out here in the real world. Any smooth moves to artificially increase the cost of labor have an inverse effect. Capeche? An increase in the cost of doing business doesn't equate to an increase in total consumption. Being a business owner myself, I can categorically state that what really happens is that I have to find ways to cut costs to compensate for the expense of further government intervention in the market place. In many industries that usually means having to cut the cost of labor, either that or close the doors which isn't an attractive option.
On the demand side of all of this, what usually results is as follows. Increasing the cost of labor, without reducing the labor force thereby creating more unemployment, results in having to increase the price charged for the good or service being provided to the consumer. This is Econ 101 at its simplest. When prices increase, what happens to demand? It goes down, not up. If the demand for widgets goes down, the cost of labor for creating those widgets goes up and the cost of widget material goes up then what will be the expected outcome? Eventually a business will go so far in the red that it'll be standing in front of a bankruptcy judge. Either that or the federal government will bail your butt out. The US auto industry is a prime example.
It's really rather a simple model
Two things come to mind regarding how the government can throw a towel on the economy by its actions. The first being Obamacare. We do need health care reform but not in this form. Contained in those 2,700+ pages are some hefty increases in costs that businesses are expected to shoulder. Don't believe me? Read the bill now that it has been signed and available for casual reading. That's part of the uncertainty I previously mentioned.
The second is his union buddies. Unions derive their power by restricting the labor supply and increasing the cost of labor. They need "laws" that restrict the ability of businesses to use non-union labor. How does anyone expect those union bosses to pay for their vacation homes if they were stripped of the power to force members to pay their dues just to have a job? But instead of laws, which Congress has more sense than to enact, we see the NLRB come forward first with a law suit trying to force Boeing to close its new Dreamliner plant in my home state of South Carolina.
The NLRBs next nifty move was to try to force Card Check regulations down everyone's throat in the absence of Congress passing any law to allow such nonsense. The current administration's modus operandi is that if Obama can't get what he wants via Congress, he'll regulate businesses to death.
Why is Obama so intent on not allowing for business expansion, innovation and the formation of new business growth? He likes to talk about it but has never been the bus driver. Try maneuvering through the complexities of the regulations businesses are expected to comply with by mandate. It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out. Or be in an industry where a moratorium is slapped on you. Which way did the jobs go George?
The question begs itself to be answered. It has been answered before and will be answered again, hopefully without disastrous results. This is where commitment and opportunity need to intersect and a marriage be made. The marriage consists of businesses and the need for labor. I've never hired anyone and trained them with the expectation of firing them. That's called divorce and a lack of commitment. The question here is crucial. Who is better suited to find the opportunities necessary to marry upo with the commitment?
Is it some group of egg headed progressive central economic planners who due to their Ivy League education think they know how things really operate or the actual operators of the private sector who know where the rubber meets the road?
I'll now leave you with that to ponder.
The Frog Prince