During Obama's state of the union speech, he stated that he wants the minimum wage raised and is going to raise it for federal employees. He implied this will create jobs. The republican party countered with: Where are the jobs?" House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers in response to the state of the union said: "We don't want government to create jobs for us, we want to do it on our own." Do you believe the president can create jobs or that free market economy can create jobs, just by its natural process? What are the positive and negative aspects of both sides?
The President can create jobs by starting another war.
Outside of that, though, very little can be done by the oval office or government in general. Consider that jobs have to produce something of value; a car, a house, something to eat or something similar. Government can not do that; what government produces has little to no value in terms of selling it.
And that in turn means that it must be paid for through taxation, taxation that is now paying for something of very little real value. The bottom line is that only the free market economy can actually produce jobs that will benefit the country long term.
Government can reallocate labor from the private sector to the public sector at a cost to economic production and efficiency. Even the "jobs" created through raising an Army are not really jobs in the, you are correct, they do not add economic value. It is like the boneheaded argument that unemployment creates jobs. If that were true why not have everyone on unemployment.
The truth is, government is a wagon, some people ride in the wagon and some people pull the wagon. Those who pull the wagon do not have government "created" jobs. We teeter on the brink of a disaster, the pullers are shrinking in number as the riders are growing in number. Soon the wagon will be too heavy to pull and America will become Greece.
+1 The only difference I would have with that is that I was thinking of the war time jobs building bombs, bullets and planes. They DO produce actual things that are (very occasionally) useful. They also produce skills and knowledge that are unlikely to come about without the military.
However they did not arise out of an economic purpose but a reallocation of economic resources to serve something other than an economic aim. If a war becomes necessary for a societies survival, than a reallocation of resources serves an economic aim - perpetuating that society's economy. Otherwise it is a mis-allocation of resources best left to the economy to allocate efficiently.
Roads, bridges, railways, dams and so on can all be created by government, provide jobs and add value.
I think that's true, but at the same time find that government isn't really creating the job. Just providing the money to get the job done.
A minor objection, though, and I could go either way on whether it is a government job or not. There are others as well; NASA, research and others along that line actually ARE useful.
Creating government jobs creates tax burden, tax burden reduces commerce and loses jobs in the private sector.
The president could create the conditions that would advocate the creation of jobs but creating public sector non jobs will increase the burden on the taxpayer.
How can the government creating jobs lose jobs in the private sector when the private sector is not creating jobs?
By increasing the tax burden on companies who will then look to consolidate their profits.
I suppose you think companies never let employees go when profits slip John.
We're not talking about taxes, we are talking about job creation. Job creation reduces the tax burden, not increase it.
Only if the jobs are created in the private sector John.
But without increased taxes to pay for those jobs, you find inflation and resulting loss of private sector jobs.
I'll tag this reply for Silver as well.
The telephone system in the UK used to be publicly owned and run by the government.
It was highly profitable, the profits belonging to the government. It also paid tax on its earnings and all its employees being well paid, paid taxes as well.
Why were taxes needed to pay for these jobs? And how many lost their jobs after privatisation?
It was a different age John and can you name another nationalised industry that made more money than it took in subsidies?
Governments are not good at runnlng buslnesses, lets face it they're not very good at running government.
Actually, most nationalised industries made more than they took in subsides. The ones that didn't and were privatised continue to be propped up by public subsidy.
The only one I can think of is the railway john it receives 4 times as much in subsidies now than it did at the time of privatisation, maybe its time to take a good look at all the hangers on.
There has been some renationalisation of the energy industry all be it by the French government as they own a huge portion of the UK energy business (something that would never have happened under Thatcher). Maybe the politicians of today are not up to the job, maybe we need another Thatcher to look after the interests of the country.
I am still of the opinion that creating government jobs is a tax burden on the private sector and restricts the earnings of the real workers.
Never happened under Thatcher! What are you on?
Remember when they privatised refuse collection and how French companies snapped up the job?
And while we are on subsidies, what about all the subsidies to profitable businesses in the form of working tax credits?
When was that John, plenty of councils still run their own collection services. Most of those that were farmed out happened under Labour.
Absolutely John, lets push all the profitable businesses out of the country then shall we. Its not just the big businesses where workers receive top ups, I believe even some council workers receive them.
Plenty of councils! Name one. Council services were amongst the first to be chopped, long after the last Labour government in 1979.
It's you and your Tory mates who seem to want to push all the profitable businesses out of the country, remember just how many were sold off to foreign investors.
Birmingham city council employ its own refuse service.
Is that why the economy is growing under the Tories then John?
Are there any left in British ownership? Both the Tories and Labour have done a pretty good job of killing British industry and commerce.
Foreign corporations also currently control 39 per cent of UK patents. This is far more than the percentage of foreign-owned patents in the U.S. (11.8), Japan (3.7) or even the European Union as a whole (13.7).
But its so so wrong to be nationalistic isn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny, I didn't realise that Veolia Environmental Services were owned by Birmingham City Council - you learn something new everyday! Does that mean that our bins in Manchester are emptied by Birmingham City Council?
Veolia do all the business bins John, not the normal household rubbish. And even then some of the schools and colleges are done by the council.
I don't know who does your bins in Manchester, I suppose its who offered the best cost savings.
No, they do the lot, household and commercial.
The council in Manchester does some commercial premises, but they do them in competition with private contractors.
Cost savings were at the expense of the service and the workers providing that service. Usually people who worked for the council were able to reapply for their jobs at considerably reduced wages.
Sorry John I think we got the wires crossed there.
IN Birmingham Veolia do the business bins, the council do the household rubbish and most of the schools and colleges.
The council have decided to charge an extra £35 a year for green garden waste and have been making the transition to wheelie bin collections as they believe its more efficient and they can fine anyone who puts too much rubbish in one. The collectors are not too happy at the moment because there maybe a reduction in the size of the crews.
As for Manchester it is obvious that Veolia offered a cheaper service and the greedy council snapped up the chance to take them on, I bet you didn't get a reduction in council tax though.
Funny, according to the Birmingham City web site, they collect all commercial waste leaving Veolia to handle domestic waste!
How much did you get off your council tax bills when Veolia took over refuse collection?
Actually John I live in Birmingham and I know who collects my waste. Veolia disposes of most of the waste and operates all recycling centres.
I also checked with my sister who works for the BCC and she assures me that BCC still collect household refuse. She has been fighting for pay parity with them on the basis of same grading.
If BCC are saving money by contracting out services then shouldn't it be them who rebate on council tax?
So you're saying that government successfully provides jobs in Birmingham.
Thanks, that is the point I was making.
No John the people of Birmingham provide jobs by paying for the services they require, Do you think they wouldn't chose alternatives if it was cheaper or more efficient. However they cant chose alternatives because the government wont let them.
As I said Governments don't create jobs, taxpayers money does.
'struth - do you use a microscope to split that hair?
Governments are tax payers money.
That's why I say it is ridiculous to give governments more taxpayers money with no actual gain to the taxpayer. Government Jobs reduce the tax pot not increase it.
In a true capitalist economy consumers create jobs.
In the government I meant rhamson, but you are right consumers create jobs.
Consumers create jobs whether that demand is met by private or public institutions.
Close. Consumers create opportunity and need for jobs, but do not create the job itself. They do not, for instance, write the paychecks, or even describe job functions. Someone else must do that, and provide the actual job that consumers have opened a door to.
John srrms to think that local government produces something for the consumer, when in actual fact it provides services, services that could easily be provided by private companies, in actual fact local government use these privste companies to get better value for money, however other councils habe ptitected their own intrests to the full.
Local councils are full of middle management burning up taxpayers money.
Manchester City council has a share in Manchester Airport. This has just pumped £1.45 million into the local economy. Still, you'll probably say that is money that has been robbed off shareholders!
My ex brother in law worked for a computer company (private) it was losing money big style and was eventually bought by the Japanese whose first action was to get rid of the top management with absolutely no detrimental affect on the company. Then they got rid of the second layer of management again with no detrimental affect.
It isn't just local councils that burn up money.
Has the windfall reduced your council tax bill then John?
And the difference between the private company and the council is that the private company has rid itself of the fat, something the council will avoid at any cost.
It's not a windfall,it's on going revenue. It is used to fund projects not directly covered by council tax.
Manchester City Council has shed some 3000 jobs as a result of the recent cuts and not fat but services such as libraries, swimming pools, home care and the like!
By the way, an article in today's MEN suggests that recent cuts have increased dependency on public services by £1.6 billion a year! Funny, the same thing happened when Thatcher slashed public services, who'd have thought doing the same thing would have the same result!
There were at least 2,525 council employees who received total remuneration in
excess of £100,000 in 2011-12, a fall of 11 per cent on the previous year’s 2,839.
Despite this, 103 councils increased the number of staff who received
remuneration in excess of £100,000 in 2011-12.
Birmingham City Council doubled the number of staff who received remuneration
in excess of £100,000 in 2011-12 to 24, the biggest increase of any local authority.
The figure of 2,525 is almost certainly an underestimate. The opacity of some councils’
accounts makes it impossible to separate teaching staff from council staff. To ensure
accuracy, some data which would have shown more council employees receiving
£100,000 or more in 2011-12 has been omitted.
In 2011-12, there were 636 council employees who received remuneration over
Of these, 42 council employees received remuneration in excess of £250,000.
The council with the most employees in receipt of remuneration over £100,000 in
2011-12 was Camden with 40. There were 38 councils with at least 15 employees
receiving more than £100,000 in 2011-12.
There you go John a few savings could be made there.
I believe Manchester council has 28 employees on salaries above £100k and have taken to duplicating a few positions so people don't lose out on the bonanza of taxpayers cash.
And just how many in private businesses earn in excess of £100,000? Or don't you believe in the maxim "pay peanuts, get monkeys"?
Well the councils certainly don't pay peanuts but still seem to get monkeys John.
The current state of services and general distrust of councils prove it John.
The case of people like Anthony Bodgin and many others proves it too.
My own personal experience is of Birmingham city council who employed John Kaduwanema who stole £1.2 million whilst working in the social care and health department. When the council employed him he had already outstayed his student visa. So one of the monkeys in the HR department obviously didn't do their job, one of the monkeys in the finance department didn't do their job and only after he was found out did Peter Hay the well paid monkey at the head of the services department see the need to tighten up the system.
Now you prove that by paying huge amounts of money that we get best value and the best people.
So two prove that everybody involved in local government is corrupt!
Has nobody in private business ever embezzled? Does the name Nick Leeson mean nothing to you?
You certainly don't get the best value and the best people by not paying.
So one proves instance proves your point then John?
These highly paid council workers never seem to take the blame for anything and very rarely get removed unlike those in private industry.
And we are certainly not getting the best people in our councils even though we pay.
We pay our MP's less for running the country.
I wonder how many instances there are of misconduct by council workers John but you know as well as I do its all hushed up and all in the name of "its not in the publics interest.
But it's not just one instance is it? Private businesses are corrupt and those that transgress in private industry rarely get removed either.
Maybe it's hushed up because it doesn't happen.
BTW, what would you think an appropriate salary for somebody running an organisation with an annual income of £557,250,000?
I guess the £557,250,000 is the income of Manchester council, so how much do you think someone who overseas an organisation with an income of £469,777,000,000 should get then John? Should they get 100 times more than the CEO of Manchester council?
And what would be the appropriate salary of someone who had guided an organisation to £2,600,000,000 debt?
No, I'm not going there. You are just trying to distract again.
Distract from what? It was you who asked the question!
You implied that it was OK for public workers to get huge salaries because of the amount of money their organisations oversee.
I know John that you are all for increasing taxation John and that is the only way government can increase government jobs, in the UK there are 26 million workers, 5.7 million which work for the government, how much more tax would you take off the workers to create more government jobs?
Does Manchester really need another .Nuclear Free Local Authority policy officer? Did it really need one in the first place?
Does the NHS in Leeds really need a Head of Insight and Feedback on £100k a year or a Head of Strategic Intelligence on £100k a year all reporting to the Director of Improvement Capability on £110k a year? The NHS is also recruiting a Head of brand (?) with a salary of £100k+
Does Northgate school (taxpayer funded) really need a team of proof readers to review and prepare the reports of teachers?
The list goes on and on John. And then there all the big pay-outs for people whose job title has ceased to exist. Rob Cooper of the Yorkshire and the Humber Strategic Health Authority was given a golden goodbye of £370,000 when the body was abolished. However, by then he had already found a new directorial role in a London NHS trust on another undoubtedly generous pay packet. NHS terms and conditions of service oblige staff to wait just four weeks before taking up new roles in the NHS if they are to be eligible for redundancy payments. Who's stupid idea was that?
Yes, I asked the question and you avoided it by asking another hardly related question.
You don't know that I'm all for increasing taxes and that isn't the only way government can increase jobs.
And really, how much do you think a £100,000 job actually costs you? If a Nuclear Free Policy Officer costs me a few pence a year on my rates, well to my mind that's money better spent than on dividends for shareholders that probably don't even know where Manchester is.
Firstly I answered your question with a question John, that was not avoiding it. If you really want the answer I will tell you, firstly the head of Manchester council is not voted into office, his salary is set by his friends in the office and if the position is anything like the Birmingham one he cant be sacked he can only resign. My point was why should his salary be set by the amount of money he can screw out of the council tax payer? And if that is the case why doesn't George Osborne get a huge salary based on that principle. Maybe it was you who wanted to avoid answering the question by saying the two were unrelated!
How much does it cost me? In the context of a single job I would agree but how many of those jobs are there at yours or my council, the largest part of my council tax goes on the salaries of employees yet you don't think I have the right to question this.
Please tell me how the government create government jobs without increasing taxation then John? Who do you think pays for the government jobs?
A bit like the PM and cabinet ministers isn't it? And like the CEO of any other organisation as well.
You ask why MPs don't get huge salaries and I sak how therefore did for Example William Hague become a multi millionaire when he has never had a job outside parliament?
As I already noted, councils shedding jobs have actually increased the load on the tax payer, not reduced it.
So the government shedding jobs increases the load on the taxpayer, how so John?
As for Hague it wasn't from his MP's pay was it! maybe him and Blair were in business together.........
Increased unemployment benefits, increased tax credits, increased housing benefits, loss of revenue from council services-the list goes on.
True, it wasn't from their pay as public "servants" that made Hague and Blair multi millionaires but it was that public service that allowed them to accumulate that wealth from those wishing to buy favour.
Now will you answer how much do you think people handling organisations with a multi million pound turnover should be paid?
But all those things were already being paid for from the tax base, via a salary for a job that (apparently) didn't need doing. How has eliminating the job increased the load on the taxpayer?
Whether jobs like librarians, care workers, police, are jobs that don't need doing is another argument so I won't distract this thread any further by discussing it here.
The jobs were funded out of local taxation, which has been depleted by central government but without any reduction in local taxation. The unemployed are funded by central taxation, which has seen no reduction as a result of cuts in spending by local government. This results in increased demand on central taxes.
Subtract amount saved from cutting jobs from the cost of cutting those jobs and hey presto, more has been lost than saved.
Sounds like your unemployment is the equivalent (or more) of a full time job. Which is, of course, a problem recognized by all except socialists; pay people to sit home and they will do just that. It is an extremely costly solution to the problem of people that want more than they can afford, in terms of both immediate financial cost and long term cost to society.
And if the two are NOT equivalent, then your statement that subtracting wages from charity is a positive number is false.
We have a right wing capitalist government who are paying more and more people to sit at home being none productive that shows your thesis that all but socialists know that paying people to stay at home is a problem is false.
I would have to say that you have mis-categorized the government.
No right wing capitalist government will ever willingly pay people to sit home. Sounds MUCH more like a bunch of socialists, equalizing the wealth for those that done't want to work.
I've told you this many times before but here you go again-the fact that you don't like something or disapprove of it does not make it socialist.
Forced unemployment is wholly a capitalist thing.
Well, I think it is that "forced" thing. Capitalists will hire all the help they can - as long as they can profit from it and have the capital to support it. Did we not just discuss this the other day - that consumers create the need for jobs, jobs that capitalists then provide and consumers fill?
So when there are no jobs, blame the consumers, not the capitalist businesses. Capitalists do NOT force unemployment regardless of how many times you repeat the conspiracy theory that people are not hired in order to maintain a large available workforce and drive down the cost of labor. That you don't like the notion that capitalism creates opportunity.
Or, more likely, blame the socialists that have garnered all the capital and given it all away to the non-producers. This will surely drive down the cost of maintaining a society, after all, when most provide nothing in the way of support and thus leave more money to buy what non-workers aren't producing.
And by the way, I have a lovely bridge for sale...
No,not all the help they can, rather as little as they need-you've already said that they won't hire unless there is profit in it for them.
But why blame the consumers when businesses fail to spread their wealth around? Businesses are sitting on record profits.
I would very much like the notion that capitalism provides opportunity, unfortunately I've yet to see any evidence of that.
And socialists have garnered all the capital! So all the one percenters are socialists then!
I'm sure you'll find a buyer for your bridge very quickly,just try any of your fellow travellers that think that everything wrong with the world can be laid at the door of socialists.
But the two are the same. "All the can" implies zero profit, or minimal at best and that cannot be maintained and stay in business.
Why blame the consumer, failing to produce more than they do, for not spreading the wealth? Business is not there to spread the wealth, and has no ethical or legal requirement to do so (outside of taxation that is then given away).
Read closer; the consumer provides the opportunity, the capitalist business the job. We agreed on that already.
Compared to what government takes the 1 percenters are pikers. Barely on the graph. So yes, the socialists have taken the money.
Oh, not everything - some belongs to terrorists and some to volcanoes.
But socially and economically - yes, it is mostly the socialists trying to share the wealth. Not all, but most, and certainly that sharing concept is what put the world in the recent recession.
Socialist creed: He who does not work neither shall he eat.
Wholly Socialist nations don't have welfare, welfare is only necessary in capitalist and transitional system to fix the fact that capitalism can't provide sufficient jobs.
It's a band aid over a capitalist problem.
Nice creed, but like every other system in the world real life socialism is a mix of many others. It may be heavy on socialism, but there are many others mixed into it.
And socialism can provide almost no jobs. Mostly because productivity is second place; equalizing wealth is the primary task and if that "wealth" is poverty anywhere else it is good enough. ("Jobs" does not include make work or have 5 people do the work of one.)
But welfare? Welfare is what it's all about. Worker A cannot keep up with worker B? His productivity doesn't cover the costs of having him on the payroll? Pay him extra because his family is larger. It's called welfare, or charity, most places.
Weird then that all these socialist nations have lower average unemployment...
For sure. Like Greece and the rest of socialist Europe on the skids.
Nor is it particularly odd that the only socialist nations making the grade today are tiny things the size of a single large city. It's not nearly so difficult to make it work when the population is small enough to be of one mind.
Europe socialist! You're having a laugh aren't you?
I suggest that you throw away all your current sources defining socialism and start again.
May I recommend "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell" as a starter. It's a novel, a bit turgid in places, but never the less a good basic treatise. It is available on line so no need to search book shops or lay out any money to purchase.
Yeah like Greece which has had 2 years of socialist government since the 80s
Oh and last time I checked the combines population of declared socialist nations was in the area of several billion. That is a REAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLY big city (Before you ask I am not including China)
Compare, please, Greece and the US on the socialism/capitalism scale.
That the world holds 2 billion socialists has what to do with the statement that it does not work for large groups? Are you trying to say that because there are lots that they are not broken into small countries? Or that small countries do not exist? What ARE you trying to say here? Reading again, that all socialist nations comprise one very large city? Whatever it is, it would seem to patently untrue.