How to Fix America's Job Shortage/Unemployment Problem.
Thanks to rHamson for planting the seed for this thought. I will even use his/her post, (and my reply), to start things rolling.
GA replied:
Your last question is the nut that no one can crack - yet.
And it might make a good forum topic by itself. Rather than having conflicting ideologies butting heads, maybe they could be discussing their views on solutions.
You start it and I will jump right in.
I will even give you a head start.
I do not think it is a jobs tax break/incentive solution.
I do not think it is more business deregulation solution - generally. (I am sure there may be specific deregulation issues worthy of consideration)
I do not think it is an increase in government welfare/safety net programs solution. (and certainly not MMT's JG, (Jobs Guarantee) idea)
I do think it is going to require some type of government/private sector program, (I can't believe I am thinking this), along the concept of FDR's CWA, (not CCC or WPA), program.
There, just start your thread with this response and I bet you could charge admission.
Hmm... never mind, If I can charge admission, I'll start the thread myself.
GAFirst and foremost, repeal every word of Obamacare, that has to be the single most destructive piece of legislation ever passed in the history of the US.
Build the XL pipeline.
Lift the moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.
And dismantle the EPA.
These would be a start.
As long as people keep electing fa-left liberals and outright communists along with the RINO republicans, this situation will persist and we will continue down a path the where the only thing left to be equal will be our misery.You do realize oil won't sustain us forever, right? If we don't find alternatives soon, then we're gonna be left with our asses hanging out of the shark cage when the shortages begin. And if you think the prices are high now, then you're gonna be in for a shock when they become ludicrous to the point of mind-bending hilarity.
Also, you know, it's bad for the environment. No matter how clean the oil gets or how awesome the filters become, pollution will always be a problem when it comes to fossil fuels, which is yet another reason to find a viable alternative as quickly as possible.
As for Obamacare, the solution is simple: Universal Healthcare. It needs to happen.Oh my, I know you are responding to SuperKev's points, but I hope you will drop back in and see my explanation to him(?) as I think it clears up the question of the topic.
I hope you don't mind if I use your response to illustrate an example of what I mean.
I think for us, (the U.S. labor force), to get from where we are to where we need to be - in the future, (again, near future), workforce reality, we will have to adapt to the fact that the jobs that produced and enhanced our middle class in the past won't be the jobs available in coming years.
I don't have a specific solution to offer, but I have an idea of what the road that gets us there may look like.
I see a strong public/private sector partnership as one possible vehicle. From the community level right up to the Federal level.
For instance, the Federal "incubator" program that gave the grants that made the news via Solyndra and Tesla might be a good idea that was misapplied. I know, I know, they are hot button names, and failures, but I am outlining thoughts on the concept - not the specific applications, so don't waste time coming back and telling me how bad those two were. Discuss the concept.
Here's a recent "community" level example I read about. That everyone is happy with. I will just sketch the details:
Semi-fact - shopping malls are past their hayday, a dying business model - too many communities have dead or semi-dead malls just withering away.
So, a real estate guy has an idea to revive one, (or six actually). He buys Seminary Mall in Fort worth. He turns it into a culturally-focused shopping center. As in Mexican culture. Several big name brand stores, (like Gap, etc.), but a lot more small mom and pop type operations, plus something Mexican's call a Mercado, a stall-type market place. The place is now profitable. Only about half as profitable as traditional malls that are still going, but still profitable.
He provided opportunities for lots of ambitious folks to try their hand at controlling their destiny with small shops and operations. And many of them needed employees - jobs created.
Plus, a rapidly deteriorating community blight was turned into a community asset. Win - win.
So what? This developer needed help getting the project done. Fort Worth kicked in a $20 million dollar grant - FREE MONEY - to a private developer to remodel a property he got on the cheap. Ye Gads! That was tax money they gave away.
But, Fort Worth representatives quickly affirm that they are extremely happy - the new tax base, and other real verifiable benefits to the community were a bargain for the money spent.
My point... it was a public/private sector partnership.
Of course this isn't my great concept of the partnership I mentioned as a possible solution, it is just one example of a type of concept that might work.
Take it to the next level. Imagine a successful Tesla deal, (not the off-shore manufacturing one we got), - where the company turns out to be a smashing job-creating success, and there were strings attached to the FREE MONEY that required the business agree to keep all operations in the U.S., and create a certain number of jobs n order to be eligible. Could that be money well spent?
GATANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and there ain't no free money, either. If a businessman cannot convince the investment community his business will be profitable, it probably isn't worth building it with our tax dollars, either. The biggest gain always seems to be the owner, somehow, that makes use of that money until he goes broke.
How well is that working? Go to what we know is not working is your answer? Create some more jobs where there is little or no market to enjoy a profit. Most start ups fail but unless you are in a service and especially a medical or banking genre you are going uphill all the way. Forbes describes the best and worst new business' to go into with most of the top earners in service oriented occupations.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/18/citigr … table.html
With many skilled labor jobs on the backburner with companies such as auto part manufacturers there is little for the private sector to create without some sort of help. Waiting for an industry to become a splash such as photoelectric manufacturing and such, who is to step in and fill the void where the US is trending away from manufacturing and towards service and high technological fields? If you wait for the private profits over all template and not develop through incentives towards that trend what is to step in and get it rolling?Come on Wilderness, try to surprise me next time.
I will never remember your acronym, but I do agree with it - generally.
But... put aside any ideologies we may have for a moment and look at this specific example.
The mall I spoke of is earning about $200 p/sq. ft. (which is profitable), but the traditional successful malls are earning about $495 p/sq. ft. - which seems to indicate that the Seminary Mall probably would not have attracted investors looking for the best possible return.
Ft. Worth representatives feel their community has reaped rewards that far exceed the value of their $20 million grant.
In this real estate venture - a mall, the grant went to property renovation and improvements, which primarily benefited the property owner - but also benefited the community.
If the concept fails, the property owner is not reaping a great reward from the grant - it may be more modern, his property may have benefited from $20 million in free upgrades - but he will still have a large dead mall property - which is not a hot commodity in the real estate business.
As it stands now. The Seminary Mall is a adequately successful to stay viable. It is returning benefits to the Fort Worth community that they feel exceed the value of their "investment."
Plus, the venture is creating a lot more than just a few jobs and a tax base. It is also a hothouse environment for budding entrepreneurs - how many lives could this change and how many future jobs could branch of the tree of any successful new idea that might have remained a pipe dream without the low cost access this new mall concept provided.
Plus, Plus, the mall is a community identity and source of pride. Cultural events occur, family gatherings occur, and could it be possible that some type of opportunity; a job, a small shop opportunity, or just a non-gang place, and non-street corner atmosphere to hang out and meet - might change a few lives that would add significant personal contributions in the future?
So, is it a bad deal? Did Fort Worth just enrich another developer? Would they have been better off just letting the corpse rot and allow it to infect its rot in a gradually expanding circle to encompass more and more surrounding community areas?
The point of this particular example is that I see a proper system of "incubator" grants programs as a possible tool in the toolbox we are going to need. Unfortunately, examples like this are currently the exception rather than the norm. And of course by proper I mean uncorrupted.
Was this grant the same as the mythical free lunch we all know does not exist?
GA"Ft. Worth representatives feel their community has reaped rewards that far exceed the value of their $20 million grant."
"...to the Fort Worth community that they feel exceed the value of their "investment.""
These "representatives" and "community" (read the political and business leaders directly benefiting from the project) - has anyone asked the man in the street what HE thinks of taking $20,000,000 from his pocket to build a business for someone else to profit from?
You make a great case for total socialism or communism, but I just don't swallow it. If a business can succeed, let it. If it can't succeed without massive injections of public cash (and 20 M is massive - the bill for the last mall I did a remodel on was less than 1 M), let it either die or never be born.
Beyond that, though, how can I get one of these incubator grants? A couple of mil, set aside while a third one spruces up an old building, would make a nice addition to most towns. And I end up set for life with 2M cash in my pocket."...You make a great case for total socialism or communism, "
Hah! Yep, that's the ticket. Ya nailed me, that's the way I roll.
I used this example for a couple reasons; It was community level - which gave the stated motives of the Reps a little more surface credibility than a Federal level example would have, and the results are easily measured.
It sounds like you think any "grant" of taxpayer money is a bad idea. Regardless of the payback.
Could your objection be an issue of semantics? A grant is essentially spending, so if that $20 million were spent on a public works project that benefited the community, enriching the companies that built the project along the way, that would be OK, but because the $20 million was directed at an individual - who then spent the money to build the project, (with associated companies being enriched by the work - just like the public works project), - it is not OK?
Both have proven worth to the community. One provides an enhancement to community life, and one provides a similar enhancement value, plus a return of monetary value of the spending - yet you see it as socialism or communism because an individual was involved in the latter, dual benefit example?
I don't see the socialism/communism connection, you will have to explain.
"These "representatives" and "community" (read the political and business leaders directly benefiting from the project)"
As hard as it is for this old Curmudgeon and political cynic to force these words past his compressed lips - every representative or leader is not corrupt. If that were true, then even you would have to believe the liberal's characterization of the Founding Fathers - after all they were representatives and leaders of people.
"... has anyone asked the man in the street what HE thinks of taking $20,000,000 from his pocket to build a business for someone else to profit from?"
Probably not. But, this mall has 1.2 million sq. ft. of floor space, which was described as being primarily used for small mom and pop start-ups, and the cultural mercado vender-stall market. That could be quite a few men-in-the-street answering with their participation - or not, *shrug*
You really got me rolling on this one because generally, and with the hind-sight perspective of the Solyndras and Teslas that have tainted the process, I would be in agreement with you. Except for the Socialism/Communism characterization.
But this specific case example seems to prove it is possible for a community of people, whether a village or a nation, to benefit from the grant process. Your obstinacy seems to indicate your world is a strictly black and white world - the one I live in has a lot of gray.
I don't have a problem with an individual benefiting - if the people benefit more. You seem willing to let the mall die - with its accompanying ill effects, and loss of provable public income, (a process that could last a decade), instead of seeing an individual benefit from any public money. That seems like "cutting off your nose just to spite your face."
GAI found a few more details that may or may not affect your opinion. I think it buttresses mine.
1) the $20 million was actually $22 million, and it was not a direct grant outlay, (my mistake), - it was primarily a sales tax abatement...
"The deal: Los Angeles developer José de Jesús Legaspi and his partners bought Town Center Mall last April for nearly $16 million. They want to invest $26 million to turn it into a festival-style mercado. It has been renamed La Gran Plaza de Fort Worth.
• Public help: The group is asking for nearly $22 million in city incentives, primarily a sales tax rebate. The mall must generate enough new taxes in the next 20 years to get the subsidy."
~~~~~~~~~
"José de Jesús Legaspi and his partners want to spend $42 million to turn Town Center Mall into a festival-style mercado that he has renamed La Gran Plaza de Fort Worth.
To make the deal work, he has asked the city for nearly $22 million in incentives and up to 20 years to collect them.
To get the subsidy, the mall must generate tens of millions of dollars of additional sales taxes. If it doesn't produce the new sales, the developer is out of luck."
And it looks like "the man in the street" was asked, before a deal was made...
"...But $22 million is a big number, even for a decaying property of 1 million square feet, and local leaders seem paralyzed by the sticker shock.
Legaspi says he hasn't been able to get a hearing for months, and he's eager to lock up a definitive deal and start the rehab. That would help hold on to existing tenants and pull in new ones in time for the next Christmas season.
Out of frustration, Legaspi urged leaders of neighborhood groups to write letters to their council member, Wendy Davis, who also heads the city's economic development committee. He also contacted me and provided details of his proposal, hoping that a public airing would jump-start the discussions."
*this was prior to the deal of course - which was approved and appears successful
And of course it's not all an altruistic ruse...
"...Legaspi has his own profit motive, of course. But there's also a compelling argument that the area around the mall, at Interstate 35W and Seminary Drive, desperately needs a shot in the arm.
He and his partners bought the mall in April for nearly $16 million, and they propose pumping $26 million into renovations. Eventually, after the project is complete, leased and humming, Legaspi projects that it will generate 10 times the sales it does today. Over the next 15 years, he says La Gran Plaza will create nearly $88 million in new sales tax revenue for Fort Worth."
But there were some issues on your side of the table too...
"The city seems to believe that Legaspi wants a guarantee in case the sales tax levels fall short; that's a nonstarter, because Fort Worth awards incentives only after the developer performs.
Legaspi says he wants the chance to recoup more of the incentive in later years, when sales are expected to grow. The city doesn't like such arrangements, but it went along with one on Montgomery Plaza. And why not, as long as the cumulative amount doesn't exceed the incentive that everyone agreed to?
The ratio of public money to private investment would be high for La Gran Plaza, but it's no more lopsided than the SuperTarget deal, which grants almost $7 million in public help on an $8.7 million investment."
Source: forum.dallasmetropolis.com
GASomehow I missed this - my time on the web has been spotty lately.
Yes, this changes the face of the project a great deal in my estimation. While I am generally against tax subsidies (and at the root, it seems that's what this is), they can be of great benefit at times, and one of those is a failing city. Exactly what this sounds like; a once nice area turning into a ghetto as nearly all business fails.
Here, the cost is born by those getting the profit, with but a small amount being added from sales tax "rebates" (choose your term here - whatever you find palatable), and those "rebates" are contingent on there being considerably more taken in by the state than given back.
There is no flat grant to build a business for anyone and that does make a huge difference. If government is to build a business, after all, let it collect the profits from it as well as pay the costs. Something that should not be done as competing with the endless pockets of government is not possible.
The real solution to everything you have mentioned, including healthcare, is more economic freedom, not less. More energy comes from the economic incentives to discover more and better sources - government is severely limiting that. Better healthcare comes from more freedom to discover better methods, better medicines and better ways of supplying it, not from a new, massive bureaucracy. Government is not the key to progress, if it was the Soviet Union would have been paradise
You are off-topic SuperKev, but it may be my fault for being unclear about my intent. I meant the discussion to be about solutions to help us adapt to a changing work force picture.
A few thoughts I think are valid:
The thousands of union-wage level manufacturing jobs like the auto plants, etc,. are not coming back. Period. Some maybe, but even a re-emergence of a strong manufacturing sector in America, which I think will be dominated, (if it occurs), by robotics -won't bring all those jobs back. Each fixed cost robot can replace a multiple number or workers. I also think it was those jobs that were a big part of and reason for the earlier expansion of our middle class.
I think technology and mechanization, (not even robotic), are changing our labor demands. The better we get - the less human bodies we need. All of the jobs lost in the recession are not coming back. Remember the headlines of recent past years - jobs down, production up. Fewer workers accomplishing more work.
There is more to mention, and I probably will detail them later, but my point is - our past labor/employment reality will not be our future, (near future too!), workforce reality, but we will still be people needing jobs to survive.
So we need a new solution, and not just a partisan politics debate of right or wrong.
More clear now? Want to try again?
GA
GA, you never cease to amaze, you're advocating an FDR New Deal concept as a possible solution?
.... I do think it is going to require some type of government/private sector program, (I can't believe I am thinking this), along the concept of FDR's CWA, (not CCC or WPA), program.
With the looting of the infrastructure funding by congress there is a purported 3.6 trillion needed to address the problems of crumbling bridges and roads.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
Maybe a program is in order at this time that could benefit the country and the unemployed. How could it be implemented without the illegal immigrants rushing back to fill the jobs created by a project such as this. And with years of educators telling our youth that working with your hands is a failure of your education how could the mindset be changed. Maybe an incentive to eventual payoff of student debt or welfare and food stamp incentives?Yeah, I know. But at least I offered the caveat, (several times), that I meant some type of public/private partnership program that might be similar to FDR's CWA... wait, I have to go get a shovel with a longer handle.
GA
Sure.
Obamacare has either killed jobs that existed or caused new ones not to be created. Obamacare has killed small businesses who cannot afford to hire that 50th person because of the mandate. Or at least the prospect of it, which Obama has so graciously delayed until after the mid-terms.
You want a solution? That would be the biggest one in my opinion. Kill that POS law, kill it dead, then cover it in cement, drop it in the middle of the ocean and then nuke the bastard for good measure.
If you want manufacturing to come back first you need to tell the fraking unions that they don't get to just run roughshod over the employees and the company just because they think it's their right to do so. If the employees are happy and say no, the answer is no. Period. Quit trying to intimidate the workers so you can get more dues to line your coffers.
Next, why don't we have a conversation as to why sending those jobs overseas is the smart play to begin with? We need to make it the smart move to bring them back, instead we have one of the most business unfriendly climates in the world. Make our corporate tax rate at least equal to the lowest in any other country and the businesses will flock back here.
Frankly as long as you have someone like Obama in charge and his cronies who only see the taxpayer as the way to finance his vision of utopia, this is what we will be forced to endure.
My question is why have we put up with this crap for this long? Under ANY other president there would have been torches and pitchforks long ago. Why do we accept this month after month and year after year?Weren't there enough Obamacare threads for you to rant on?
Aren't there other political fights you can join?
I would ask if you thought you could verifiability prove any of your partisan accusations, because I don't think you can because I think it is just a rant.
But, I won't ask that, and I am hopeful you won't attempt to respond, because I don't care.
That is not the intent of the discussion that I started. If you want to give it another shot, with a more on-topic response, then welcome aboard.
But if your future responses will be clones of your previous ones, why don't you find another thread to participate in.
I much prefer to be civil and gracious in discussions, but you are making that very difficult.
GAYeah, well, the current reality is ugly, but what I wrote IS the current reality.
Proof is no further away than many of your local small businesses or the gas station my friend.
If you want to have some theoretical highbrow discussion on this in which everyone just expounds pie in the sky conjecture and highbrow economic claptrap, then you are correct, I'm not the one for this conversation.
You will never solve this problem until you can be honest about it's causes.
The solutions are not complicated or even difficult, but it seems no one is really interested in hearing the truth.
Carry on..... Rather than having conflicting ideologies butting heads, maybe they could be discussing their views on solutions.
I was afraid of the viability of this invitation to engage in this conversation as you intimated with your comment above. I wonder why in order to do something positive there are those that want to deconstruct that which is in effect. I hope we can keep this from going south before it gets started.
I think in order to approach the topic with any objectivity the truth needs to be honest and not a magic scoreboard in the sky. For example: There are those that wish to point at the unions for the exodus of jobs to foreign markets as the key example of why much manufacturing has left the US. Is it true? To an extent it is as manufacturers through legislation have been able to import their goods cleansed of high labor costs from overseas. But what is the result? The ability of those that lost their jobs and more importantly those that lost the ability to support our consumer based system are no longer in possession of disposable income to buy the lower cost manufacturers product. So who got hurt? All of us as we find it more difficult with lower paying incomes to support the lifestyle that manufacturing is now supplying us. So pointing the finger at either side is useless.
Is it possible to recreate the jobs programs that were launched during the Great Depression under FDR to fill the void left by the vacancies in manufacturing? You have to change a lot of minds to do that as we have found that immigrant (whether legal or illegal) has been filling in where most Americans are unwilling to go. This is based primarily on our education system that for years has been ranting at our youth to go to college so they won't have to settle for a job where getting your hands dirty is a sin to your brain for not figuring out a better outcome. So educational changes may be a start and more importantly a apprenticeship program for trades a good start.I guess I should have used another word, rather than to introduce "unions" into the conversation, but it did suit to describe the wage level I was thinking about. It wasn't a pointing finger - in either direction. The point was that I think that the mass number of jobs paying that level of wages is not going to come back in any single plant that would support entire communities - as the auto industry did.
I was really hesitant about mentioning FDR's CWA for two reasons; that program wasn't exactly what I'm thinking, and it could only be part of the solution. Creating new job sources and a workforce qualified for them is also going to be necessary.
I don't think your immigrant reference is a job creation issue - those jobs are there. As you indicated it is an American worker issue. If they turn their noses up at physical labor jobs - it just means they aren't hungry enough yet. And as long as they can get government support, they never will be.
I think a national conversation about America's "gotta go to college" mindset is slowly gaining steam. I recall several serious and qualified professional folks starting discussions about the value of "just any college degree." For instance; in the 1970s, (or there abouts), an MBA was seen as the golden ticket to the fast track to business and financial success. A decade later the business world had MBAs coming out its ears. I wonder how many Star Bucks baristas have one?
And Liberal Arts degrees.... really? How many job openings would someone think there are for Victorian Period Social Mores analysts are out there - just waiting for them to graduate?
And speaking of pay checks... had to pay a plumber or electrician lately? Technical and Trades educations, as you mentioned with the Apprenticeship reference can be a big part of changing America's view of a successful career.
GA
Good Evening Superkev. I will be happy to answer these questions, if I may. Actually, there is a short answer and a long answer.
The short answer is the simplest. Torches and pitchforks are not ballots in a civilized society. Rather, they are forms of intimidation popular with rabble on the fringe. {1}
The longer answer requires a little knowledge about elections in the USA. In 2008, President Obama received 52.9 % of the popular vote and 67.7 % of the Electoral Votes. In 2012, President Obama received 51% of the popular vote and 61.7% of the Electoral Votes. In both cases, the President received more than his opponent. {2}
Now, in a representative democracy, Presidents are not elected for life. Therefore, citizens who are critical of the policies of their elected President have the opportunity to support their favorite candidates in the next election. All they need do is be patient and next time bring more votes.
Not very hard to understand, I think, for a majority of Americans.
Take good care of yourself and thanks for contributing to the discussion.
{1} http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rabble
{2} http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electi … _vote.html
This looks to be an old conversation between you two gentlemen (not when posted but an idealogical debate that I can only assume has gone on for some time) so I hope I am not intruding when I say that the idea of a governmental intervention at the federal level is the owrse idea around and you have got to recognize that. The stimulus programs of the last 10 years have not worked. All government needs to do it step back, reduce a little regulation and remove the monstrosity that it Obamacare from the employers books and you will see an economy rocket forward with jobs for anyone who wants one. Washington DC killed any chance of a full recovery the day that bunch of morons, most of whom have never ran a business, passed that piece of social engineering. Since the debate began on it in 2009 the economy stiffled. It has never got it's feet back under it because of that and that alone. To quote Rumsfeld, " Unknown unknowns" were just too high. Nobody knew exactly what it would cost them in employee benefits so nobody hired unless they had to. Now of course, we do know what it will be costing which is why so many have lost coverage from employers because single payer is the goal anyway and it costs too much to foot the bill as a benefit for many companies. so even if you do get a job, you have to pay double to triple for health insurance. Great Job Washington... take a minute and slap each other's back you son of a...
I say this why? History. No economic down turn in this economy has lasted more than 18 months without solid movement back the other way, save for the Great Depression (which FDR hurt it by those jobs programs some seem so thrilled to recall), it was actually moving out of it's funk within 36 months. So tell me, what the hell is Obama (not I speak of him as the individual) thinking when history clearly spells out the cure for these problems and it isn't more government in th elong run, it's allowing the market to correct and move forward.
Talkiong about jobs programs with a 17 trillion dollar debt and a slow growth economy is just the wrong way. Leadership at the highest levels, a belief in the overall capacity of American to overcome and just a little government retraction would blow this place through the roof.Welcome, glad you pulled up a chair.
It is not really an "old debate" between us, Wilderness and I are generally on the same ideological plane.
And the reason for the apparent disagreement on this one may have been my fault for portraying some facts incorrectly - as in implying an outright $20 million grant ala' Solyndra.
As for your "government intervention" thought, I must offer a qualified yes and no. Generally yes, I think it is a bad idea, but no, in some cases I do see it as a beneficial choice. This mall example is one I would point to as a good idea.
"...All government needs to do it step back, reduce a little regulation "
This is a blanket Republican/conservative mantra that I think is as frequently wrong as it is right. Should there be less regulation on the financial markets - we are living through those results now. But I agree there are also many bad regulations that should never have seen the light of day.
Should there be less/no workforce regulations, (ie. OSHA) - check out the history of early 20th century wooden shingle factories where workers worked on unshielded whirling saw blades, had an impossible hourly performance quota, and over 50% of the 1+ year employees were missing at least one finger, a large percentage more than one. But again, in this arena there are also a lot of bad regulations too.
"...remove the monstrosity that it Obamacare from the employers books and you will see an economy rocket forward with jobs for anyone who wants one."
Well, I resist turning this into an Obamacare thread, and I don't like Obamacare either - but, I think, (in another thread - just pick one of the many already open), I could shoot that statement so full of holes you would have a hard time deciding which one to address first. - Again, a blanket mantra statement.
... and the economy was tanking, (the housing bubble), well before the Obamacare push started.
At first blush your reference to the results of FDR's work programs and their apparent less than positive effect seem correct, but only half so. It is a deeper subject than can I can address here, but, I would say it is an incomplete understanding to think they were complete failures.
For my own benefit I also point out that I had a hard time uttering the thought that something similar in concept might be a tool we could use. I am an admirer of the "Reagan Total Picture" leadership model. The thought of any government involvement in the private sector is a tough pill to swallow. That's why I tried to duck under the cover of a public/private partnership concept, rather than a government solution.
"...Talkiong about jobs programs with a 17 trillion dollar debt and a slow growth economy is just the wrong way. "
What the hell else do you think is going to get us out of this mess if it is not jobs and earned money in people's pockets?
Do you really think that, with our undeniable, (at least to me), workforce needs - as in the reality that today's work needs require fewer bodies, that if the government just got out of the way the private sector would magically produce the opportunities for the number of new jobs needed - all by itself?
In this day, and in the future days to come, when the private sector expands its production, which in the past would have meant tons of new jobs, the expansion will composed of more and more computerization, mechanization, and use of robotics. The volume of needed jobs just will not be as in the historic examples you allude to.
Instead of ten bodies for a task, the new expansion will be one body to manage a robot that does the job that would have previously required another nine bodies to accomplish the task.
I am all for government going back to doing what it was intended to do. I am all against social engineering - big time against it. But, I also don't think the future expansion of the current private sector will be the mass jobs creator we are going to need.
So, the conversation comes down to whether you think that, understanding the realities of a changing workforce needs, the current private sector model can provide the needed number of necessary jobs. I don't think so.
How many mom and pop start-ups made possible by government getting out of the way will it take to replace the thousands of autoworker-type jobs lost to robotics?
Do you think if we had a manufacturing resurgence due to government getting out of the way that those manufacturers would hire ten times more bodies than needed for jobs fixed costs robotics could handle?
Did history show us that the cotton industry went back to hand-culling cotton after the cotton gin was invented? How many of those lost hand-culling jobs came back after the cotton gin made the cotton industry more profitable?
Do you think if government got out of the way of the financial industry, (not the markets), it would expand and hire hundreds of green eye-shaded accountants instead of investing in a good computer system and a couple operators to do the same job?
That is my point in this conversation. The needs of our production are changing. Fewer and fewer physical bodies are needed to accomplish the same or even larger amount of work. And as we get better at it, the situation will only become more exaggerated. But the needs of American's for jobs does not go away.
Where do you see those needed jobs coming from? How do you see the private sector providing a solution?
See, isn't this a more interesting, (albeit less exciting and less applicable to self-satisfying rants), conversation when possible solutions are discussed - instead of partisan condemnations?
GAI am with you on this being a where will the jobs come from if we continue old tactics and practices. I have long wondered where people think due to relaxing a few regulations it is going spring forth a flood of jobs. For a job to be created there has to be a need. A need meaning a body to produce either a service or product that our consumer based economy requires. With wages losing pace with inflation (remember that dirty little word we don't talk about?) and now so many unemployed or given up on finding a job, where is the great need. Suppose you suspended the OSHA regulations or healthcare act. What products are just waiting in the wings to drive the economy back in the swing of things because regulations precluded their advancement? It is like a "Field of Dreams" argument. If you suspend the regulations the jobs will come? Maybe if we impeach the boogey man in the White House people will begin spending more money as they know the economy will take off. Remember the middle class has always been the driver of the economy and the last twenty of so years it has been decimated with inflation and taxes, while the upper class has enjoyed an escalation of their wealth. So more of the same only with less regulation and tax breaks for the wealthy is going to rescue them from the current and long term downturn? I am not saying that tax breaks for the wealthy is out of the question if they are investment driven. There are those that will flame me for saying that as they feel someone who has risen to a level of economic freedom should be allowed to spend their money anyway they see fit with no repercussions as it is their right. Yes it is I would say but not if you want a tax break it isn't.
"should be allowed to spend their money anyway they see fit with no repercussions as it is their right"
"Yes it is I would say but not if you want a tax break it isn't."
If we can paraphrase these two statements - it is our right to spend our money as we wish, but only what is left after giving most of it to government. That's a rather sad statement, IMHO." it is our right to spend our money as we wish, but only what is left after giving most of it to government" You still hang on to the belief that if we tax the rich less they will in turn invest in creating new jobs. That is a fallacy many from the Reagan years still believe and has proven fruitless. There has to be a need in order to produce more jobs. The idea that you would create a job that does not pay for itself is ludicrous. I do however commend you on a new stand that the government is only taking most of the money of the rich and not all of it. So now you are a most or nothing proponent. Congratulations!
Well, I certainly stand guilty as charged for the use of platitudes. Having been in sales for many years I have always found that knowing my audience helps and on that I failed. You are a sharper knife than expected.
When I spoke of relaxing regulation the banking industry was not my focus, it was the tens of thousands of hoops new industries must jump through to establish themselves as viable entities. I'm a risk/reward conservative. Eliminating some of the regulation on EPA requirements based on unproven science would be a starting point. Licensing fees and other duplicated incorporation fess would be another, overall lowering of the upfront costs to start a business. I would also suggest that I have no desire to push us back to late 19th and early 20th century safety requirements, many of those gains made by the organizing of labor were important and should be mainstays of current workplace safety.
As you have suggested with the cotton gins creation, I do not see man moving back to the backbreaking labor in those industries already mechanized; that would be silly. What I do see if new industries that would come into being if left to their own unique market needs. The auto bailout of Detroit I was completely against. I saw no difference in the piss poor management of the auto industry as I so the same inept management of Solyndra, only major difference being at what point in the process they came to the public pool for a bucket of money. The world is changing to be sure, but we owed no more to the auto makers than the buggy whip manufactures put out of business by the auto makers. And yes, I realize the difference in size of the two. However, I would also point out the amount of special fees, taxes, regulation costs and union interference that helped in some measure drive that industry into the dirt. Again, mismanagement played an enormous part, promising huge retirement packages 30 years down the line is ridiculous for any company. Self funding would have eliminated much of that dispare.
A reduction in the available low wage workforce would also help, through the simple exersize of current immigration law.
On Obamacare, if you read carefully, I did not blame for the downturn, only its exaserbation and for causing the delay in any turn around, a turn around that I still do not see. It is but another layer of governmental interference in the market place, causing undo pressure on employers.
We all want clean water and clean air, but the blanket powers given the EPA are simply stupid. Their enforcement is far from evenhanded and even when it is (industry specific as in coal and oil vs. solar and wind) it suggests agenda not science.
And Finally, we come to the one that I believe is paramount to all the others, taxation. We have a 22000 page tax code with as many loopholes as retarded taxes. We see billions lost by not recovering income from foreign investment as we watch the middle class folks pick up the tab. I work to cover my wife's tax bill. No joke. That is the total sum gain of my employment each year. Imagine a country with a low across the board tax rate. The treasury would make it up in volume by the number of newly employed tax payers. And now we have a sitting President who desires to add to that middle class a fee on roads, already funded through car tags and fuel taxes with the introduction on tolls and an increase in those fuel taxes?
I don't believe as a percentage of income, any American should pay a point more than any other, but I also believe all Americans should pay it, the rich, the middle class and yes, the poor. Equality for all I say. And I have lived through all three classes (according to the average income levels in America I know reside in the top 4% of income earners having 20 years ago been flat on my ass broke). Earned income credits should be eliminated as well as mortgage interest so long as a reduction in the overall tax liability is accomplished. I also see the minimum wage as a huge deterent to any new major job creation. If Wal-Mart wants to pay $5.00 an hour and Target $15.00, that should be their right to do so. We will see who the market keeps and who it throws to the trash heep of history. The same applies to manufacturing, and this is somewhere I do believe we need some government intervention. Tariffs when properly applied can stabilize a domestic workforce. It would give us a fighting chance in a world dominated by day labor rates of $2.00 and $3.00. That too would help some manufacturing back to the states.
I am a simple man, self educated, with no college under my belt, yet my wife and I dug our way up and out of a number of self induced financial hardships. That's what American promised (we were born here but we got the mesage loud and clear), equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. So much emphasis is today placed on how we are going to "help" others when what we should be focusing on is what can we do to allow other to "help themselves". The situation is indeed multifaceted and each piece of the puzzle must be addressed but I firmly believe that by returning to the states many of those responsibilities like education, highways construction, environmental regulation enforcement and taxation we could turn the corner and see another 1950's or 1980's style growth scenario devoid of the massive debt creation.uh, uh, damn! I guess the only thing I can say is... yep, I agree almost completely, and the only points I would differ on are picky and unimportant to the point of the conversation.
A very thoughtful response. If you listen closely I am sure you will hear this choir clapping in the background.
GA
Yes, that is my point - that current government actions and misdeeds are not the real reason for our current unemployment or under-employment problems.
But! I am not saying that it isn't contributing to the problem. And in some areas a very big negative contribution. I agree with the anti-Obamacare folks that it is negatively affecting jobs - both in costing jobs and in causing reduced work hours.
I agree that taxes and regulations that have benchmark numbers, ie. under 50 employees, etc. also serve to cost or restrict jobs.
And I also agree, as Wilderness pointed out - there are a lot of counterproductive, restrictive, and job-costing regulations in force.
I am just saying that even if these problems were "corrected," (whatever your leanings take that to mean), it would not solve our unemployment problem. It would go a long way in helping - in today's workforce, but a different solution is going to be needed for tomorrow's unemployment problem.
As for the tax breaks for the rich idea - I don't think they should get "special" tax breaks either - but, why should they be taxed more than anyone else? For all those "fair" minded people out there - how do you defend the various "millionaire taxes" or "luxury taxes" that have been tried. Too many folks screaming for equality and a "level playing field" think those concepts exclude the rich.
GAI also agree with your statements in this post. As far as taxing the rich anymore than what they are I have to say there has to be independent study as to its' effectiveness. But if tax breaks were given to the rich to curb unemployment and create new jobs I am all for it. Unfortunately it does not work that way. To create a job there has to be a need which requires that it pay for itself. No tax break is going to help a business support a negative draw on the payroll if the job is just there to satisfy a quota.
So how is a job created should be explored and what can the government do to "help only" and not require, as the government has also proven over and over again it has not a clue how to create a job."... As far as taxing the rich anymore than what they are I have to say there has to be independent study as to its' effectiveness. ..."
Why do you need a study when there are real life examples?
Look at the states that have tried the "Millionaire's Tax" route - you will see pretty dismal results.
Look at the "Luxury Tax" that was tried - and then repealed.
ps. I am taking a big chance here. Both examples are from memory, while I am sure about the luxury tax, I am depending on hazy recollections for the millionaire's tax.
GAFor the short term there could not be any affect on a millionaires tax as per ce but if you go back to Eisenhower in the 1950's the tax rates were a lot steeper and they did not slow down the millionaires spending habits. That is not to say it would make a big difference if they were raised. The idea that a millionaire or billionaire will just hire more people because his tax rate is lowered is ludicrous as there has to be a need before that could happen. With a consumer who has less to spend there is not a real need to ramp up any production nor hire anymore personnel to man retailer floors. So where do you get the added income from to hire people when there is no need?
You keep saying that, that there must be a need before jobs can be formed, but it just isn't true.
There was no "need" for the latest Galaxy phone upgrade. There is no "need" for a 200 mph car or a 2 lb bicycle. There is no "need" for caviar or truffles. Yet all of these are a thriving market.
What there IS, is a "want" and there is a "want" for very nearly every product you can imagine - if magic spells can be sold for cold hard cash anything can. Which in turn means there is always a reason to make jobs if the finished product price is affordable to those that have the "want" for it.Ridiculous! How do the jobs get created but by a need to produce more product? How is product demand going to increase when a smaller and smaller amount of useable or discretionary spending is depressed? You cannot just create a product and hire people thinking that people will just by it because they want it and cannot afford it. This is the grim reality of supply and demand and not a field of dreams success story. We have had this discussion before and you weave this magical tale of rich people having freed up untaxed capital will just invest where there is no market to support it. I have pitched many products to rich people and they will not invest in a new product until there is a specific need proven.
Jobs get created by someone with cash enough to make the business to hire someone to work for. It is the hope of the business to make sales.
There is ALWAYS product demand for nearly all products, even such as magic spells. It is more a matter of price than demand; if the price is low enough there will be buyers for anything you can imagine.
What rich person needs a yacht? A Rolls Royce? A personal jet? A 10,000 sq ft mansion? No need for any, but the rich still buy them.
As far as the rich investing, not buying, in a product intended for others to buy you must first demonstrate that your project price will attract enough buyers for that investment to show a positive return. Obviously you have not done that.And obviously you don't know what you are talking about in this economy. The dollars for investment have dried up as more and more investors are going towards banking and healthcare and not consumer products because the necessities are what are driving it. Necessity creates the jobs and not the other way around. The most successful business' being created are in accounting, medical billing and data storage not in products that have a highly speculative nature. As a business owner and with as many as 25 employees at one time I know that the product I produce is based on my costs more than anything and when the costs are too high based on low demand, people are going to lose their job. You think that somebody is going to brainstorm something, go and get the funding based on some market research and voila! you have created a jobs? No my friend it is not magic and it starts slow and builds if it is to be a success. Now if we are talking about the government that is a whole other issue and that is because it is a deficit based arrangement and not meant to make a profit.
Here, let me help you up. I think you slipped on something.
How many new jobs would the Galaxy phone makers create if the Galaxy was a bomb that nobody was buying - no need for increased production, then no need to create new jobs to handle something that does not exist.
Same with all the rest. If there is no need for increased production to meet increased demand - then why would an employer hire more? Just because he wants to? Of course there must be a "need" for a job to be created - at least it works that way in the private sector.
Joe Manufacturer might "want" to hire a hundred new workers. But if he doesn't have a need for more production generated by more demand for his products - then he goes bankrupt. Which he won't of course, because without a need for more production of his delicious, and highly coveted truffles, (the demand for which his current staff is handling) - then he is not going to hire anyone else.
Unless of course you are talking about speculative new industries, ( a 300mph car, a calorie free truffle), but even then the jobs are coming from an anticipated need.
So, it's elementary my dear Watson...No need for additional labor - no need for new jobs. 2+2=4
GAYou misunderstand, or perhaps I do.
There is absolutely no need for the new phone - the old one worked just fine and did everything needed. Not to say it wasn't wanted or that there is no market for it, just that there was no actual need for it. The rest are the same - a good product that will sell like gangbusters, but with no real need for it. Who needs caviar on their cracker, and what bodily requirement
is it fulfilling?
Yet the claim is that there must be a need for something before jobs can be created (or, I assume, maintained). No need for the S5 so all those workers are also unneeded and will soon lose their jobs.
Except they won't lost their jobs because they are producing a product with a high demand whether the phone serves an actual need in the world or not.Ok, then it was a wrong turn. My understanding of the point was that there must be a need for the labor - that is what a job is - before a new job would be created.
Addressing the point from the perspective of "need for something" changes the direction. Then your yachts and and fast car examples work.
But who made the wrong turn? Hmm...
GAProbably me - I can see the other side at least as well and it makes sense.
That is so mixed up it is hard to extrapolate any logic from it. We are not talking about maintaining jobs based on product sales. Of course if the company producing a product lags in sales there will be a layoff or bankruptcy if nothing is done to re-invent or introduce new product. But if there is to be new jobs created there has to be a need and the need is provided by consumers. The consumer base has shrunk due to the lackluster economy. Guess who drives that scenario? Consumers who have either lost their jobs, are hurt by a paycheck that is lagging behind inflation or are working at a job that pays significantly less than what they were paid before to afford the product. This last group is becoming more the norm than the exception anymore. Consumers drive the economy and not the rich creating jobs to match the demand. It is quite simple and historically provable.
Sorry, Rhamson, GA has pointed out our problem. I just misunderstood your comments, that's all - I thought "need" referred to someone needing the product, not the need to produce or meet demand.
But price still makes a huge difference. Going back a couple of years to my youth, people wanted a sports car but couldn't afford one. And the Ford Mustang was born - a cheap "sports" car that was immensely successful. The consumer base did not have the resources to buy a Ferrari, but it did the Mustang, and Presto! Jobs were created.Wheeew!........ I thought something was amidst. I can understand your point now. Yes I agree if someone was to invent a need there would be room for jobs to be created in that scenario. But what is hard is that in this consumer based economic model such as the US where need is greatly depressed by available income, where are the new jobs going to come from? If the money is concentrated at the top which by some estimates are the 1% er's, they can only buy so much which will not drive any recovery. I am not suggesting that we take it from those that are in that situation but since economic conditions are driven by available income how is it to jump start? Of course we will continue to by food (maybe not steak) or toilet paper (maybe not Charmin's) but something has to be done to get the unemployed working and buying again to drive this dead economy into producing jobs.
I agree that we need to get people to work; people working, providing goods/services for each other is what runs the economy. But part of the problem, I think, is that our production has become so efficient that we simply do not need all that we can produce - it's part of why we pay farmers not to grow food. We need some export business, but that means competing with (what is to us) starvation level labor costs even with our mechanized, high volume production capabilities.
Still, the balance has fallen off from center and the result is unemployed. I don't know how to get them back to work, except that government interference in the process will not produce long term positive results. Short term, maybe, but never long term - such interference in the process only screws it up and that will eventually bite us if we try it.I agree that government may not have the solution but perhaps a helping hand rather than a regulating hand can find its way into the mix.
Unfortunately, the only "helping hand" our government seems to understand is a free handout, further enabling those that do not wish to earn their own living.
It has been scorned in the thread, but cutting the ridiculous requirement loads on business would, I believe, result in more hiring. The entrepreneur wishing to start up, for instance, but cannot afford or does not understand the myriads of stupid requirements they must face. The business that needs more help but is afraid to hire for fear of repercussions of having more employees. The one that needs to expand but cannot afford the requirements that come with new/renovated buildings.I think the problem lies more with who is willing to take the biggest chance. Is it the next Ford Mustang as you say to spark a commercial success or is consumer confidence at such a low that maybe that smart car is a better buy.
Expansion money is available and cheap. I get at least two money offers to buy equipment or operating capital a month. I turn it down because sales just will not support another negative cash draining with the repayment. I have a good workflow that I can accomplish myself with some part time help occasionally with large items. Obamacare does not affect me as I am on my own. Why then don't I hire a sales person to ramp up my business? Because the risk is not worth the investment is why. And in this current recession climate it is far from prudent to expand where there is clearly no room for profit at this time. Therefore hiring help is crazy and not happening.
I have another business venture that is still in the development stages but not a wise major investment at this time as the field it is in is also in recession.Risk is a very real part of the equation, yes. No risk, no real gain but too much risk, total failure too.
You can't expand, meaning more production, but can you "modernize" or in other ways use investment capital to improve efficiency, thus lowering costs and improving your competitive stance? Unless you are a monopoly you have competition, competition that is also selling the same product. While net job creation countrywide in this manner is a net loss, it can be a definite gain locally (meaning your company).All that is sales driven and useless if you run your costs up to only produce more quickly with a higher debt cost. Not feasible for many who currently have reduced sales based on the economy. Investment on modernization is also too high a risk based on current economic climate. Speed of production does not impact profits based on risk and ROI.
For being a self professed business owner, you seem remarkable obtuse. It sounds like you are saying that borrowing money in order to increase efficiency cannot result in lower prices and thus cannot see greater sales from an existing market by taking from the competitor.
We all know better; it happens every day.And it is obvious you have not had a successful business as your analysis is shoddy at best. Risk management is the most astute skill you have to hone and obviously through your statement you clearly do not understand it at all. How many years have you owned and operated a business with employees?
Before asking to see the size of another mans ^&$$@, it is traditional to show them yours.
It has been discussed prior to this if you want to go back in the posts. Maybe you should spend some time and catch up.
I read the whole thread, and if you every said how many years you ran a business and how many employees you currently have... you did so with great subtly and brevity.
Well how much do you need. A complete resume? What qualifications might be acceptable? Sufficed to say I have been self employed in my own business for twenty years and have had as many as twenty five employees at one time. Recent economical downturn has me with a bare bones crew of three currently. I hold two patents and currently market a product which sells on Amazon.com. I have run other peoples shops in the past with as many as seventeen skilled workers under my direct supervision.
I responded to another of your comments in another thread - with a similar sentiment, and I have nothing to add here - except to say I always enjoy seeing your forum participation.
You show me yours first - that's a laugh!
GA
Does that mean you understand that risk sometimes justifies borrowing to improve efficiency? Or are you sticking with the idea that it can never pay off and no business ever does it?
If risk is warranted by indicators showing that more product is needed and a reduction in price is necessary to compete with production and pricing. There is no one size fits all and assessment has to be dynamic to be effective. Jump too quickly into debt with faulty data and it will most assuredly bite you in the @ss but to ignore growth you will be kicking yourself in the @ss.
You might go back and check the first statement about this. It is clearly to the effect that a load might be advantageous to improve efficiency, thus making a price cut possible, and picking up business from your competitors. Nothing said about "more product is needed " or that "reduction in price is necessary to compete". Just that a reduction in price might gain customers and that that price reduction might be possible through improved efficiency funded by a loan.
While an improvement in a businesses competitive potentialities always includes a price reduction, most of the time such a reduction is counterproductive in that it will result in lower profits. Most of the time, then, the strategy works only if the cost drops as much as the price reduction, normally meaning increased efficiency (although lower cost raw materials come into play as well).Jibberish is all I can say. What production and volume pricing have you done in the past? You always come up with the build it and they will come scenario. Stop watching the movie! Your analysis is a fantasy. No one invest out of the blue to compete. Test sales models and market research warrant any change in methods or price reduction due to either a new process or change in manufacturing.
.... a price reduction, most of the time such a reduction is counterproductive in that it will result in lower profits.
C'mon you really are a retired government worker aren't you? The American model of success is mass production to boost profits and not lower profits. Like I said jibberish.Mass production increases profits because it lowers prices by increasing supply at lower cost. It is a simply brilliant thing.
Damn, sooooo close. You are almost at my point of this thread.
Even if all things turned to Aces, and new jobs started coming online - even though it would help our immediate problem, it won't solve it, and it won't be enough of a solution for our coming near-future problem - we have developed to the point where our technological progress is reducing the number of bodies needed to get the job done - but we will still have the bodies needing jobs.
It's not hard to predict. 20 years ago there might have been a hundred workers on an assembly line. Now there might be 10 supervising 50 robots. 5 years from now it could be 1 or 2 workers.
My point was our economic woes are not the only, or even the most serious, (of course it is most serious right now if you don't have a job), threat facing our unemployment problem.
My direction is about the need to develop new industries, new job-creating ventures, and yes, as hard as it is to consider, (for me), I am seeing a need for some type of public/private partnerships being required to discover and develop those needed new industries. Look at the industries our space program spawned.
As a bonus to those for and against the nasty 1%ers - I can also see them as anxious to jump in and participate because of the magnitude of the possible rewards of success. You know, their "greed," () won't let them sit on the sidelines and let somebody else get rich. Win - Win.
GAWell, we can't all shuffle papers for a living, and that's where public opinion seems to be pointing as the jobs of the future.
Nor can we all be in the service industry - mechanics, lawn care, painters, etc. It doesn't pay enough and there are too many of us even though fewer and fewer people seem willing and able to do their own work there.
We can't all be artists, selling paintings that cannot be done by robots.
We can't all be research scientists - not only are few people educated or intelligent enough, it doesn't produce products we need. No food, no shirts, no cars, just better ways for someone else to make the stuff we want.
I don't know what's left, but am pretty sure that government building businesses and giving them to the rich, or building and operating them itself, isn't the answer.The show started at 11, and my martini is tasting so damn good.
I agree with your quoted statement. And that is not the concept of the solution I speak of. Truthfully, I don't know the specifics of the solution I am thinking will be needed. If I did I would be too rich, and too busy, to be participating in these forums. So I hope all understand this is a discussion and not a pontification.
Anyway. One of the solutions I am thinking of is along the lines of the much condemned, (and deservedly so), FREE grant money, or government guaranteed no-strings attached loans of the , "Incubator" programs already in place.
But with the difference that there would be strings attached, liabilities attached. Let me use the green industry Tesla example. The good intentions were multifaceted; use government guaranteed loans to incubate a new job-producing company, to spur progress in the technological development of high-efficiency batteries, to give the U.S. a leadership position in that same industry sector.
I can see the logic and could support that program, if.... there were strings attached. Such as; it must be a U.S. based and produced company and product. The prime movers of the initiative are held accountable for some loan repayment responsibility. After all, this is taxpayer money supporting their idea, so they better have enough faith, and done enough due diligence to be prepared to accept some personal responsibility - no bank account padding from the government supplied funds, and no "Get out of Jail Free" escapes through the bankruptcy courts. Maybe these government supported loan guarantees could even be like student loans are now - non-dischargeable.
Sure we could still have hundred million dollar failures and losses. But life's a gamble too, just like this type of venture. The payoff for winning ventures could have almost invaluable benefits for all citizens, and at least with the attached strings, we would most probably be dealing with a lot more sincere and enthusiastic group of entrepreneurs.
To answer why should we even consider this speculative government interference and "meddling" - because the new industries we need to find may be too risky, or too expensive, for private money to handle. Above all, remember that the concept I am trying to flesh-out will be a partnership of support, mostly in the form of government guaranteed loans or support - not free money grants.
Except, now as I discuss this, I can see research areas that would need the grant mechanism. Well, we already do that now, and if we were a little more diligent about grant recipients - I can go along with that.
My sum of recollections keeps pointing me back to the new technologies and industries that grew from our space programs - so I think I will look a little deeper into that era and probably discover more than a few specific examples to describe what I an thinking.
ps. stay tuned for tomorrow nights show when I get into the CWA-type government jobs program ideas.
GA
I hope you haven't misunderstood my comments to imply I think reducing taxes on the rich will generate jobs - that was not my point. My point was the immorality of taxing them more "because they can afford it."
GA
Re: regulations. Yes, they are needed. Yes, there are really stupid ones out there. So how do we convince the lawmakers that benefiting a dozen people out of 350,000,000 is insufficient to force business to cough up $20,000 each?
Example: my company was fined heavily for not setting the parking brake on a pickup in a mine quarry. On Texas land flat as a pancake and in a pickup with an automatic and in "Park". Stupid. I was told personally to either get and use a larger ladder, resulting in increased danger, or not to do the work; the inspector didn't bother to actually look at what was going on, just followed the book. Stupid. The company was forced to pull up a set of concrete steps and replace them with an ADA ramp - at a location that had zero jobs a wheelchair could do and with a sign saying "No solicitors" on the door. We badly needed one on the other end of the plant, but that might make job applicants "feel bad" to have to ring a bell to be allowed in. Stupid. There is an ongoing business in this country from people checking bathroom sizes in small mom and pop businesses, then threatening to sue when the bathroom is 1/4" too small. Of course, a small bribe of a thousand or two removes the threat...
These kinds of things must be curtailed, but it requires actual decisions from both lawmakers and enforcers - something our people are not noted for.Yep, more proof of the responsibility ducking Politically Correct "Zero Tolerance" mindset.
For instance; I think the ADA ramp requirements are a good thing - where they make sense. As you noted, too many folks don't want to make the effort, or take the responsibility to make that distinction.
GAAh yes, the ADA. Again, a policy that has morphed into somethign it was never intended.
I sell much of the equipment used at mines. I remember of story from US Borax in California. OSHA and MSHA were completely different in style while both addressed much of the same items. MSHA would show up on a monday, walk the plant and give the list of vialations to the supervisors, then return on Friday and walk it again eliminating items addressed. they woudl then leave their report and any fines to be paid.
OSHA would show up, walk the plant and go back to Sac and send the fines int he mail.
they spent millions to have ANSI folks out there monthly jut to alert them to items needing attention just to redude the fines they paid anyway. Another layer of fees to run. One time the bulb in the elevator blew out while they were going down into the mine (a pit mine mind you in open air with plenty of natural sun light). upon reaching the bottom the OSHA guy noted it and sure as hell, a fine showed up. next time he came they had a small box of bulbs in the elevator and we again fined as it was a tripping hazzard...lolAnd one of you asked, what can we do to make politicians move on these items? Simple, replace them with people like us. Common sense can fix much of what ailes us.
OMG! A common sense advocate too!
By the way, do you suppose there is any truth to the rumor that regulatory folks, like the OSHA and MSHA inspectors you spoke of, are evaluated by the number of violations they find and fines they generate?
GAI don't know about that, but the OSHA fines DO pay the salaries of the inspectors. OSHA is funded by those fines.
G’day Wilderness.
OSHA fines DO NOT pay the salaries of inspectors. Furthermore, fines are NOT used to directly fund OSHA activities.
All penalties and fines collected due to violations of OSHA regulations go to the US Treasury general fund as stipulated in Section 17 (l) of the OSH Act of 1970. {1}
In addition, if OSHA had to rely on fines for self-funding it would be out of business in about three months. The agency, one of the smallest in the Federal government, has a 2014 operating budget of $552 M. Meanwhile, annual fines over the last twenty-five years have averaged less than 150M per year. {2}
{1} https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadis … ;p_id=3371 Sec 17 (l)
{2} http://www.complianceandsafety.com/blog … residents/While your figures are a little misleading (2012 fines were about 250M, for instance - the average includes early years of nearly zero fines) they are substantially correct.
My bad - guess that's what comes from listening to ignorant inspectors.Hi, Wilderness. I appreciate your comment. Thanks.
Credit where credit is due. You were right and I was wrong.
I should have known better than to listen to someone explaining why they HAD to levy fines regardless of the "rightness" of the "violation".
I hear you. We were fined for a loud buzzer warning of a conveyor starting up; it was out in the weather (had to be as there was no cover anywhere) and the inspector didn't like it. We covered it with a coffee can, making it nearly twice as loud ad the can itself turned into a speaker, and were fined for muffling it.
One little plant I worked in (10 people total) decided to go "partners with OSHA" in an effort to mitigate the fines. Turned out the paperwork alone made it impractical; we would have had to hire an 11th worker just to take care of filling out the paper requirements. 10% of the workforce just to fill out questionnaires from OSHA! While OSHA and MSHA have done tremendous good in the country they have also caused tremendous damage.
Just change the tax structure so that anybody who is outsourcing jobs gets a heavy tax laid on them. If they decide to leave the US altogether, they are banned from selling their product here. There are 12 million outsourced jobs, so that should do it.
And we should also make the tax structure more favorable to small businesses (which make a lot of jobs). If we do all of this, we might actually have enough of a favorable job market that wages might go up (>gasp<) and we might not even have to worry about immigrants taking up jobs.
Related Discussions
- 49
Private sector jobs -- where are they???
by Susan Reid 13 years ago
The jobs report that came out today is dismal.Employers added only 18,000 jobs.Government shed 39,000 jobs.And here's the kicker: "Two years after the recession officially ended, companies are adding fewer workers despite record cash stockpiles and healthy profit margins."So clearly, the...
- 8
Jobs Report ~ An Indication the USA Government Is Too Big?
by leeberttea 14 years ago
Amount of new census jobs in May: 411,000Total census workers 564,000Cost to count American citizens 14.5 billionCost to count American citizens in 2000 4.5 billionTotal workers in private sector for comparison:• Oil and gas extraction (about 165,000 workers)• Electronic and appliance stores (about...
- 133
How have you personally been affected by the government shut down?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
This is not a political question but a fact checking question. Just curious how the people have been affected by the shut down?For me, not one bit. If the news did not report on this, I would not know it. I live in Westchester county NY about 1 hour north of NYC. I am retired, my social security...
- 26
How Would You Solve the Unemployment Issue in the US?
by thaivalentine 13 years ago
As the US struggles with unemployment and a lack of new job creation, what would you do to correct the problem?
- 11
Does Obama understand economic growth?
by tobey100 12 years ago
There is no doubt Obama believes in Government with a capital 'G'. At last count the Obama administration has added 123,000 federal jobs during his tenure. His philosophy is the Government can solve all problems if the rest of us would just let it have control. Maybe he thinks...
- 82
On massive job loss, Boehner says: "So be it..."
by Texasbeta 14 years ago
Republicans like Boehner will shed a tear when asked about THEIR federal job, but when the topic of you losing YOUR federal job, they respond: "So be it."http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ … XO20110215BTW- He also lied about how many jobs were in question as well...just to...