Who Creates Jobs?

[Loki]

Why would I want to do that? It's the strategy of economic collapse.

[GGT]

Why would I want to do that? It's the strategy of economic collapse.

Aren't we on the verge of economic collapse already?

[GGT]

We live in a globalized world. Short of using methods that would lead to an economic collapse, there are no way to "protect" many unskilled jobs. Americans (and Europeans) need to learn that the global economy does not tolerate an individual making ten times more in America what an uneducated person can do more or less equally well elsewhere. It's the height of conceit to assume that an American should get paid that much more purely because they are American.

So, your opinion is that American workers are "conceited" if they refuse to work for $5/day or $5/hour, to compete against those who think that's a great deal? Really? Americans are "conceited" for thinking that living and working in a first world nation means more, and costs more, than those trying to catch up to us?

What are the trade-offs, Loki? What do mediocre/average people do, if they can't get coveted university scholarships, "hiding" in academia with hopes that graduation will actually mean something.....and will land them a job? But they also can't "afford" to move where the jobs are, overseas.


Damn, I can't wait until you graduate with your PhD. Then you can share how rock hard principles apply to everyone, including personal anecdotes, and not just theory. Something tells me that if you have a job lined up, you'll use that as proof of how special you are. But if you can't find a job right away, you'll use that as proof of the difficult job market.

Either way, it doesn't say much for our American growth and jobs future.

[CitizenCain]

West Virginia is a beautiful place of trees, mountain hills, streams, rivers, rocks, wildlife. As part of the Appalachian region, it's more valuable than its coal. It'd be a crime to let the coal industry, or our energy consumption craven society, ruin such a magnificent region. Once it's gone, it can't be replaced.

First off, I bet the people who live there, in the poorest region of the country, might disagree on your priorities... particularly given that you don't even live close enough to see its magnificence, or whatever. Also, that's just not true, the crap you're asserting about the coal mining industry. Strip mining isn't practiced in America anymore anyway, and the environment recovers fine. Nature has overrun Chernobyl; I'm sure it can manage some excavated soil and inbred West Virginians too.

Back to WV, political leaders would do better service to either (A) push for federal R & D of clean coal mining, (B) encourage residents to pursue alternative income while aging in place, or (C) pulling up roots and moving to where the coal mining jobs are---Wyoming.

Wasn't it in this very thread where I posted that article about the coal mine owner who got sick of government over-regulation, closed up shop and took his 50-100 jobs with him? And you're proposing more federal regulations, looking in another career field (I'm sure that's never occurred to an Appalachians) or transplanting the population of West Virginia into Wyoming. Yeah, just...

Aren't we on the verge of economic collapse already?

As they say, things can always get worse. Instead of 20% unemployment and 80% employment, it could always be the other way around.

Face it, if you want more jobs, the best thing government can do is get the fuck out of the way, already. We've had a decade of run-away government spending and meddling, and things have only gotten worse, yet here you are suggesting even more of the same (federal interference in coal mining, banning job exports). Good plan. Like curing a gunshot wound with... more gunshot wounds... fight fire with fire, like they say.

What are the trade-offs, Loki? What do mediocre/average people do, if they can't get coveted university scholarships, "hiding" in academia with hopes that graduation will actually mean something.....and will land them a job? But they also can't "afford" to move where the jobs are, overseas.

They could die already. Added bonuses of improving TV, and maybe democratic politics, with less weight on the left side of the bell curve weighing down the averages...

[Aimless]

So, your opinion is that American workers are "conceited" if they refuse to work for $5/day or $5/hour, to compete against those who think that's a great deal? Really? Americans are "conceited" for thinking that living and working in a first world nation means more, and costs more, than those trying to catch up to us?

If we're talking about making shoes, then yeah. Making burgers, I dunno. Burgers are more perishable and are best served hot.

[Loki]

So, your opinion is that American workers are "conceited" if they refuse to work for $5/day or $5/hour, to compete against those who think that's a great deal? Really? Americans are "conceited" for thinking that living and working in a first world nation means more, and costs more, than those trying to catch up to us?

Why should they get paid more when they have the same skills? And don't give me crap about purchasing power. Americans make far more than third world workers even when adjusting for that.

Frankly, the only reason unskilled Americans made so much money to start with was because of a historical accident: the rest of the developed world was destroyed and the third world decided to implement socialism. Once both problems have been fixed, there really is no reason to expect American workers to be treated superior to other ones. If someone is doing a job a third world worker with a primary education can do just as well, then perhaps that person needs to get some new skills.

[GGT]

If we're talking about making shoes, then yeah. Making burgers, I dunno. Burgers are more perishable and are best served hot.

<Tangential anecdote. Some may want to look away. Mature language and violence?>

When I was in college and visiting my mom on her boat, I met another college student from Nantucket who was working as a buoy boy (my term for guys spending summers on yachts as "crew".) He didn't understand why people would buy a cheap shirt, only to replace it a few months later, because it fell apart. He said they should save their money and buy ONE excellent shirt that would last a year. He also said people shouldn't buy a car until they can buy a BMW, even a used one. He just didn't understand what being poor meant. Or that people need to wear a shirt every day, or drive a car every day. He was a real asshole.

[Loki]

I.E. We should ignore the laws of economics because it might make poor people feel bad.

[GGT]

Why should they get paid more when they have the same skills? And don't give me crap about purchasing power. Americans make far more than third world workers even when adjusting for that.

Frankly, the only reason unskilled Americans made so much money to start with was because of a historical accident: the rest of the developed world was destroyed and the third world decided to implement socialism. Once both problems have been fixed, there really is no reason to expect American workers to be treated superior to other ones.

If someone is doing a job a third world worker with a primary education can do just as well, then perhaps that person needs to get some new skills.

Perhaps, but what would those enhanced skills be? Middle managers are being laid off, there aren't enough jobs in IT, human resources or customer service....robots or computers can fill those roles....and one computer repair technician can do the work that used to take a "team" of people.

Moving forward, what are the solutions to our dilemmas of efficiency and productivity, with higher standards of living?

[GGT]

I.E. We should ignore the laws of economics because it might make poor people feel bad.

You make it sound like the laws of economics are like the laws of gravity. Economics does not have "laws" and it's not a Science.

[CitizenCain]

And here we learn that GGT is engaging in discussions about "economics" without knowing what the word actually means.

Huzzah! This has been productive.

[Aimless]

He just didn't understand what being poor meant. Or that people need to wear a shirt every day, or drive a car every day. He was a real asshole.

That's why regular people and regular companies need shirt-makers in Bangladesh

[Aimless]

To be fair, GGT's story wasn't really illustrating any particular interpretation of "the laws of economics" (which are a little more pliant--almost as pliant as people are? --than the laws of physics).

[GGT]

And here we learn that GGT is engaging in discussions about "economics" without knowing what the word actually means. Huzzah! This has been productive.

Economics isn't a "hard" science like physics. All fields with the variables and unknowns of human behavior are "soft" sciences.

That's why asking academic economists about job creation yields so many different answers. They can all cite theories with proof their idea is the right solution....

Or ask politicians, who will blend economic theory with political 'science' or the role of government, even more solutions....

Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann might say our jobs problem can be solved by praying more, and infusing our government with Christian principles. (None of that Mormon shit, though, that's not really Christianity.) Since God has blessed America, and we're exceptional that way.

Perry is a creationist, an evolution-global warming-CO2 denier. His religious theory trumps any science. Yee Haw!

[CitizenCain]

Economics isn't a "hard" science like physics. All fields with the variables and unknowns of human behavior are "soft" sciences.

Physics isn't even a hard science, like physics.

Perry is a creationist, an evolution-global warming-CO2 denier. His religious theory trumps any science. Yee Haw!

That's because

A) evolutionary biology isn't a hard science, ()

and

B) because politics works like you want the rest of the world to work.

Can't rely on experts, nope, gots to go to the "common man" to get the real answers. Real answers like creationism and fossils being a conspiracy by the j00s. And what not. You should hardly complain that "common man" idiocy is winning out over "experts," when you repeatedly claim that this is the solution to all the world's financial... issues you don't quite understand. Or does the common man rule not apply to evolution, because you believe in the theory of evolution?

See, evolution doesn't have "laws" either, because it's not a hard science, like physics. And, just for the record, physics doesn't have laws either, because it's not a hard science, like physics is.

[Loki]

I know Cain pointed it out, but evolutionary biology deals with human (and other animal) behavior.

[GGT]

WTF are you going on about, Cain? The laws of gravity aren't up for a populist vote. Opinion won't change carbon-based chemistry, either. Evolution doesn't have "laws", but evolutionary biology does. I can't magik my way to becoming an aquatic mammal just because it'd be cool to swim like a dolphin.

My comment was aimed at Rick Perry, Guv of the great state of Texas and candidate for POTUS (or at least the GOP nomination). I saw him on tape telling a young boy that "Texas schools teach both creationism and evolution, but since you're a smart boy I'm sure you know which theory is right". (Wink, wink.) He's also on camera saying he doubts science about climate change and man's impact. That's like Bachmann being recorded saying "Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring part of life and earth's atmosphere, so there's nothing wrong with too much of it." [paraphrased]

Perry also led that Prayer Response convention....for God to guide America during these rough economic times. Jews and Muslims (and maybe Mormons?) excluded. Seriously, if our future growth and progress is to be found in science and technology.....who the hell would vote for these yahoos who don't even think carbon dating is credible science?

[Loki]

So you just attack economics for not being a "hard" science, but then defend evolutionary biology, which can't be defined as a "hard" science according to your own criterion.

[Flixy]

Physics isn't even a hard science, like physics.

Meh, some subfields are. And I suppose you could argue it is 'harder' than economics, and you can perform better controller experiments.

Evolutionary biology isn't hard, no.

[CitizenCain]

Meh, some subfields are. And I suppose you could argue it is 'harder' than economics, and you can perform better controller experiments.

Evolutionary biology isn't hard, no.

Enh, but we can't take your word for it... you're one of those silly experts who always gives conflicting theories to the reporters.

My interest was mainly in pointing out GeeGee's inconsistencies, even if that did involve being a bit obtuse and overly general regarding physics. Still, it's rather silly that you guys can't even agree on something as simple as gravity... "theory of gravity" and all... nothing but theories... soft science, soft science!!!

[GGT]

And my interest was mainly pointing out that Perry, Bachmann (and some religious fundies) sound like backwater yahoos when they want to eliminate, for example, the EPA. Not just because it's one of those evil gummint agencies that might have rules for industry to follow, but because they also don't believe the "science" behind CO2, pollution of air or water. (Perry is "inconsistent" though, since he had back surgery using stem cell research.)

My point was that our future growth is going to be in science and technology, R & D, new discoveries. And politicians who disregard science moving forward wouldn't be good for our progress. I'm leery of those who want policy to reflect their religious views, whether it's to raze and plunder earth's resources as God's gift to mankind, teaching abstinence-only sex ed, banning abortion, or defining marriage that excludes same sex couples.

Oh, yeah....where are the jobs? How's that GOP plan work again?

[CitizenCain]

I'll take a backwater fundy over a socialist any day. Back water fundies are far less dangerous and do far less damage.

And speaking of "where are the jobs," blaming the GOP? Really? Maybe they're under a third ~trillion dollar stimulus package.

[RandBlade]

Perhaps, but what would those enhanced skills be? Middle managers are being laid off, there aren't enough jobs in IT, human resources or customer service....robots or computers can fill those roles....and one computer repair technician can do the work that used to take a "team" of people.

Moving forward, what are the solutions to our dilemmas of efficiency and productivity, with higher standards of living?

That's a good thing, not a bad thing. A lack of efficiency or productivity would be a dilemma.

You make it sound like the laws of economics are like the laws of gravity. Economics does not have "laws" and it's not a Science.

That's because they are.

[GGT]

I'll take a backwater fundy over a socialist any day. Back water fundies are far less dangerous and do far less damage.

And speaking of "where are the jobs," blaming the GOP? Really? Maybe they're under a third ~trillion dollar stimulus package.

Backwater fundies can do plenty of damage when they want to legislate their religious beliefs, don't kid yourself.

The stimulus was begun under Bush, when the financial crisis and meltdown trickled down and across the globe. The whole thing started before 2001, when we became high debt, high leverage, debt-based economy. That lays blame on Clinton and Bush administrations, deregulation that turned out to be dangerous, and a sort of false sense of prosperity.

With stagnant middle class wages, higher expenses for things like healthcare, education and housing, losses of millions of jobs overseas, and everyone on the band wagon of debt/credit as wealth....when the financial crisis came along, there was plenty of "no there, there".

Europe's turn now?

edit---because my post disappeared while typing.

I'm asking for clarification of the GOP jobs plan. It's got to entail more than just "cut taxes, cut spending, balance the budget, shrink federal government employees".

[CitizenCain]

I don't think the GOP's job plan could really be any worse than Obama's. Shit, they could pile up 5 trillion dollars on the White House lawn and burn it as their "jobs plan," and they'd still be doing a better job than Obama's done, because at least they'd be too busy managing the world's most expensive bonfire to pile up business-stifling regulation like the current moron at the helm.

[GGT]

Wait, doesn't the GOP accuse Obama for not having a jobs plan? From what I've read, there have been new bills proposed to help small businesses, extend payroll tax holiday to employers, and some other tax relief....all blocked from voting by Republicans in the house. So which is it, Obama (Democrats) have ideas, or none can be implemented because of congressional gridlock?

Anyway, that still doesn't mean the GOP's cut taxes, cut spending, balance the budget is a plan that would create new jobs. And do tell, specifically, which new regulations made under Obama's helm are "business-stifling"?

If you mean Dodd-Frank rules for financials, to reduce risk of TBTF, that hasn't actually done much of anything. Banks are bigger than ever and just as risky. If you mean restructuring MMS post-BP disaster, that was something that should have been done decades ago, and had bipartisan support. Seriously, over $2 Trillion in corporate cash sitting around, that's been piling up since '08--before Obama was even elected--is a symptom of globally connected banks and investments, sovereign debt problems, insolvency fears, slow growth, and freaked out market players. Yeah, Obama is responsible for all that.

The United States of Unemployment

By David Wessel

There are 13.9 million unemployed people in the U.S. – and that just counts those looking for work. That works out to 9.1% of the labor force, the widely publicized unemployed rate.

But here are a few more ways to look at it.

There are more unemployed people in the U.S. than there are people in the state of Illinois, the fifth largest state.

In fact there, there are more unemployed people in the U.S. than there are people in 46 of the 50 states, all but Florida, New York, Texas and California.

There are more unemployed than the combined populations of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho and the District of Columbia.

If they were a country, the 13.9 million unemployed Americans would be the 68th largest country in the world, bigger than the population of Greece or Portugal (each of which has 10.8 million people) and more than twice the population of Norway (4.7 million.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/...mod=marketbeat

[CitizenCain]

*yawn*

Gawd... everything boils down to R vs D with you, doesn't it? For all your whining about the two party system in America, you can't seem to go two consecutive posts without either bashing or applying ridiculously unfair standards to the Republocrtats and baselessly jumping to the defense of the Demlicans. While being impervious to all factual data or information that undermines your partisan zealotry, too. You are a Democratic candidate's wet dream... 'gratz, or something.

[Nessus]

I'll take a backwater fundy over a socialist any day.

I wonder which would view your drunken driving more favourably.

[CitizenCain]

Historical data would indicate that the dumbass fundy would, actually. Or, at the very least, would punish it far less harshly. Thanks for playing, though!

[Loki]

OMG, it's a Nessus.