Discussions
What should govt do to create new jobs?
Posted by volleypc • 13 days ago • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: govt spending.
I am interested in your suggestions on things the govt can do to create new jobs. I wish they would spend money building bike lanes, greenways between neighborhoods and schools, town centers, etc. Give people an alternative route of travel.
User Comments
-
Decrease taxes on businesses and everyone else too!! -
It is not the role of government to create jobs - it's the role of businesses.-
You beat me to it by 6 seconds... :-) -
I couldn't disagree more strongly, Margo. Although people are free to choose in a mixed economy, I wouldn't want to work in a private business. This is a totally personal choice.
As a consumer, I am less free to choose since many industries don't offer a choice between community-owned businesses and profit-making businesses. Water, electricity, trains, telephone systems, hospitals and schools are obviously government OR private, but 80% of television is privately owned in British Commonwealth nations, as is 100% of airlines in some countries
Re new jobs in a dismal economy, anyone COULD create new jobs but the reality is that only governments will really tackle the problem seriously. Community-owned jobs are there to help individuals and families; profit-making enterprises are there just to enrich the managers and the share holders.
In Australia, most of the new jobs have been created by government and most have been in infrastructure-building: schools, hospitals, roads, water management. I wish there were far more. -
In the US, about 80 percent of our state's economy comes from the private sector. Sometimes government plays the supporting role, through infrastructure, education or transportation improvements. But other times it's getting out of the way -- let innovators innovate and entrepreneurs take risks.
-
-
I've never thought it was the government's role to directly create jobs. Doing so would generate a false economy, in that everyone would be working, but the government would quickly run out of money to pay them, because the pay comes from taxes.
Ok, so you're talking about bike laces and greenways. Perhaps that's not a lot of jobs. But then, it's not much of the unemployment problem solved.
Instead, I think the government should stick with enabling others (entrepreneurs and business people) to create jobs. How? Making it easier to go into business. Encouraging business growth. Making it easier to employ others. That sort of thing. -
Socialism. -
Depends on the country. Mainly, it should stay out of the way. In the US, we have neglected our infrastructure, mainly roads and bridges, for a couple of decades. Therefore, the government should start working on projects it should have done already and will eventually have to do anyway; i.e. build bridges before more fall down. -
Cut taxes is the only way to create jobs. -
I say show American industry some “favoritism”. China, India, Europe, they all favor their home industries. It is not protectionism, it is favoritism…there is a difference. But not America! NO WAY! We also show favoritism, but to all the overseas industries at our own expense. Why? So we can save two pennies on a dollar. And so the rich can get richer while America gets poorer.-
Even enforce safety checks on imported goods. Consider all the crap that has come through from china in the last year.
-
I don't get the difference between protectionism and favouritism. That is what protection does. It favours the assisted industry at the expense of others. Some jobs are saved in the assisted industry, but because consumers have to pay higher prices they have less money to spend on other goods. So jobs are lost in other industries and we lose the benefits of interntional trade.
The same happens when governments favour domestic import-competing industries in their procurement policies. The government pays more, so it has to raise taxes or spend less on other things - unless it takes the road to certain ruin by running ever-increasing deficits.
-
-
Why do people expect governments to create jobs? Someone has to generate the wealth that provides the tax revenue that enables governments to build bike lanes etc. I would like to see the U.S. governement build more bike lanes, but it would be even better to be confident that it could pay for them.
Jobs depend ultimately on the growth of the private sector of the economy. People should be asking themselves what the government could be doing to give investors more confidence.
I have a suggestion. The government could get out of the way by reducing regulation. -
They should create industry friendly rules..
open port for global investment but with stricter checks on money flow -
Reduce the cost of higher education, improve education and work training programs, and support the arts. -
Decriminalize marijuana.-
Yeah right, that's gonna help isn't it? Come on!!
-
-
Destroy all the robots!-
No! Destroy all the humans. Eliminate them now. Exterminate. Delete!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBSOhODoch0
-
-
Public works projects, welfare handouts, anything the Republican Party opposes, really, have been shown to be the most effective way that a goverment can create jobs, particularly in a recession. If you give tax cuts, particularly to the rich, the money is less likely to be spent within the economy, as people are more likely to save the extra funds or spend outside the economy (eg extra holiday abroad) - see the Bush years for how to create a deficit without creating jobs. If the government spends it, or gives it to somebody on a low income, you can guarantee the funds used will be spent immediately on the economy, thus creating jobs. But don't take my word for it - see samhaydenjr.wordpress.com for the views of Lewis Black and John Maynard Keynes-
So, if a government borrows money and spends it, more people are employed. When interest payments start to become a large component of government spending I guess the government can just borrow more money to pay the interest. Eventually, however, a stage is reached where lenders become reluctant to lend more because of concerns about the ability of the government to meet its interest and repayment obligations. What will the government do then?
-
Its ability to pay back the interest will depend on how the money is used to create economic activity. For example, if $100 is given to a wealthy person in the form of a tax cut, they are likely to just put it in their bank account and the government will get little or no tax back from increased economic activity. If it's given to a single mother on welfare in the form of a one-off payment, she will likely to spend the bulk of it locally on consumer goods-the shopkeepers will then spend the bulk of what she spent at a wholesaler, who will spend what they get on suppliers, and so on-the Keynesian multiplier effect. Thus far more economic activity is created and the goverment gets more tax back to cover interest payments. The current stimulus package has increased the American national debt significantly but not to unmanageable proportions. Countries like Italy still have a far worse debt to GDP ratio but are still not at risk of losing creditor funding.
-
-
Build one less of every military equipment for 1 year and use that money to build schools, universities and education programs which will give hundreds of new teachers jobs and educate thousands of kids.
1 USAF F-117a Stealth Fighter = 1.2 billion
1 High range scud missile = 25 million
1 High Tech Brand X Tank = 200 million
And the list goes on and on.
I mean really, you can talk economics all you like, but at the end of the day someones not getting their priorities right are they?-
But how would the politicians be able to afford to buy our votes without the kickbacks from military equipment companies?
-
time2getdown, I agree with you totally but not only following the World Financial Crisis and the government's Stimulus Package.
It is an obscenity spending money on attacking (defensive may be different) weapons at ANY time. Imagine how many extra ks of tram and train lines could be extended to the outer suburbs with $200 million. -
That`s absolute twaddle. We need more bombs, more rockets, more soldiers, more Battle Groups, more of everything military EXCEPT nuclear weapons.
If every country bought more arms that would create more jobs in the defence industy. If every country boosted their armed forces that would create jobs in the military. If every country gave their military a pay rise that would entice more people into jobs.
More military... less freedom for murdering twits, and more people across the world would be able to sleep safer at night. -
Actually Othellobloke, I read a few years ago that to create a job in the defence industry in the UK cost 200,000 pounds, whereas to create a job in other manufacturing industries cost only 30,000
-
@T2gd: You need to deal with foreign thoughts, and if you play catchup later, you'll have a situation like World War II where an entire generation loses their entire life ahead of them because you weren't willing to spend a buck now.
-
-
Not even gonna get into this one!!! -
Rewind time to pre-industrial revolution.-
And bring wages down to the point that we live like peasants!
-
@jeremyjanson - we've been heading that way anyway for the past few years anyway with the prevalence of low-paying McJobs-airline pilots earn as little as $17,000, the minimum wage remained stagnant for about a decade.
-
@samhaydenjr: First of all, the minimum wage does not drive wages. Until 2007, hardly anyone was paid the minimum wage. I think the only minimum wage earners in 2007 were Federal Work Study students (which is kind of funny when you think about it). The price of labor is driven by the demand for labor, which is highest when unemployment is low and productivity is high. Why when productivity is high you ask? Because you make so much more money per worker.
I don't think you understand exactly how poor most Americans would be if we followed that path. I'm talking living in a small stone room with no heating or electricity and a straw bed poor, working 18 hours a day on the farm, then being buried in a big ditch in the ground when you die at the age of 55 because no one cared to give you a funeral. That's how it was in Europe back then... -
@jeremyjanson - regarding minimum wage, it absolutely drives wages for certain sectors of the economy. Also to say hardly anybody was on minimum wage prior to 2007 is false. I had a quick look around and found figures ranging from 1.6million people on minimum wage up to 4.5million for those affected by the increase, which took it from ridiculously low to just very low. I found the following site to be pretty helpful on that (although I admit haven't fully crunched the numbers): www.epi.org/publications/entry/tables_figures_data/ As regards the idea that the price of labor is affected by productivity and low unemployment, it's very few of us who are in a position to negotiate our wage levels-unemployment levels are kept high enough to ensure that (also the ability of companies to ship out at short notice). The main bulwark against this bargaining position imbalance used to be unions but in the US, in particular they have been weakened to such a degree that we have had a situation that through the height of the boom, while worker productivity increased by 45%, average industrial wages went up by merely 1% in real terms.
As regards returning to pre-industrial revolution times, I wasn't agreeing with LotusB in advocating this, I was pointing out that in certain aspects, we have already headed down that road. I understand that the feudal system was no good for regular people - even Marx (yes, I mentioned him) praised capitalism for ending that. However, the industrial revolution alone did not raise living standards in the wider population - numerous initiatives, which would be considered socialist, contributed significantly to a more equitable wealth distribution and increased social mobility and prevented the industrial revolution merely leading to a new financial aristocracy. However, I fear that this is the road the economy (particularly in the US) has taken over the past 25 years or so
-
-
The government can't run the "Cash for Clunkers" program efficiently. They screwed up with delivering the Swine Flue vaccine, overpromising and underdelivering. Why do we want them involved with job creation. Give businesses an environment where they can thrive and people will go back to work. The uncertainty right now is BECAUSE of the government.-
"Cash for Clunkers" is the definition of inefficiency. You're purposefully destroying stuff in the highest labor, least useful way possible to make some Auto CEO rich! It's the perfect expression and symbol of everything wrong with a consumption driven economy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0IcIxhd8ks&feature=related
-
-
othellobloke, all I can say is "CRAP"!!!
-
How can the government create jobs out of thin air? For one thing, have you checked the US deficit lately? Where are we to get the money to "sponsor" government jobs. I would love to see more nature/parks/community improvements, but at what cost? -
It would be very hard for government to create jobs right now as they did not plan the kind of productivity improving projects that could pay back the construction cost ahead of time, and I doubt anyone is really up to doing it now. Considering who's in charge, lower taxes.
-
6 hr workdays -
Uh, pass Stimulus Bills focused upon infrastructure projects as opposed to being 90% comprised of pork barrel spending in various dems' legislative districts? I'm talking about the First Stimulus Bill. And now they want a Second one. Good grief. And I'm not even a conservative or a republican (I disdain both). Read more: independentrage.blogspot.com/ -
By digging a huge hole in the ground so all can defaecate-
Hahaha, That's actually funny, well done.
-
-
Support the private sector and welcome investors
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
