Is it possible for Congress or the President to create jobs?

[gekaap]

Both sides of the aisle have said they want to see job creation as a priority. But how much can they do at this point? Corporate profits have been on the up and up, yet job creation does not seem to be a priority for employers. And it makes sense to me. The last thing companies want to do is spend money. If they've managed to muddle by with a smaller workforce, what reason is there for them to now expand their workforce if they can keep it up? It seems to me that the current state of the economy is not a political issue. It's a social issue.

In an effort to maximize profits, any business will endeavor to maximize efficiency so that money is not wasted in operational costs, including labor costs. Businesses that find and successfully employ the good methods to maximize cost efficiency are rewarded with higher profit margins, as we all already know. But what happens to an economy and society if the means of production become too efficient? What if all the needs and demands of a society can be provided by employing only 80% of the population?

I am beginning to think that the current economic situation has more to do with this kind of phenomena than it does with anything else. How, then, should our society respond in order to maintain a stable economy that provides better for all people?

 

[uscitizen]

It is more efficient to have things manufactured in low labor cost and regulation countries.
An inescapable side effect of globalization and free trade.
We must learn to live with less.
I do not expect our job creation to keep up with new job demands for at least the next decade.

And yes the govt can create jobs, ie govt jobs or govt supplier jobs by spending more money. All Reagan increased the govt payrolls, so did Bush and I think Clinton did as well.
So yes the govt can create jobs, however it is unsustainable in the long run.

 

[gekaap]

Outsourcing is not even necessary in order to slim down labor needs. Labor is increasingly mechanized, expected work share per person has been increasing as people fight to have an edge by taking work home, working longer hours, and/or simplifying operations. Even when you go to the grocery store, they have slimmed down on their labor costs by utilizing mechanical self check-outs that let a single employee suffice for what would have previously taken four people (just as an example).

 

[uscitizen]

The reason I will not use the automated checkouts.

 

[Douger]

NO.
Nobody wants to hire murkins.

 

[gekaap]

^^Wha?

 

[Vanquish]

I thought this article was interesting about how jobs can be created by the government (sort of):

Crisis gives legislature 3 big chances to create jobs | Crosscut.com

 

[kaz]

Both sides of the aisle have said they want to see job creation as a priority. But how much can they do at this point?

Government cannot produce jobs because it doesn't produce anything. Jobs are created only when economic value is created. Any job "created" by government is a job that by definition doesn't produce anything, and it's taken from companies who do. So every job created is at the cost of greater then a job destroyed.

What government can do is reduce it's destruction of jobs. But that can only be done by minimizing itself. Which politicians are not going to do.

 

[Vanquish]

Like I showed in the article I posted.

 

[Nosmo King]

Outsourcing is not even necessary in order to slim down labor needs. Labor is increasingly mechanized, expected work share per person has been increasing as people fight to have an edge by taking work home, working longer hours, and/or simplifying operations. Even when you go to the grocery store, they have slimmed down on their labor costs by utilizing mechanical self check-outs that let a single employee suffice for what would have previously taken four people (just as an example).

You can't make steel at home. Nor refrigerators, washing machines, copiers, computer chips, bridges and highways, window glass, oil products or building materials.

We gave up making stuff to 'work at home'. Grand idea, if everything we ever needed was made at home.

We need fair trade not free trade and then stand back and watch our factories hum.

 

[Nosmo King]

Both sides of the aisle have said they want to see job creation as a priority. But how much can they do at this point?

Government cannot produce jobs because it doesn't produce anything. Jobs are created only when economic value is created. Any job "created" by government is a job that by definition doesn't produce anything, and it's taken from companies who do. So every job created is at the cost of greater then a job destroyed.

What government can do is reduce it's destruction of jobs. But that can only be done by minimizing itself. Which politicians are not going to do.

You never heard of a bridge or highway system built by anything other than government. There's a reason. And the folks who build bridges and highways are American workers, aren't they?

 

[Sallow]

It is more efficient to have things manufactured in low labor cost and regulation countries.
An inescapable side effect of globalization and free trade.
We must learn to live with less.
I do not expect our job creation to keep up with new job demands for at least the next decade.

And yes the govt can create jobs, ie govt jobs or govt supplier jobs by spending more money. All Reagan increased the govt payrolls, so did Bush and I think Clinton did as well.
So yes the govt can create jobs, however it is unsustainable in the long run.

I hate when you post exactly what I was going to post.

 

[kaz]

Both sides of the aisle have said they want to see job creation as a priority. But how much can they do at this point?

Government cannot produce jobs because it doesn't produce anything. Jobs are created only when economic value is created. Any job "created" by government is a job that by definition doesn't produce anything, and it's taken from companies who do. So every job created is at the cost of greater then a job destroyed.

What government can do is reduce it's destruction of jobs. But that can only be done by minimizing itself. Which politicians are not going to do.

You never heard of a bridge or highway system built by anything other than government. There's a reason. And the folks who build bridges and highways are American workers, aren't they?

Actually none of the people who build bridges and highways work for government. My point wasn't that we need no government. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. The point is that no "net" job is created by government. As I pointed out, money spent by government is removed from the private sector. The private sector creates economic value, and that is what actually creates jobs. Government takes from the economic sector and spends. The best it could ever do is spend it as well as the private sector and not lose a job. As we know, it does no where near the best it can do...

 

[Two Thumbs]

Aside from enlarging governement to hire people?

no.

enlarging govornment is self defeting. They are paid for with tax dollars, and the only way to pay them is to increase taxes of debt spend. The option now? Put them on the street, jobless. It's what clinton did to Vets, so it shouldn't be an issue now.

-----

they can only help to create a situation where biz can and will hire people.

If I think I can grow and expand, I will hire people, If I think I can't, I won't.

 

[Nosmo King]

Government cannot produce jobs because it doesn't produce anything. Jobs are created only when economic value is created. Any job "created" by government is a job that by definition doesn't produce anything, and it's taken from companies who do. So every job created is at the cost of greater then a job destroyed.

What government can do is reduce it's destruction of jobs. But that can only be done by minimizing itself. Which politicians are not going to do.

You never heard of a bridge or highway system built by anything other than government. There's a reason. And the folks who build bridges and highways are American workers, aren't they?

Actually none of the people who build bridges and highways work for government. My point wasn't that we need no government. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. The point is that no "net" job is created by government. As I pointed out, money spent by government is removed from the private sector. The private sector creates economic value, and that is what actually creates jobs. Government takes from the economic sector and spends. The best it could ever do is spend it as well as the private sector and not lose a job. As we know, it does no where near the best it can do...

I wonder how many jobs are lost after a military base closes in a small town? I wonder how many civil engineers would be working if it wasn't for infrastructure improvements?

 

[kaz]

You never heard of a bridge or highway system built by anything other than government. There's a reason. And the folks who build bridges and highways are American workers, aren't they?

Actually none of the people who build bridges and highways work for government. My point wasn't that we need no government. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. The point is that no "net" job is created by government. As I pointed out, money spent by government is removed from the private sector. The private sector creates economic value, and that is what actually creates jobs. Government takes from the economic sector and spends. The best it could ever do is spend it as well as the private sector and not lose a job. As we know, it does no where near the best it can do...

I wonder how many jobs are lost after a military base closes in a small town? I wonder how many civil engineers would be working if it wasn't for infrastructure improvements?

Do you understand the difference between "jobs" and "net jobs?" Are you OK if you and one of your friends lose their jobs so government can give one job to one civil engineer? Do you count that as a job created?