Forum Post: Government cannot create jobs
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 8:53 p.m. EST by Isaac
(4)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Government cannot create jobs folks.... Can you actually CREATE a flower? NO! You can plant a seed, and you can provide good conditions but you cannot create the jobs themselves!
The arrogance to think that congress and birth jobs is just the same as saying you can birth a flower. Is it not wiser to ask congress to provide good conditions for a job to form? Would it not be more cunning to demand that it be easier to run a business and hire new people?
If government hadn't created any jobs over the last 5 years, unemployment would be even higher than it is now.
I'm no fan of government, but government certainly can create jobs, and the money earned on those jobs is just as spendable in the economy as privately-paid money.
Further, for all this talk of creating "business friendly" conditions in the US, I'm not sure what else you want. Around 1/4 of corporations pay no federal taxes at all, and many get money back (GE, for example). Taxes are lower for corporations and the wealthy than at any time in the last 30+ years. They have been given the right to give unlimited bribes to our lawmakers and have lobbyists stationed in washington to make sure their will is done. There hasn't been a single investigation or prosecution of ANY firm that crashed the economy - nor has ANY action been taken to stop them from shipping jobs to countries that violate human rights, have substandard environmental laws, and adjust their currency to make their goods even cheaper. Their "right" to do, say, and destroy pretty much anything they want has been upheld over and over and over again.
What else do you want?
Of course government can create jobs. In fact, it is responsible more than any other single institution for job creation.
and that's part of the problem in a capitalist society. Government creates government jobs, but the entire country cannot work for the government. The stimulus package (the first) was to put people back to work fixing our roads, teachers, firemen, etc., but the money was temporary. Only paid for one year, now two years later, most of those teachers have been laid off as the state governments are broke, but unlike the Federal government, they cannot print money.
If capitalism is to be maintained, we must all come to accept that it is the federal government's responsibility to put people to work when the private sector cannot (including by funding state governments where necessary).
however, we are approximately 16 trillion in debt at the federal level? Even if we were to take all of the money, for one year, of everyone in this country, it wouldn't come close to rectifying that situation. So where do we go from there?
Debt is not currently a problem (US debt is exceedingly cheap, meaning it is viewed as the best investment by the market). Nor are deficits. Deficits are meant to be run in bad economies and made up by economic growth in good economies. The ability to print money is a good thing, not a bad thing. There are obviously limits, but those limits are not even on the radar presently.
where in the horizon do you see the 'good' times coming back? China owns an outlandish amount of our debt, which we are forced to pay back. When you print money, you devalue it, which in turn creates inflation, which in turn creates stagnation in wages. If the limits you speak of aren't on the radar yet, what is your bottom line for debt ratio in this country?
OWS will hopefully be the kickstart to our economy by loosening the grip that corporate and financial institutions have over our government. (For them, "good" times have already returned.) The economy will recover when the government takes action to create demand, meaning as soon as we reclaim our democracy.
Right, and teachers, police officers, postal workers, farmers who receive subsidies from the government, new technology business workers who also receive huge subsidies by the government, fire fighters, judges, soldiers, office clerks, scientists, astronauts, librarians, construction workers who are hired by the government, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, DO NOT HAVE JOBS. HAHAHAHAHA
Best environment for business is one without regulation. Where a construction company can use materials like asbestos and hire 12 year olds they pay less than $1 an hour. Where meat packers can use rat infested meat for ground beef. Where banks can take your money, say they will keep it for you, then spend it all and not give you a dime back.
That is a good BUSINESS environment. To bad it kills the population and the nation as a whole.
I work in the industry of throwing money at businesses to "incentivize" them to do the very thing you propose. They have taken our hard-earned money and have run with their greed to "greener" pastures. Wake up! These are the dog days of America. You're either one of the top 1% or you choose to wear blinders.
I work in the industry of throwing money at businesses to "incentivize" them to do the very thing you propose. They have taken our hard-earned money and have run with their greed to "greener" pastures. Wake up! These are the dog days of America. You're either one of the top 1% or you choose to wear blinders.
Consumer confidence will create demand which will create jobs. The best thing the government can do is establish a good foundation for consumer confidence.
Such as, fix the financial industry. Glass-Stegall and more. Establish a sound financial foundation so that consumer confidence will increase.
And a little democracy would help too. Less government corruption - that would increase my consumer confidence!
"Confidence" means willingness to take out more debt to buy things they can't afford. I'm in agreement as far as Glass-Steagall, but the root of the problem goes way deeper.
I have money to spend. I'm holding back. Because our country is in deep trouble and I am conserving my cash because I don't know what is going to happen next! Another crash? The derivative market is bigger and more dangerous than EVER! The so-called Financial Reform is a joke. Our democracy is in a shambles!
What is "deeper" than that? Serious question.
A job is not a flower. A job is a job. And the federal government certainly can create jobs; just take a drive through DC and the outlying suburbs. Most of the region is wealthy and prosperous, and that is primarily due to 1) government jobs, and 2) government funding for private jobs [i.e., contractors]. Even those who aren't federal employees or government contractors tend to benefit from the wealth created by those who are; just look at the droves of successful restaurants and retail outlets in the area.
We understand why you are frighted. Change is unnerving. This must be very difficult for you. You and the others who are posting negative comments on this forum are feeling threatened and uncertain. We understand. These are anxious times.Try to consider this from the perspective of those on "the other side" and then remember, THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE. There is one country, under God.
This is a new leaderless movement, barely one month old. It is messy and confusing, as it should be. 951 cities joined the protest yesterday. If this were not an authentic movement, this would not have happened.
We have never seen anything like this in the entire history of the planet.
Join us.
Let us know today That we are entering a new era Our world has changed It can no longer give the abundance it once did And a way of life based on that abundance is ending Many do not understand what is happening The richest cannot bring that way of life back, But they can take care of people And help those who are working to build A secure and stable future, One where we have what we need But not at the expense of the planet And people who do not have enough I love y'all. Keep going.
We should be asking congress not to wave a wand to make the magic job fairy's do there work. Instead we should be asking them to adjust the legislation our policy's, and regulations to force the money out of this trickle down economy into a trickle UP economy. With the money flowing from the bottom up purchases would increase (which is demand for those of you who took economics) Forcing the company's we have to either create new jobs to increase supply, OR new company's would be formed to take on the extra demand.
NOW when i say this i certainly don't mean get rid of regulations we need those, however a regular review of the ones we have strengthening and changing them as needed as well as increasing import tax's so its no longer profitable to send jobs over seas would be a good start. Next we need to Change our stance on things like corporate person hood, Social programs like medicaid getting more of the bottom 1% on better financial footing in the form of more assistance free financial education, and job training.
You are basically stating the obvious in simple terms; I’ll expand on your logic
• Government cannot create fighter jets
• Government cannot build highways and bridges
• Government cannot create jobs
Good post!
Achana I know my history, just as i spoke of lincoln in my earlier comment i will educate you on the foundation of wealth and economics.
Government does not create wealth. In the beginning government was founded for one reason, to safeguard, manage and protect the annual crop. At the dawn of civilization man received his entire "pay check" once a year. This caused governments to form and found the first armies to protect the harvest, create the first writing systems to protect the harvest and create the first counting systems to to manage the harvest(in the fertile crescent the counting system was based on twelve, thus twelve months in a year). Essentially government from its very beginning did not create wealth, it safeguarded and controlled the wealth of the world.
The problem is all manner of people such as yourself feel a dollar bill is wealth. A dollar bill represents wealth, it is not wealth in of itself. Wealth is an object, it is a material thing such as the year's harvest or a product manufactured by a factory or a mineral dug from the earth. Since government does not engage in any of these activities we can clearly assert it does not create wealth, it does not create jobs, it merely manages wealth.
"The government can't create wealth. It can only take and redistribute from those who do"
Truth right there. The original purpose of government started in the fertile crescent to collect, safeguard and manage the annual crop ensuring there would be enough food until the next harvest. To accomplish this goal the first governments founded the first armies, created the first counting systems(based on the number twelve, thus twelve months in a year), and created the first writing systems to catalogue and record harvests. Before currency pulled the wool over everyone's eyes the world recognized the harvest as the wealth of the world.
Today we have a dollar bill, which masks what is the "wealth". the wealth is resources, good and yes the crops we bring in every year. Dollar games do not create wealth, they cause devaluation of the dollar because you have more currency and the same amount of "product" in the world. No matter what the government tries it can only MANAGE the wealth but not create it.
the government can create an environment for the private sector to create wealth.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-one-stimulus-everyone-can-and-will-get-behind/
100% correct. Government has no business in business.
indeed we get our energy from plants that get their energy from the sun
the government can get food distributed to the people
those that receive food can take time to help each other
and expand the health, creations and knowledge of the human race
The government can't create wealth. It can only take and redistribute from those who do
In a time when credit is choked off to nothing by the banks the government is the only entity that can create jobs. Roosevelt did in the first greatdepression we were in.
"Would it not be more cunning to demand that it be easier to run a business and hire new people?" Cunning? I guess....... You want good conditions for busines?. Try convincing the banks to loosen credit. Let me be the first to inform you: Ain't gonna happen! And why not Isaac??
Time to get money out of politics on both sides of the aisle and fix our corrupt and bought out trade, tax and banking system.
http://www.getmoneyout.com/
http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/09/dylan-ratigan-mad-as-hell-his-epic-network-moment/
http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/03/job-wanted-jobs-ending-rigged-trade/
http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/04/jobs-wanted-ending-rigged-tax-code-jobs/
http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/05/jobs-wanted-ending-rigged-banking-jobs/
AH! infrastructure is quite another thing! Infrastructure is very much akin to weeding one's garden. It allows the desired flowers to gain access to the resources they need. Believe it or not Infrastructure was one of the two main principles of the republican party during Lincoln's day. The other was industrial protectiveism which has disappeared in the face of globalism.
However, I do NOT see how government spending needs to increase with economic activity to keep it stable. The dollar is supposed to represent a product, or a service. A dollar is a loaf of bread, or an eighth of an hour's work done by the most unskilled(or even less work depending on minimum wage of the area). Essentially if you wish there to be more money for people to have you must create more products and services, not a government oversight comitee.
Further, your theory that government spending can create jobs is debunked by the mere fact that during the Bush AND the current Obama administrations government spending has been off the scale while economic activity has continued to contract and eventually fracture.
Government spending is just as real and vital of a component of aggregate demand as consumer spending and private investment. When the latter two decrease, government spending must increase in order to keep the economy stable. By stabilizing the economy, the government creates good conditions for jobs to form. That's why increased government spending is essential during times of economic contraction.
If that was true, then the deficit spending that has dominated our country for decades would have worked. But it hasn't. The government squeezes out the private sector when it over spends
I'm not sure what you mean. We haven't been experiencing a decades-long economic contraction -- the economy grew at unprecedented rates in the 90s and quite quickly in the middle of the last decade. So what fact are you suggesting falsifies this basic law of economics?
Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting that the government should overspend. I was suggesting that the government ought to increase spending when there is a decrease in consumer spending and private investment. This does not "squeeze out the private sector": the private sector shrinks of its own accord when the economy contracts. It just ensures that the shrinking of the private sector doesn't shrink aggregate demand and GDP as well. When the economy is thus stabilized, government ought to reduce spending back to its pre-contraction levels and allow the private sector to resume its role in consuming and investing.
So, what do you mean?
Let's cut to the chase. You obviously believe Keynian theories are fact. They are not. There is no way the government can make good choices on how to spend for what is good for the economy. That is done every day by millions of people one at a time. Top down management does not work.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm referring to the simple economic formula for determining GDP:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)
My point is simple arithmetic: if private consumption and investment go down, government spending must go up or else GDP will shrink (assuming a stable trade balance).
Keynesian prescriptive theories don't dictate that government ought to micromanage the economy. In fact, Keynesians grant that a well-functioning market makes the best economic decisions. After all, Keynes was a capitalist economist. Accordingly, many Keynesians prefer government spending to take the form of targeted tax cuts (esp. ones that benefit the lower classes, since the lower classes tend to spend all they have, thus increasing consumer spending) -- the payroll tax holiday is a good example of this.
Surely putting more money in the hands of millions of ordinary consumers is not top-down micromanagement of the economy. But it does mean increasing government spending in order to enable an increase in consumer spending, thus empowering the private sector to resume its role in maintaining a growing economy.
So there's nothing terribly theoretical about it. Government spending is essential during times of economic contraction.
You're probably not aware of the fact that government spending got Greece and a few other countries into BIG TROUBLE! So big, that the entire European Union is affected and the whole world might be affected!
Now, back to the topic, it's true that the government can't create sustainable jobs. It's not government's job to create jobs, but the right conditions for businesses, so that they in turn can create jobs.
It's not government spending per se that got Greece into trouble. It's government debt that got Greece into trouble: Greece now owes more than 140% of its GDP.
I'm not sure what the rest of your point amounts to. Government spending is essential to restoring economic growth during times of contraction; if directed wisely, such spending will indirectly create jobs. So what?
how did Greece get in to that much debt? Spending of course
Well, no. It's possible to spend $470 billion without going into debt by even one cent. All you need is to have $470 billion.
The Greek government did spend a lot of money, but it got into debt because it spent money that it didn't have and had no real means of getting. In fact, it had to cook the books in order to even gain access to that much credit.
So it is wrong to infer from the fact that the Greek government spent money and is now crippled by debt to the conclusion that all government spending results in crippling debt. That's as silly as telling me not to buy a soda with the $1 in my wallet because I might wind up $470 billion in debt.
Actually a huge amount of the Greek government debt is from the BILLIONS government officials have stolen over the decades and used to buy electoral votes and their holiday homes in Mykonos. That why the public sector is soooo huge, because they hire for votes effectively and thats why - despite IMF and global pressure - they are so reluctant to downsize the public sector, they don't want to loose their votes, the Greek people are just as responsible for the mess as the government - and i'm talking specifically about the public sector now. Oh, no one talks about the particular law in Greece that says no minister can charged once they have left office - basically total immunity so steal everything you can while in office and relax when you leave because you're untouchable, the IMF or the EU have incredibly NOT questioned this insane legal loophole. Everyone in Greece knows politicians are crooks here - big time.
Government is the only one who can create jobs at a time like this. Because for Government the goal is not to make a profit. Infrastructure repair and re-training is not consumer based - it is a national necessity. It is not about waiting for "consumer demand" for a highway to be repaired, or a school, or to extend rail lines, or to retrain people for green energy jobs. These things are needed and private companies are not responsible for our national infrastructure. Additionally, they wouldn't make any money off it, which is why they do not lobby to take it over! When the people hired for these jobs start spending money they (slowly) goose the retail sector to start rehiring to server their needs. I agree with Jeffery Sachs that it is a short term fix, but now 3+ years into it, even these jobs are better than nothing.
WOW, government is doing one hell of a bang up job then since the goal is no profit! LOL.
Re-training a national necessity? Since when? Why did anybody go to school in the first place? If I want a job with Solyndra, I will educate MYSELF to be able to market myself. You can't wait for consumer demand for "green energy jobs" because there won't be any...true "green energy" is NOT a viable business.
All this government stimulus is nefarious because it is artificial in it's "need". Dare anybody say we just need to build and repair as we always have, and keep a steady supply of construction jobs instead of flash in the pan blip.
What? Capitalism only functions because of artificial needs. You don't NEED anything but food, really. You don't "need" an iPad. You only "need" oil because that's what your car runs on.
I wouldn't say we need more construction most of our suburbs already crawl for miles more than they need to. If anything we need to get rid of a large portion of the house market, and convert it back to farm land in many areas of the country.
What we do need is though is an increase in infrastructure upgrading. Things like getting all the light poles in the country attached to a solar panel to help decrease electricity needs. Converting older buildings to be more energy efficient in the form of grey water reclamation solar cells and better insulation. This is where our army of construction workers should be focusing their skills.....not being paid to build and rebuild roads.
If we were to create free training programs to equip your average road construction worker with the skills to do the installs on those 3 things on government, and private buildings. 2nd step would be to require that buildings older than say 20 years be updated with this technology increasing energy efficiency by 10% with an additional 10% increase every 5 years up to say even a total of 40% more energy and water efficient. It would create jobs for several decades for these workers.
good conditions are good, but government can do it too. What do you call the the FDA,EPA,IRS,teachers,police, contractors you name it.
I call the people in those unions good people. I call the union leaders, political contributors. Matter of fact the teachers union is the biggest. If you wanna give the teachers' a raise, stop allowing union leaders to give money to politicians.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml
Yes government can most definitely create jobs.
Read a bit of history and a bit of economics, might enlighten you a bit... or not.
Government does create. It is not a producer.