Huntsman announced he is running for the US presidency and providing jobs is his priority. Shucks. If it were so easy, wouldn't the Federal legislatures have already resolved the problem.
This process of election promises is already getting real old. And it is
sixteen months to the US Presidential election. No doubt candidate
posing and promise is more for talk radio and TV talking heads to get exposure and name recognition. It also gives media some material to chat about each day.
Since all candidates promise the same thing, there must be other factors to consider for the Republican Party to back a candidate. Forget the voter's intellect. Appeal to voter's emotions. The eventual candidate with good hair, talks well, follows a conservative script -- and is deemed electable by the Republicans -- will head the ticket for the party.
All the candidates say they are going to fix the economy and provide jobs to the millions of unemployed or underemployed. However, there is never a single word about a plan to make that happen. Perhaps they don't want to give away their secret methodology. How come the media's talking heads don't ask the candidates how they will execute those promises of more jobs and fixing the economy.
In the end, the voters just decide that the incumbent didn't do anything and the new guy is promising jobs and fixing the economy. Promises -- not plans -- are good enough to get the votes.
Regarding that creating jobs mantra of the candidates.... From Econ 101, jobs create a product supply. If there is no demand for the product, there is no company going to add jobs to create a product that will not sell. It's just bad business. The voters and the media must ask the candidates how they will create jobs without a product demand.
Lloyd... regarding jobs: You hit the nail on the head. Demand must come before business will increase supply. These guys in Washington (the States too) are just saying what the gullible public is wanting to hear. Too bad a lot of people don't seem capable of thinking it through.ReplyDelete
And without jobs, there isn't demand. Because folks can't buy stuff if they don't have a job. Catch 22. Ah gee, outsourcing wouldn't have something to do with it...ReplyDelete
I agree with Tesaje.ReplyDelete
Starting in the 1980s the System tried to pump up demand artificially by making credit easier and easier. That only works until the consumer's back breaks under the debt.
Maybe it would help to practice job sharing. The logical place to start is with government employees: cut their hours (and wages) down to a 20 or 30 hours per week level.
That sounds "anti-demand" but other factors might compensate and result in more net demand:
1. Less fear of losing your job, so less deferral of discretionary spending.
2. You'll have to hire more part-time (job sharing) employees who might just be barely squeaking by, right now.
3. Shorter work hours means a stronger urge to spend money on enjoying life.
Your comments about job sharing are a variation on a blog entry that I was trying to formulate.
To achieve full employment, how about a 35 hour work week. That is a 12 percent reduction in the 40 work week. Small employers could be exempt, but those with the 100s of employees doing the same job could hire many of those unemployed to handle the work that is incomplete by the reduced work week. It does mean that all of those employed will also have to take a 12% pay cut. Might be a good thing. They won't purchase things they want. They will resort to purchases of needs.
Those who were once unemployed will have money to meet their needs rather than waiting for unemployment checks or food stamps. When the Fed doesn't have to issue those monthly checks, it would be a positive for the Fed's deficit spending.
The American public sacrifice during World War II was not only the personal loss of life, but there was little consumer goods to be purchased at the same time there was rationing for most every consumer product -- if available at all.
For this 35 hour work week, much smaller sacrifices compared to WWII would be made by all the employed. More people employed means more people to spend cash and purchase needed products -- creating demand.
Since I have little faith in the general charity or kindness of most people, none of this proposal will fly since no one wants to sacrifice their "good life" -- however individually defined.
Supporting your argument of job sharing at the government level, why not start the 35 hour work week there by setting an example for the large employing corporations.
... only problem I see with this "Imposed" job sharing... is the old "lipstick on a pig" cliche'..ReplyDelete
Appears to me to be just another variety of "Wealth Redistribution"...
I've competed, all my life, with everyone else, for work, income... my life.
Life ain't fair, if you make bad decisions, you suffer the consequences.
Rather then expecting/wanting big business, and BIGGER Government to formulate a "Plan" to make OUR lives better... how about we try a "Novel" approach... and make Each Individual, responsible for themselves.
The biggest thing that's created our current "situation" is "Gullible people" suckin' up the con man's crap... from both business and gov't Con Men.
If people want "Change" don't expect it from some slick talkin' Politician, who is ONLY a smoother talking Liar.
Look at the guy/gal in the Mirror... and blame Him/Her for your problems... and then... correct, YOURSELF, what you did wrong.