The chatter of the day here is whether the president's jobs plan should be big and ambitious or small and politically pragmatic.
As much as I care about this part of the administration's agenda, I can't get wound up about this type of late-August noodling. The president and his team must weigh what the economy needs, what will work quickly, what the political market can bear, how the public will react, and, in this case, staying under the debt ceiling.
He cannot be wholly constrained by the political market -- to craft a plan acceptable to House Republicans would be a waste of time, as demonstrated by their "jobs plan," which Jon Cohn convincingly dispenses of here.
Nor should he let the fact that the Republicans may block much of anything he proposes keep him from fighting for a plan that meets the moment. He doesn't have the budget room or popular support for another Recovery Act, but he does have the airspace for a set of targeted jobs ideas that will significantly move the needle on unemployment, while tapping some particular pressure points in the economy:
I suppose that's more medium than big or small, and not everything in there will appeal to everyone. Job training doesn't create any jobs but targeting something at the long-term unemployed makes sense. The average number of weeks spent unemployed just topped 40 for the first time in the history of a series going back the 1948, where the average for the whole series is 14 weeks.
Economists worry about the effectiveness of the new hires tax credit in a period of weak employer demand, but I suspect it will pull some hires forward, and if the timing is right -- if growth picks up a bit when it comes on the scene -- it could end up with a nice bang for the buck.
All told, were a program like this to become law, it could easily shave a couple of points off of the unemployment rate over the next couple of years. Like I said, it may go nowhere in a Congress where too many members are drawn toward policies that inflict wounds rather than cures. But it's the right fight to undertake.
This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.
The only item on the list that would create jobs is large infrastructure projects. Finance them independently and tax free through the free market, payback through tolls (roads), fees (power grid), delivery payments (water projects) and you have something feasible to at least create jobs. That doesn't mean the GOP wouldn't vote it down just because the President proposes it. But they might turn around and implement it if they ever got the control back to do so because at least all the background work will have been done and then they would be able to take all the credit.
MY IDEAS::: , Put tariff on every item sold but not made by U. S. Workers and put that money in a fund at local credit unions to be used for small business and worker co-ops, They can make quality MADE in the U. S. products. This should increase jobs.
The unfair trade agreements axperiment and trickle down for the last 30 years have destroyed our jobs
Eliminate all work visas Employers will find qualified Americans if they have too.
only one thing is for sure,
bo will cave, intentionally and preemptively,
to gop/tp demands to completely dismantle America.
Nothing that creates jobs. Nothing. What's wrong with you? This isn't unsolvable: the government can hire directly. Hiring creates jobs. Our infrastructure is falling apart (anyone see solvable flooding or power issues last week?), we need teachers, cops, and firefighters, and the federal government can and should hire or provide money to state and local governments to hire.
You say this won't pass a Republican House or frozen Senate? Well I say proposing things that seem politically impossible, then trying to make them happen, shifts the debate, and sometimes even succeeds in itself. Bush knew that, so do Republicans now who keep voting on things that won't pass. Why won't Democrats even try?
If they would only try, the American people would rally behind them. These things would be massively popular, but none in power is proposing them and none in the press ever mentions them without saying that they are impossible. Just try, darn it!
Nothing that creates jobs. Nothing. What's wrong with you? This isn't unsolvable: the government can hire directly. Hiring creates jobs. Our infrastructure is falling apart (anyone see solvable flooding or power issues last week?), we need teachers, cops, and firefighters, and the federal government can and should hire or provide money to state and local governments to hire.
You say this won't pass a Republican House or frozen Senate? Well I say proposing things that seem politically impossible, then trying to make them happen, shifts the debate, and sometimes even succeeds in itself. Bush knew that, so do Republicans now who keep voting on things that won't pass. Why won't Democrats even try?
If they would only try, the American people would rally behind them. These things would be massively popular, but none in power is proposing them and none in the press ever mentions them without saying that they are impossible. Just try, damn it!
PTH is bad policy, since it is ineffective, even as a stimulus. With money so tight, invest it in a leveraged program like new jobs tax credits. More band for the buck, helps people get employed, helps keep people employed (to meet the net new jobs requirement).
Why do you keep wasting our time with PTH? Was it your pet project or proposal?
During the recession a neighboring state paid the salaries for the 1st 6 mos of any new hires. I know one company that took advantage of this, but the truth is they were going to hire no matter any credit. So while the company gladly excepted the help, it really had no bearing on hiring. If there is no demand for new hires, no credit will matter.
Some kind of on-the-job training for the long-term unemployed
The segment of the population most effected by this recession is the unskilled. Why are they unskilled and to what degree? Many of these people do not have a high school degree. They now may be middle aged as well and haven't attended any school in decades. The ones that can get retrained are ones that have aptitude and frankly self motivation. Recently Seimens Corporation said that out of all those that applied for those 3,000 technical jobs they have opened, only 10 percent or so pass internal tests meant to weed out those that have potential abilities that could be retrained.
There is less need for unskilled labor and that problem isn't going away. We have a huge unskilled minority problem in this country because our public schools have failed to educate. We also have a huge breakdown in our family structure that has allowed kids to grow up in single family homes where time and money were scarce and frankly parental support needed to keep kids in school.
Something to incentivize more mortgage refinances.
The problem now is that home prices keep falling and thus what bank wants to lend money to a homeowner that wants to refinance a mortgage for a home worth less unless they kick in the difference which isn't going to be the case. The bank would have to write down that principle and then hope that home prices stabilized from that point forward. I have known people that have gotten their rates lowered even though they are severely underwater. So I am saying the loan amount was kept the same, but the rate lowered as was the case before the recession. So the homeowner knows they are making a payment every month on a home worth a lot less, and the bank knows if the homeowner defaults they will get a lot less than the current loan outstanding. In these cases, the homeowners had a decent size downpayment to begin with that now is wiped out, but they wanted to stay in these homes and are betting the market will get better over time and eventually they won't be underwater.
While the payroll cut gives temporary relief, it will someday be viewed as raising taxes on the middle class. Nobody will like that. People get use to having that money and won't want to part with it unless their lives have improved so much to barely be noticed. I think that is a pipe dream. The big question is what are people doing with that extra money vs what that money was intended for to begin with. One was saving for retirement, while now we don't really know how that money is being "invested". So we have traded certainty and great need for uncertainty.
Businesses in my state got the notice their unemployment taxes are going up for the next couple years and they all had pay a lump sum this past month to replenish an empty fund. Do you think raising taxes on employers will help create jobs?
To be blunt, I have had too many business owners tell me hiring stories that paint the same picture the temporary agencies have been saying for some time. About 1/3 of those collecting unemployment have been offered jobs, but have decided to run out their benefits. In many cases, it is just financially a better deal to stay on unemployment than take a job after daycare, taxes, car expenses, food, clothing is considered. I have said for many years that many have been working for nothing after expenses, and now many are realizing this has been the case. If you look to the UK, they had such a persistent unemployment problem, they ended up reclassifying these people as disabled. I can see we are headed in the same direction.
The BIG projects
There is no doubt whatsoever that the US is need of a massive infrastructure overhaul. The problem is leaving that in the hands of the government that openly admits they allow 10 percent of funds to be wasted or stolen such as was the case with the stimulus. This is borrowed money we are wasting. The truth is I do not trust my government to put together a well thought out infrastructure plan and then have the controls in place to use every penny thoughtfully. I am not alone. This recession IMO has a lot to do with lack of confidence for our government. They got us into this mess, tried a few ill timed and poorly thought out plans that did not work, and now want more money.
What good is job training when there are no jobs, that's nuts. It gets the unemployed out of the house for a couple of months, but that's all.
The real key to honest to gawd recovery is investment in activities which have leverage, that is, where a dollar spent returns 3 or 4 dollars and that dollar is a seed to sprout more employment. Where you say to put the dollars? In businesses that are growing at a rate of 50% to 100% per year and accomplish the goal of U.S. competitiveness in the global market and create sustainable jobs here at home.
http://redwriteblue.blog.com/2011/02/17/polaris-snowmobile-heads-south/
I agree that what we need is leverage in a jobs program. What’s leverage? Imagine a three or four people working evenings and weekends creating a new technology product and they get a direct (not SBA loan) 3% $250,000 loan from the Feds. They start taking salaries from the loan and paying taxes immediately. After a year or 18 months they get some investment based on their great idea and hire more people. After year three they are selling product, have about 30 people on staff and repay the loan.They will return to the Treasury about $900,000. That's leverage.