You know how sometimes when you repeat a word over and over again, it starts to lose its meaning? If you listen to our current crop of presidential candidates, they're doing their best to do that with the most important word in this election: Jobs.
Unfortunately for voters, the fact that politicians make such comforting pledges on the campaign trail does not mean we're having a serious, coherent debate on the issue. Instead, we're being treated to a morass of slogans and glib promises. Given how crucial this issue is to most Americans, the electorate deserves a lot better.
So what should candidates talk about -- and what should voters watch for? A small dose of realism would be a start. Here's a modest proposal for a franker, productive debate:
- Let's stipulate that fixing the jobs problem won't be quick and easy. It's probably in the DNA of politicians to promise more than they can deliver, but candidates who claim (or actually believe) that they have a foolproof recipe for creating jobs in this changing world economy are in fantasyland. The Obama Administration certainly didn't do itself any favors when its key economic experts projected that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent in 2009. The Republicans lambast the president as a colossal economic failure, but their glib assurances could leave them in exactly the same position some four years hence, should one of them get elected. We need to replace more than 8 million jobs lost in the recession and create millions more to keep up with a growing population. The government estimates we'll need jobs for some 167 million people by 2018, up from about 154 million today. We're way behind.
- Let's stipulate that brisk economic growth won't be enough. You can't create many jobs if the economy is not growing nicely, but healthy economic growth and a good employment picture are not the same thing. Between 2000 and 2010, the United States had stretches of reasonably good growth, but job creation was lackluster. The country lost about as many jobs as the economy created. Jobs were eliminated by technology; jobs went overseas. The economy grew, but many companies can thrive with fewer workers, and they don't necessarily need for the workers to be here in the United States. This is a seismic economic shift. It's a challenge that will be with us for decades.
- Let's stipulate that tax policy is not the be all and end all of the debate. Listening to the current political discourse, you could be forgiven for thinking that tax policy is the deciding factor in whether we have robust job creation or not. Tax policy matters, but so do many other things--technology and innovation, research and education, immigration, government spending, regulation, and the legal environment to name just a few. And the truth is that the United States has had historically low taxes since 2003, and the economy's ability to create jobs has pretty much been at a standstill. Economists and politicians will probably debate which tax policies are best for job creation until hell freezes over, but clearly cutting federal taxes and modifying the tax code is not the whole answer.
- Let's start distinguishing between short-term and long-term solutions. The U.S. economy is still recovering, and the European mess is still very worrisome, so considering some quick fixes to spur job creation is entirely sensible. But we need to be frank about how long these strategies can be sustained and how much they really do to create new jobs. Maybe cutting payroll taxes for another year is a good idea, and analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, for one, suggests that these kinds of tax cuts are among the more effective job creation mechanisms. Workers have more money in their pockets, and plans that reduce the employer's share as well as the worker's can make it cheaper to hire, and that can promote job creation. But if we do this for too long, we jeopardize funding for Social Security, which has financial problems looming already.
- Let's zero in on how to get new more new businesses started. Economists seem as divided as the rest of America on the best policies for creating more jobs, but there is compelling research from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation suggesting that most new jobs come from new enterprises. It's perfectly logical if you think about it. New businesses are starting from scratch--whatever needs doing, they need to hire someone to do it. Existing businesses may expand or diversify--and that's good for jobs too--but when it comes to job creation, getting new businesses up and running is about as close to a killer app as we have.
There's plenty more to talk about--what we're suggesting here is just a nudge in a better, more honest direction. The United States faces a long and difficult transition on jobs. Rhetoric, no matter how compelling, just won't get us there.
Follow Scott Bittle on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/sbittle
 Federal government launches new programs for infrastructure repair and improvements, with contracts awarded to private construction businesses
 Government funds infrastructure improvements with a surtax on incomes over a million dollars—now the “job creators†will be directly involved in creating jobs
 Businesses hires new workers and unemployed to do the work—unemployment goes down and these new jobs can’t be outsourced
 Construction businesses buy supplies, machinery, and equipment from other businesses, stimulating these businesses to hire more workers
 Newly employed workers pay taxes to local, state, and federal government instead of consuming taxes while unemployed—deficits decrease at all levels of government
 New workers increase spending on consumer goods and services, stimulating the growth of these businesses and motivating investment in the startup of new businesses
 Business profits go up--business taxes help governments at all levels to decrease deficits and restore essential services
 Newly employed workers now can afford to pay their mortgages, stay in their homes, remodel, or buy new homes—property values go up, neighborhoods are rejuvenated
 Increase in business growth and profits cause investments and stock market to increase and replenish pension funds and 401-Ks
 Government collects more Social Security taxes and extends the life of this program for next generation
 Grandkids benefit from improved infrastructure (not stuck with the bill)
 Greater economic growth translates into more jobs for the poor, less homelessness, and more upward mobility
First, federal income taxes have not been historically low since 2003. Federal revenue as a percent of GDP has hovered between about 16-19% since the 1950s and it was in that range from 2004-2009. I am assuming the author is making a veiled reference to the Bush tax custs. Tax revenue as a percent of GDP was:
2004 15.9%
2005 17.2%
2006 18.1%
2007 18.4%
2008 17.7%
It fell off in 2009 (15%) because of unemployment and stagnating economic growth.
Second, let's be real, a 2% reduction in the payroll tax has not done anything to stimulate the economy. It doesn't matter what academic economists say, we have experienced in practice. Besides, it is not wise to take money from program (soc sec) at a time when its long-term viability is in question.
At the end of the day the question will have to be asked, when society requires less work to maintain itself, how is a human being valued?
This is going to require a massive re-imagining of what humanity does with it's time and who deserves to be compensated for it.
This is what the unabomber predicted in his manifesto and wanted to prevent in his attacks against scientists. I don't condone his methods, but he seemed to see this a long time before most people did.
When humans aren't needed any longer, what do we do with them all? What do they do with themselves? Besides just try to survive in a society that treats them like ****, looked down upon condescendingly by those lucky enough to still be employed.
There are certain crucial factors which absolutely must be considered if we want to maintain a stable society--one which is not going Athens on us. Ideally everyone who needs a job should have a job which pays well enough they and their family do not have to depend on government benefits. This concept is in direct opposition to the idea of such high productivity and efficiency courtesy of technical advances that the need for workers diminishes.
What this means is that we must not only educate every single child in America for 21st Century employment, we must find something to do with those who are out of a seat when the music stops in our economic musical chairs. Here is where the entire globe is going to have to moderate efficiency.
Think of how many postal delivery persons and bicycle messengers were put out of work when the fax machine was invented. Now we can communicate globally 24/7 in real time, and the Post Office is about to go belly-up. What are those postal employees who find themselves out of work to do? That was a well paying job which could support a family.
It appears our choices are not only innovate and educate. They include hesitate.
Both Democratic and Republical legislators ratified those FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS into law.
Is the shrinking workforce affecting unemployment numbers?
If so, is that a bad thing?
I wrote the Obama Administration in an email telling them, lets look at history of what we did in our last major fiscal crisis, and that was to start a federal jobs program, the CCC. I proposed we restart the CCC, when Bush took office our nations infrastructure was #7 in the world, I think it was 2010 but it ranked #23. What is to stop us from hiring some domestic workers, to get our infrastructure back to #7.
High-speed rail is often derided by conservatives because it does require some public funding to run it, but what transporation system doesn't? We subsidize the hell out of our highways, and the Corp. of Engineers running locks and dams, as well as the FAA managing air-traffic control. High-Speed rail is one of the most efficient forms of travel, it can rival airplanes over medium distances in terms of speed and when peak oil hits and the price of oil will forever increase, we will be glad we had some high-speed rail lines will be in place.
Rick Scott, Governor of Florida, denied federal funding for a highspeed rail line between Tampa and Orlando, even though it was proven to bring multiple millions of dollars into state coffers over a 10 year period.
I'm all for a national jobs program and repairing or replacing our crumbling old infrastructure.
This is what I got off of a CSX ad. That rail can get 435 miles per gallon, per ton. Thats like 435 miles per 10 fat americans (I being one of them that weighs around that much) highspeed rail can easily rival and surpass air travel over medium distances, such as St. Louis to Chicago.
I hear a lot of cons to high-speed rail, but while most 1st world countries have high-speed rail and have made them work to great success, we have none. I don't wanna be a dying superpower, I want our country to be on the forefront of the best infrastructure, including rail infrastructure in the world, and no offense, but its attitudes like yours that are preventing our country from doing just that.
I am all for high speed rail provided the ridership justifies the investment. Put together a consortium of private investors who have done their homework, and I might buy stock in the company, but we do not need any more Solyndras..
You are asking for a small dose of realism from those who aren't dealing with reality.
Excluding Ron Paul (because the GOP has chosen to do that) the three remaining candidates have denied evolution and global warming. Santorum has denounced scientists and called them immoral. It's my understanding that if Mitt wins the presidency his church believes that Jesus will appear in Missouri.
And Newt thinks he can have a contest to get people to the moon.
And you want realism?
BTW: I'm not sure how you extrapolated the U6 to get 167 million jobs but it should be remembered that 10,000 boomers a day are reaching 65 and according to AARP 7000 a day are retiring and will for the next 19 years. So the issue is more getting from point A to point B rather short or long term jobs.
How many people could we put back to work at decent wages if all that could be brought into the country were the raw materials as needed to make every single thing we use right here in America? How many jobs would we repatriate if everything had to be serviced here--no call centers in Manilla, no tech centers in Dehli?
By the way, most rank and file members of the Tea Party agree with this proposal. It isn't my idea. Surprise!
===
Unfortunately, that's a non-starter. Where would customers for those new businesses come from? The problem is there is no demand. That's why businesses aren't hiring. The stores are empty right now; opening more stores won't help. Supply-side economics doesn't work.
The dirty little secret is that automation and artificial intelligence will reduce the need for more and more jobs, until there is virtually no need for any human jobs.
Then what?
We will be able to make our goods and do our services with a miniscule number of employees thus insuring very few are able to purchase those goods and services. Fewer and fewer children will be born because families can no longer afford them. Ergo fewer and fewer employees will be required to make fewer and fewer goods.
It all cycles downward. At some point the powers that be will realize productivity isn't everything, and maybe we will understand that slippery slope we started down when the fax machine replaced the bike messenger and the postman.