Jobs? How?

[kentuck]

What would you do to create jobs in this economy? Is the uncertainty about healthcare and taxes keeping businesses from hiring, as many Republicans claim? Or is there another reason businesses are not hiring?

My recommendation would be that we go to a 35-hour work week. That means that businesses would have to hire one employee for every eight they now have if they want the same productivity. In a workforce of 130,000 million workers, that would translate into a possible new 12 million plus jobs.

Congress could pass a law mandating a 35-hour work week and anything over 35 hours would be overtime. This may be playing hardball but this would be my suggestion.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. 21st Century WPA, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration


Headed by Harry Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States. Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost eight million jobs.[2

[rurallib]

3. Would everyone get a 12.5% paycut?

just curious. Would the total payroll remain the same or would each worker get more $/hour?
Don't they do this in France?

[kentuck]

5. No. They would get a 12.5% tax cut.

so their take home would remain the same.

[FreakinDJ]

8. Your math is a bit flawed

sorry

just saying

[kentuck]

11. How so?

can you give us some numbers?

[FreakinDJ]

18. 12.5% tax cut equals 3.125% of gross income @ 25% tax rate

So if you shorten the work week to 35 hours, then workers would receive only 87.5% of the current income

3.125% doesn't make up the difference

[kentuck]

21. Makes sense...

That would be the major drawback if the employee could not make the same pay, either by a tax cut or a pay increase? In this economy, it would be difficult to imagine employers given anyone a 12.5% raise. Of course, if they kept their same employees and paid overtime for the extra 5 hours labor, that would be a small jump to the economy. Perhaps? Just brain-storming.

[FreakinDJ]

23. If you really want more jobs reveiw the Trade Policies

Warning - Reading and Comprehending corrupt, immoral application and "Lame Ass Excuses" that comprise America's Trade Policy will make normal working class citizens seriously ill

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojambo]

4. Radically reform our trade policy. n/t

[pokercat999]

7. Limit imports to the same amount of exports. nt

[FreakinDJ]

9. Stop making too much sense - you'll wreck the economy

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Put The Top Tax Rate To 91% As It Was Under Eisenhower

And both houses of Congress had Republican majorities.

(Yes, there were loopholes - but, all told, the wealthiest Amercans paid 50% in taxes back then, vs. 17% today.)

Then I'd have an Apollo-type program for sustainable energy. That would put a lot of people to work.

I'd also mandate that all credit card issuers cut the interest on existing balances to 0%, and forgive principal so that no American owed more than 25% of their income to credit cards. That would get spending going.

Finally, I'd restore high tarrifs on imported goods and servisces from micro-wage countries - how the hell can an American worker compete with $2 a day labor?

[gateley]

12. Jeez, can you imagine what it would be like to try that? The

Repubs scream blood murder for just letting a tax break expire! Talk about drama! I'd love to do it, though.

[laughingliberal]

13. Sounds like a plan to me nt

[kentuck]

15. Good ideas!

I like 'em!

[Synicus Maximus]

16. Your first two ideas have merit. Although we might disagree as to just how high

to rise taxes.
However, I think that your idea of cutting interest on credit cards to 0 and forgiving principle would kill access to credit. Who can afford lending money at no profit not to mention if the lender is not even sure they would get their principle back.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. We Had To Pay The Bankers Trillions Because of Extraordinary Circumstances

I say that the average person deserves no less.

[Sparkly]

14. I would enact work programs like Roosevelt's

It's going to take some borrowed money somewhere (we've been operating on borrowed money since Reagan pushed "are you better off now"). To me, it's a question of where to invest it.

"Bail-outs" aren't investments. (In emergencies, make loans with contingencies, not gifts.)

Work programs are win-win-win: If we have to borrow, this is the biggest bang for the buck. Those who are employed by it are off of other forms of federal aid; their earnings enable them to purchase goods and services, helping business; and in return, the country gains the fruit of their labor, whatever it may be (educational, arts, infrastructure, local services, construction, technology -- whatever).

(Within those projects, I'd also seek opportunities for forward-looking exports. We have to start producing SOMEthing -- we can't survive by borrowing money from other countries to purchase goods from other countries while spending billions to fight in other countries...)

(Also, I'd seek ways to empower families and communities regarding work, including the long-obvious issue of childcare!)

Federal investments in work, rather than bail-outs, hand-outs, or last-ditch rescues, would create jobs in the long run.

[kentuck]

17. Good points.

Also, I would add reform to our banking system to your lists. The banks can make a lot more money investing in the derivatives and schemes they have created than by loaning money to small businesses. They are going to put their money where they can get the best return. Right now, it is not in making small business loans.

[LWolf]

19. I would end the war on terror

and invest that money into a 21st Century WPA.

[dysfunctional press]

20. single-payer healthcare.

btw- switching to a 35-hour week would just cause a lot of businesses to shorten their operating hours.

[kentuck]

22. But would that not cause them to make less profits?

And would that not displease the stockholders?

[dysfunctional press]

24. that depends on the business.

most small businesses don't have stockholders anyway, and that's where most job growth occurs.

[kentuck]

26. Come to think of it...

If the Democratic Congress were to present as legislation that the new law was a 35-hour work week, it would be seen as an outright revolt by the workers of this country. The right-wing would accuse the Democrats of trying to lead a union movement from within the Congress. After all, wages were something to be determined by workers and their employees.

Then the Congress could say that they were not only changing the law to a 35-hour work but that employees could not cut their present pay. They can think of it as a tax, if they want. However, the "tax" would benefit each working person in America. Think of it as a revoltionary act against business interests and for labor rights. Think of it as the Labor Party of America.

[eridani]

27. Lavorare meno! Lavorare tutti!

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/eridani/350

We are getting to the point where we cannot just make more and more stuff and use more and more energy. We need to rethink the notion of work entirely.