If The Private Sector Is Not Creating Jobs, Then The Federal Government Has To

[Yavin4]

It really is that damn simple. In the past 30 years, we have outsourced our mfg and IT jobs overseas. Sure there are pockets of mfg and IT jobs, but there are not growing. Instead, we built a consumer based economy, and Greenspan used low interest rates to artificially boost it. Now, even that has gone bust as bankers won't lend any more.

What we are left with is a terrified economy. Everyone is either terrified of losing their job or terrified of not getting another one. This is killing our overall confidence, and it will throw us into a deep, dark depression, both economically and mentally.

I know that Reagan-style Corporatism still dominates our political leaders' thinking, but at some point, reality has to step in. If the private sector does not create new jobs, then the government must step in and do it. The government needs to create jobs in infrastructure, R&D, technology, etc. This will not only boost our economy, but it will give us our confidence back.

And, No, giving generous tax breaks and subsidies to corporations who have already moved jobs overseas is not going to do the trick. These corps already have a slew of tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies, and they're still killing jobs.

[corpseratemedia]

1. agree but don't know what it'll take for our blind leaders to finally see it

i mean, you'd think decimated cities in California and Michigan and Ohio etc. would do it...

[Yavin4]

2. The 1984 Election Permanently Scarred Them

That's when the Democratic party renounced FDR's economic philosophy.

[Selatius]

10. There wasn't a powerful Labor Movement in 1984. There was in 1932, when FDR ran and won.

FDR delivered the goods because the Labor Movement was seriously undermining the Democratic Party's monopoly on the leftward political discourse in America. Pretty soon, it was going to end up like the Whigs if it didn't do anything to stop the hemorrhaging of voters.

[Yavin4]

11. Actually, The Labor Movement in 1984 Was Fairly Strong

Labor is what enabled Mondale to hold off Gary Hart until Hart imploded.

Reagan won because he rode the technological transformation wave. It had nothing whatsoever to do with his policies.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Yup. The only reason employment is a "lagging indicator" is because the gov't is letting it lag.

It's not like there isn't plenty of stuff that needs fixed in this country. Coincidentally, many of the folks who are out of work have the kinds of skills to fix it.

[Yavin4]

4. Job Creation Is The Figure That I Focus On

When that number is positive, then at least the unemployed have some hope. Maybe they can move to where the jobs are being created. Maybe they can re-train. Whatever.

However, when that number is negative and stays negative, month after month, for two years, then there's no hope. That's when the govt has to step in.

[sharesunited]

5. Here's the best angle on that. Government owned businesses keep everything they make.

It's a 100 percent tax.

If they experience losses, those losses can be sold in the private sector as tax shelters.

Yes, government should start, operate, and own commercial businesses for profit and to promote full employment.

[ThomCat]

6. The Democratic Party used to believe in creating jobs.

Our party used to believe that, if necessary, the government could step in and directly create works programs to get people back on their feet, and channel money back into the economy directly where it is needed most.

But recently, the "leaders" of our party have bought into the republican philosophy that government cannot help people directly. That's socialism. Instead, government is supposed to help businesses and let the businesses help people.

That used to be called Trickle-Down-Economics. Now it's called Obama's economic recovery plan.


Due to massive public pressure, some relatively minuscule amounts of money have been put into direct intervention programs.

A tiny number of mortgages have been saved. Instead of saving the tens of thousands who were lured or tricked into high risk mortgages, we helped the banks that profited from the fraud.

Unemployment benefits have been extended. This doesn't help all the people who are considered "no longer in the job market" because they ran out of extensions, or people who are "under-employed." But it was supposed to be only the start. Some people also get COBRA subsidies, if they can afford COBRA even with the subsidies, and those subsidies have been extended.

But the total value of these benefits are minuscule compared to the money shoveled into any one single bank vault. These benefits also only affect a very tiny fraction of the millions of people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their (real) health insurance, and/or their quality of life.

Politicians keep arguing that there is a "Moral Hazard" if you give poor and working class people any help. Supposedly, we will all get so used to receiving free and easy hand-outs from the government that we might all decide to stop working as a result. That would be horrible! So to prevent that horror, our politicians are doing us all a favor by rarely ever giving us any help.

It is both odd and infuriating that these same politicians never worry about rich people and corporations suffering from that same Moral Hazard. Our politicians seem to find it perfectly acceptable for the rich and the incorporated to constantly expect much more massive government help and handouts than we poor and middle class people could ever expect.

It is an enraging double standard, and because of this double standard, direct help to real people who need it most has been intentionally kept to an ineffective minimum, while trillions has been given, loaned, or promised to corporations without any strings attached.

[Prometheus Bound]

7. Well, crap they're already spending $3 trillion on wars. How much job creation can you afford?

Hundreds of thousand of jobs created for warriors.

Tens of billions spend on bombs, missiles, helicopters and other death-maximizing products, creating more jobs.

Billions spent on hi-tech hardware and software, developing drones and other state-of the art killing machines.

[moondust]

8. But the status quo is wonderful! (for rich people who don't need jobs)

Stuff made by slaves is cheaper. Makes a poor fat cat's fortune go farther and last longer!

What are you, some kind of commie pinko?!

:sarcasm:

[DailyGrind51]

9. Only "full-on FDR" will create jobs. Tax cuts only create jobs -- in India!

[ItNerd4life]

12. What? The government LET them move the jobs overseas! It's the governments fault!

So now you think the government is the answer?

The government should make it painful to move jobs, then the private sector would create the jobs like it has for over 200 years!

[Yavin4]

13. The Private Sector Would Just Re-Locate Overseas

The private sector does not care about creating jobs or providing opportunities in America. They only care about making a profit, which is fine.

However, the government needs to provide a safety net when the private sector stops creating jobs.