« Inception | Main | HBD and whites »

July 12, 2011

Comments

Do you notice that Republicans and so called conservatives don't really care about job creation either? This is endemic throughout the political class.

Only if the US education will be like the Dutch one, then the liberal elites' argument will no long stand.
http://theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/a-flawless-education-system-for-students/
Meanwhile, I am a bit curious, on which sectors do you think that the US government should dedicate energy in making jobs opportunities for the Americans right now (It would be a bit absurd to hear about reversing manufacturing jobs in US to me, that's why I am asking)?

To be fair, the liberal blogosphere does keep harping on the job issue, and a lot of Democratic voters feel betrayed that Obama has sold them out to Wall Street. You would think a smart populist politician could tap into the anti-elite sentiment among both right and left wing voters and make a real challenge. Ron Paul is probably the closest we have to such a person, but he lacks charisma. The pathetic thing is that liberals are so blinded on immigration that they refuse to understand the linkage between immigration and higher unemployment for working class whites and blacks.

This guy is just another socialist idiot (no wonder he is a prof at Princeton) who thinks the government "creates" jobs and who changes his tune on deficits based on who is in office (but hey he worked for Clinton and supported Gore and Kerry so that's no surprise either).

"just deserts[sic]"; it's desserts

Good analysis, HS. As the previous commenter noted, a lot of Republicans don't care too much about job creation either. Look at this, from the "Washington Examiner":

Protestors chanting "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Cronyism has got to go!" marched during the lunch hour today in front of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Washington, D.C. headquarters.

The marchers were protesting the appearance of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt in the chamber's day-long conference on job creation, Jobs for America Summit. Immelt, who is chairman of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, was the event's keynoter.

“We think it’s ludicrous and outrageous that Jeff Immelt should be speaking at a job summit when he is the leading corporate job killer in America,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).“He is willing to hurt the U.S. economy if it will help GE.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/protestors-disapprove-immelts-keynote-speech-creating-jobs#ixzz1Ru5mIl9H

....

Jeffery Immelt is the apotheosis of crony capitalism. His company, GE, feeds heavily at the public trough but pays no federal taxes. And GE has been sending lots of jobs overseas. Yet Immelt is chairman of Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The current lack of job creation in the US is scandalous, yet Obama, the liberals, and the crony capitalists at the US Chamber of Commerce could care less.

[HS: At the tax LLM program at NYU, more than one professor cited GE has having an in-house tax law department as good as the best law firms.]

""just deserts[sic]"; it's desserts"

Nah.

http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/deserts.asp

Many people, unfamiliar with the "reward or punishment" meaning of the word "desert," mistakenly assume that the phrase "just deserts" is properly spelled "just desserts" because of its pronunciation. (The usual reasoning is that a dessert is a type of reward one is given at the end of a meal, so someone who receives suitable rewards or punishments for his actions has gotten his "just desserts.")

When one gets what one deserves, good or bad, one is getting one's "just deserts," accent on the second syllable but spelled like the arid, barren lands.

Peter A,

As long as liberals vote for Obama, all of the complaints and griping they do on the internet is a pathetic show. Until liberals actually advocate staying home and abandoning Obama they have to live with the fact they are supporting the policies he supports.

[HS: At the tax LLM program at NYU, more than one professor cited GE has having an in-house tax law department as good as the best law firms.]

Looks like GE gets its money's worth. Just wonderful - Immelt's company gets lots of public dollars but pays no taxes because of its well-compensated lawyers, Obama gets a prestigious stooge to make it seem as if he cares about job creation when he really doesn't, and the taxpayers and ordinary Americans get screwed. The perfect paradigm for 21st century America!

For the record, my state GOP made a big deal about job creation in the 2010 election, using that as its basic platform - our candidates will cut taxes, which will cause businesses to hire more etc. I'm sure it was just a surefire theme focus-grouped by the RNC and handed out at the national meetings to the state chairmen.

Anyway,what we won't see is CCC type stuff. We already have that with the Job Corps anyway. There aren't as many people fit enough or willing to do that sort of work and put up with the hassles, or travel across country to take any kind of labor job, like they were back then.

[HS: At the tax LLM program at NYU, more than one professor cited GE has having an in-house tax law department as good as the best law firms.]

How is that going for you? I assume you dropped out, because you don't talk about it.

The government does create jobs. Who do you think the fine people at Lockheed, Raytheon, and a host of other defense contractors work for?

If the government decided not to pursue certain military technologies, those people would be out of a job.

1. Congress is currently controlled by the republicans.
2. Unemployed peolple - particularly, I think, the current wave, which is disproportionately white men and people who were previously in manufacturing - tend to vote republican.
3. ??????
4. Therefore, liberals don't care about the unemployed because they're elitist tree-huggers.

I'd really love to hear what 3 is, cause I'm stumped.

"I'd really love to hear what 3 is, cause I'm stumped."

You're stumped because your #1 is flawed.


preaching elite moron and his name is blinder??? come on, this is some charles dickens type s---

"The government does create jobs. Who do you think the fine people at Lockheed, Raytheon, and a host of other defense contractors work for?"

Defense jobs are like any other kind of government spending. The government spends money less efficiently than the private sector, and thus money confiscated from the private sector to "create" defense jobs in fact destroys more jobs in the private sector than are "created" by the government spending. Of course this process is invisible to most people because they can see the defense jobs that were created but cannot see the private sector jobs that were not created.

But hey let's "create" 14 million defense jobs and eliminate unemployment at one stroke! That approach worked well for the USSR and North Korea, among others.

[HS: Defense spending creates jobs for Americans becuase there's a requirement that the workers have security clearances, and for that there's a requirement for the clearance-holder to be an American citizen.

If the defense money were given back to corporations in the form of lower taxes, the corporations would outsource the labor to China and India. Jobs would be created for sure, but not necessarily American jobs.]

"The government does create jobs. Who do you think the fine people at Lockheed, Raytheon, and a host of other defense contractors work for?"

I would still argue that these jobs aren't as toxic as creating more permanent federal jobs, say of the type that the Obama bloatocracy will bring.

People hired as INDIRECT government contractors do not get expensive government benefits and they can be fired for underperformance. The government has flexibility to cancel those contracts, pull finding, or allow them to expire without renewal.

The problem with your standard fed job is that entrenched political concerns have a vested interest in preserving them eternally once they get created. Our federal workforce is way too large already.

"Liberal elites don’t care too much about unemployed white workers because statistics show that these unemployed people are disproportionately those without college degrees."

Liberal bloggers and columnists do fret about the loss of manufacturing jobs, but their solutions for bringing back manufacturing, such as unionization don't work.

The left loves unions because they have this romantic notion in their heads that unions are fighting for the common man even though unions are far more corrupt and steal more money from their workers than corporations.

"If the defense money were given back to corporations in the form of lower taxes, the corporations would outsource the labor to China and India."

Very few jobs have been lost to corporate outsourcing.

[HS: Defense spending creates jobs for Americans becuase there's a requirement that the workers have security clearances, and for that there's a requirement for the clearance-holder to be an American citizen.

If the defense money were given back to corporations in the form of lower taxes, the corporations would outsource the labor to China and India. Jobs would be created for sure, but not necessarily American jobs.]

If the issue at hand is the "national jobs emergency" and how best to create jobs, then *of course* we are talking about creating *American* jobs. So the question is, what is the best way to create American jobs? Hiring defense workers is one method, but not necessarily the best one. If the tax and regulatory structure drives private sector jobs overseas, change the tax and regulatory structure (duh!) don't just hire people for stupid, wasteful government jobs (including contractor jobs) just because that is the lazy man's way to make sure the jobs created are American jobs.

"As long as liberals vote for Obama, all of the complaints and griping they do on the internet is a pathetic show."

In a two party system most people will never find a leader or a party that really makes sense for them. The two party system is the primary reason US politics has degenerated to the level of a sporting match with people simply declaring allegiance to Red or Blue based on nothing but cultural symbols. This is why we have white and black working class people both voting for parties who want to give their jobs away (the Republicans ship the jobs overseas and the Dems import Mexicans to do the jobs cheaper here).

"This guy is just another socialist idiot (no wonder he is a prof at Princeton) who thinks the government "creates" jobs and who changes his tune on deficits based on who is in office (but hey he worked for Clinton and supported Gore and Kerry so that's no surprise either)."

Sort of. Neither right nor left get it.

The growth in government make work and compliance work in the private sector, the growth in BS services, the growth in marketing, the growth in value transference, etc. has obscured the effect of automation, has obscured that only about 10% of the population or 20% of the labor force does all the work.

Economists right and left have no solution.

The solution: unemployment, underemployment, a one child policy, higher taxes.

"People hired as INDIRECT government contractors do not get expensive government benefits and they can be fired for underperformance. The government has flexibility to cancel those contracts, pull finding, or allow them to expire without renewal.

The problem with your standard fed job is that entrenched political concerns have a vested interest in preserving them eternally once they get created. Our federal workforce is way too large already." - Camlost

Could you explain what you mean by "indirect" contractor? Much of what you describe is true in regards to firing these people easily, at least in theory, in practice these companies are armed to the teeth with lobbyists and campaign cash. The problems you describe with the federal workforce using political muscle to remain entrenched in power is applicable to private contractors.

"Liberal bloggers and columnists do fret about the loss of manufacturing jobs, but their solutions for bringing back manufacturing, such as unionization don't work." - The Undiscovered Jew

Liberals want our low wage "services economy" unionized. There is no reason retailers and restaurants which are the bulk of US employment (free trade prosperity!) shouldn't be unionized. All other developed economies around the world have larger unionized workforces and they're just as competitive if not more so than the USA.

I would like to propose not to wait until you earn enough amount of money to buy different goods! You can get the home loans or just short term loan and feel yourself fine

"Could you explain what you mean by "indirect" contractor? "

People that work for govt contractors like Lockheed or Raytheon do exactly that - they work for Lockheed or Raytheon. They are NOT direct government employees of the GS-xx variety and don't have the same protections, benefits and guarantees as regular federal employees. Even if government contracting companies do get rich off huge federal contracts, at least Lockheed and Raytheon are not adding to the bloatedness of the federal workforce.

If Raytheon has a contract to do work on the F-15, and the funding for the F-15 is cut, then Raytheon lays off its people and the federal government is not footing the bill for any huge severance. If someone stays at Raytheon for 30 years and retires at age 60, the government is NOT responsible for their federal pension in the same way that regular GS-xx employees continue to draw 2/3 of their old salary for the rest of their life.

Yes, these companies do have powerful lobbies, but I would argue that employees of their sort are nowhere near as big of a drag on the economy as direct federal employees.

Also, Raytheon and such make money off being MORE efficient - they have the power to fire crappy employees that are costing them money and getting very little work done. (unlike the federal government, which really can't fire anyone, especially if the employee is a minority) There's some level of accountability, at least.

Contracting is going to be the wave of the future in a HUGE swath of industries over the next 5 years. Many companies are terrified of the healthcare overhead burdens that Obamacare will bring. So, many employees that they formerly hired on as direct employees will actually be hired on as consultants/contractors through 3rd parties. This will help companies control their benefits costs and also give flexibility since companies generally don't have to pay severance if they decide to fire a contractor since the HR rules and EEOC protections are different for contractors.

[HS: I've actually worked for government contractors, and in no way is it the romantic vision of capitalism that you paint it. The government is getting ripped off by them. All the contractors care about is getting as much money as possible from the government teat while creating the perception that they are doing something useful. The government could hire the employees for less money by hiring them directly, and the employees have better benefits at the same time. The only losers would be the executives and shareholders of the big contractors.]

"The growth in government make work and compliance work in the private sector, the growth in BS services, the growth in marketing, the growth in value transference, etc. has obscured the effect of automation..." - Hendrik Verwoerd

Indeed. What these fools babbling against government employment in particular refuse to understand is that these jobs are attempts to make a middle class life possible. A prole can land a high paying Department of Corrections job in California which enables him to live in good neighborhood and provide for his family. Is it all sustainable? No, but what's the alternative?

Posted by: JP
"This guy is just another socialist idiot (no wonder he is a prof at Princeton) who thinks the government "creates" jobs..."

exactly!
Gov. does not "create" jobs. It transfers jobs from the private sector to the public sector through taxation and spending. OR in some cases transfers jobs and wealth from one part of private industry over to a favored industry.

The economic basis of Liberalism is the idea they should be the ones in charge of who gets to be the winners and losers. They hate the idea of (natural selection / free market / whatever the hell you want to call it) making that decision.

Here's the bad news. If you're a white heterosexual Christian male you don't fall into the "favored status" category of Liberalism. Instead you fall into the most hated category that must be economically drained dry of whatever you have.

"If the tax and regulatory structure drives private sector jobs overseas, change the tax and regulatory structure (duh!)"

What if it's not the tax and regulatory structure that's driving private sector jobs overseas?

"Liberals want our low wage "services economy" unionized. There is no reason retailers and restaurants which are the bulk of US employment (free trade prosperity!) shouldn't be unionized. All other developed economies around the world have larger unionized workforces and they're just as competitive if not more so than the USA."

There's not a whole lot unionization can do to raise wages in low wage service jobs. In order to have high wages in the private sector, you need high margins. There are higher margins in manufacturing BMWs than there are in stocking shelves at Walmart, which is why BMW can afford to pay its workers more than Walmart does.

I think government can creat jobs--even though this goes agian excepted economic wisdom. It can for example give money to reaserch and help develop a new industry.

But more importantly it can transfer jobs to America from forieghn countries, by lets say getting rid of regulations.

Most importantly it can stop immigration completly and thus keep American jobs American--as half sigma pointed out. I think there is something to be said for immigrants that outcompete Americans for jobs but in-group loyalty is very important to me. I love American and don't want to see it turn into La Respublica de Unidos Stados.

Peter A,

If you don't like either party, don't vote. I only vote for politicians I actually want to be in charge. The first step towards getting decent options is to reject bad options.

The comments to this entry are closed.