Only a few will be interested in this but I'd like to hear from them on this. Here in the US, the politicians and the reporters are discussing how the President (potus) can create jobs and how he needs to create jobs. This is a myth that many voters and the public have unquestionably fallen for.
Presidents don't create jobs. Politicians don't create jobs at the Congressional or Senatorial level. Governors don't create jobs. However in certain instances in certain industries they can make conditions for for hiring and business growth, this is very rare, today.
Does anybody notice that the mainstream still does not get it on this issue?
---
Jan. 25 2010
Can the president really do much to create jobs?
With all the criticism and political bellyaching about Obama taking his eye off the jobs problem, there is far too little discussion as to what ??? if anything ??? this president, or any other, can actually do about it.
A nasty job deficit is a terrific political issue if you happen to be on the side of the opposition. You can yell and scream that the current administration is not focusing on the ability of Americans to earn a living, knowing that this is a sure way to score political points with the many people who are suffering. Yet, all the while the opposition is hoping that when they do regain power, timing will be on their side and the jobs numbers will somehow begin to turn positive.
In truth, the party in opposition will be as powerless to control the jobs picture as any current or past administration in the modern era.
In today???s economy, the government???s ability to impact on this problem is far less than you might think. Simply put, the United States government is no longer the 800 pound gorilla it once was when it comes to controlling our economy and the jobs that come ??? or go ??? with it.
How did that happen?
With private industry free to ship as many jobs overseas as they wish; with the amount we, as a nation, spend on imports now exceeding the amount of taxes the Federal government collects; and with the amount of foreign money invested in our debt, the globalization of the economy has swamped Washington???s ability to mold our economy in the way it once could.
Nobody questions the fact that wages for the middle class have not kept up for many years now. With American industry sending jobs overseas by the millions, domestic labor has not had much in the way of bargaining power to argue for improved wages. Yet, if government were to attempt a reversal of the jobs exodus by putting clamps on a private company???s right to run their businesses as they see fit, the populace would be up in arms over the destruction of our beloved, free enterprise system. And which party would likely be leading that revolt? I think we all know.
For those who feel the need to turn this into a business versus labor fight, some will blame generations of unions run amok for making it too expensive for business to afford labor in this country. The other side will argue that labor was only trying to keep up so that workers would not be losing ground, particularly at a time when the rich continued to get richer. Let???s face it. Both sides have taken advantage when the pendulum swung in their direction. While the expensive labor force no doubt played a role in the initial decision to send jobs elsewhere, that balance has been more than corrected, and the jobs still aren???t coming back home.
The truth is that the business versus labor battle is a dishonest distraction.
....It???s too late. We???ve already sent the jobs overseas.
In a remarkably prescient cover piece in Business Week back in 2006, just before the sky began falling on the real estate market, we find ???
Since 1995 imports have risen from 12% of gross domestic product to about 17%. And foreign money finances about 32% of U.S. domestic investment, up from 7% in 1995 (emphasis added). In other words, the U.S. is more open to the global economy than ever before, and the links run in both directions. Now many of the levers affecting the U.S. economy are located not in Washington but in Beijing, London, and even Mexico City.
Entire: Can the president really do much to create jobs? - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - True/Slant
Presidents don't create jobs. Politicians don't create jobs at the Congressional or Senatorial level. Governors don't create jobs. However in certain instances in certain industries they can make conditions for for hiring and business growth, this is very rare, today.
Does anybody notice that the mainstream still does not get it on this issue?
---
Jan. 25 2010
Can the president really do much to create jobs?
With all the criticism and political bellyaching about Obama taking his eye off the jobs problem, there is far too little discussion as to what ??? if anything ??? this president, or any other, can actually do about it.
A nasty job deficit is a terrific political issue if you happen to be on the side of the opposition. You can yell and scream that the current administration is not focusing on the ability of Americans to earn a living, knowing that this is a sure way to score political points with the many people who are suffering. Yet, all the while the opposition is hoping that when they do regain power, timing will be on their side and the jobs numbers will somehow begin to turn positive.
In truth, the party in opposition will be as powerless to control the jobs picture as any current or past administration in the modern era.
In today???s economy, the government???s ability to impact on this problem is far less than you might think. Simply put, the United States government is no longer the 800 pound gorilla it once was when it comes to controlling our economy and the jobs that come ??? or go ??? with it.
How did that happen?
With private industry free to ship as many jobs overseas as they wish; with the amount we, as a nation, spend on imports now exceeding the amount of taxes the Federal government collects; and with the amount of foreign money invested in our debt, the globalization of the economy has swamped Washington???s ability to mold our economy in the way it once could.
Nobody questions the fact that wages for the middle class have not kept up for many years now. With American industry sending jobs overseas by the millions, domestic labor has not had much in the way of bargaining power to argue for improved wages. Yet, if government were to attempt a reversal of the jobs exodus by putting clamps on a private company???s right to run their businesses as they see fit, the populace would be up in arms over the destruction of our beloved, free enterprise system. And which party would likely be leading that revolt? I think we all know.
For those who feel the need to turn this into a business versus labor fight, some will blame generations of unions run amok for making it too expensive for business to afford labor in this country. The other side will argue that labor was only trying to keep up so that workers would not be losing ground, particularly at a time when the rich continued to get richer. Let???s face it. Both sides have taken advantage when the pendulum swung in their direction. While the expensive labor force no doubt played a role in the initial decision to send jobs elsewhere, that balance has been more than corrected, and the jobs still aren???t coming back home.
The truth is that the business versus labor battle is a dishonest distraction.
....It???s too late. We???ve already sent the jobs overseas.
In a remarkably prescient cover piece in Business Week back in 2006, just before the sky began falling on the real estate market, we find ???
Since 1995 imports have risen from 12% of gross domestic product to about 17%. And foreign money finances about 32% of U.S. domestic investment, up from 7% in 1995 (emphasis added). In other words, the U.S. is more open to the global economy than ever before, and the links run in both directions. Now many of the levers affecting the U.S. economy are located not in Washington but in Beijing, London, and even Mexico City.
Entire: Can the president really do much to create jobs? - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - True/Slant
