Now with everyone focused on the jobs front I wanted to share a few of my thoughts as I've read the headlines.
First, I thought that Jobs were supposed to be the focus the whole time? Wasn't that what the point of the second stimulus (the first under President Obama) was for? I thought that was the whole promise of we will create - adding in later the whole bit about saving - millions of jobs in less than a year. That's not to say I am bothered by their sudden turn, again, to the jobs focus, I just found it interesting that some in the media are portraying this as President Obama's first attempt.
Second, I like the points made by John Mauldin in his newsletter:
"In the '50s through the early '80s, recessions were typified by large layoffs at manufacturing businesses, as they had built up too much inventory. Businesses had increased capacity and often borrowed a little too much. Rising prices in the '70s, along with extremely high interest-rate costs, led to the two severe recessions of the early '80s, which Paul Volcker had to essentially force into existence, in order to begin the process of wringing inflation out of the economy.
"But, and this is important, as the economy improved, inventories were eventually worked through and employees were brought back to work. Things returned to normal. The economy would once again grow at a robust rate. Then, in the last two recessions, in the early '90s and early '00s, it took longer for employment to rise. A great part of this was because the manufacturing sector of national employment was becoming an ever smaller part of the economic pie. We were, and still are, turning into an economy driven by services.
"I should note that, on an absolute basis, manufacturing in the US has grown (going back to before this recession started.) We just produced more "stuff" with fewer employees. We became more productive. But this means that there are fewer jobs that will be brought "back" to make up for increasing sales than in past recessions. There are estimates out that as many as 2 million of the 8 million jobs lost are permanent job losses.
"We know that businesses have made large cuts in numbers of employees in order to address lower sales and to increase their profits. Increasing profits by cutting costs even as the "top-line" sales number is shrinking is not a growth strategy that can be sustained. It also eats into research and development and postpones growth."
In other words, if we are going to focus on jobs then we have to do so realistically. If 2 million jobs were permanently lost then how are we going to allow and encourage the creation of 2 million new jobs? We all know that students are currently being prepared for jobs that don't currently exist. There are tons of ideas out there which we don't even know are possibilities at this point.
I think all of this brings up my main point: The real question that government should be asking itself as it tries to come up with ideas on job creation is - In what ways can we get out of the way of job creation in the private sector? I think that they would all do well to read Gallup's World Poll studies on how "Brain Gain" works and more importantly right now (since we are beginning to experience this) how to avoid "Brain Drain."
I am slightly encourage to see some Supply-Side rhetoric coming from President Obama's recent speeches. However, I am not dumb enough to think that the current legislative body will follow through even on the tiniest bit of what could and should happen to get government out of the way. I think that our only hope for new jobs will be for the Legislature to change this coming election.
2 weeks ago
4 comments:
Although this thought doesn't pertain to your article, it does have to do with jobs.
Everyone is focused on the jobless rate. I'm not sure what it is, but for an estimate I'll say 10%. The media is all gloom and doom about this number being so high. But I look at that and say wow! 90% of our people have jobs!
This is the same issue that American Businesses are looking at from a revenue generation standpoint. Obviously things get tighter as technology and world needs change. Businesses today have to adapt their business models and expand their client base.
Unfortunately the US Government is still looking at the job market as a "steady as she goes" or "we fixed it in the 50's so just do that again" approach. The government needs to look at the needs of the nation in other areas as new "out of the box" areas that should be subsidized or promoted nationally to generate new industry and growth.
We lost industrial because businesses could do it cheaper over seas. We are losing tele-services as that too is being done cheaper over sears. What is the US's product to it's own citizens and the rest of the world?
Suggestions:
1) Everyone is up in arms about greener energy. Some of the best options in the world are thought up in the US. Pick a couple and build them into an industry we dominate.
2) Cloud computing services are at a rapid rate of expansion in the US. Create an American Cloud Commerce through stimulation and let other nations outsource their cloud computing to the US.
*there are dozens of other areas that could stimulate new markets. The survival of the 50's didn't happen because we went back to smelting the same steel or building the same cars of the 30's and 40's.
If our country is to come out on top after this recession, it will be by the grace of God only. Neither party seems concerned with incentives to innovation and both seem content to fill their own pockets and increase their chances at reelection rather than ensure new jobs are created. I have a hard time believing that all of our politicians conveniently all missed the same day in their Econ. 101 class where the professor taught them about variable costs and optimal level of production. Although, it seems that they did, considering they expect the same industries to have the same availability of jobs as they spend us into oblivion and give us the promise of higher taxes, especially on the upper classes, the ones who give us the jobs in the first place.
As I see it, there needs to be a change in the political climate first. Fiscal conservatives need to rise up and take the reigns of this out-of-control government before it's too late. That way, we can retain more jobs, attract new businesses and investments, and promote innovation. The bottom line, though, is that innovation and growth don't come from government. Good, responsible government is the prerequisite to economic growth, especially in a world where distance means less and place means more. The world is not flat, it's just a whole lot smaller.
Jared, precisely my point. The government doesn't come up with those new and great new industries.
We led the world as an industrial and manufacturing nation. Now that the rest of the world is finally caught up to that point, we need to keep moving. There is no way we will stay on top if we don't come up with something new. If you read the World Poll you will see that, by Gallup's math, we gained a significant portion of our GDP over the last 50 years because of a small portion of our workforce coming up with new ideas or perfecting them.
Right now business owners and entrepreneurs have little incentive or ability to create new businesses. Banks are not willing to lend and the government is practically promising that anyone making any kind of money will have most of it taxed away. The only developments are coming from private investors, but even their incentives will be taken away.
Personally I am not bugged by jobs being shipped over seas. I am bugged by the fact that we are not able to replace those jobs.
Post a Comment