"Yep. NOW the government is supposed to create jobs. Uh huh."No. It's supposed to stop throwing up impediments to job creation.
I'm talking about Obamacare, Porkulus, delay of Keystone pipeline,
Obamacare, EPA carbon regulations, offshore drilling moratorium, and
Obamacare."...admittance...?"If you mean
admission, it's an admission that job creators want government to get out
of their way.
Yep. NOW the government is supposed to create jobs. Uh huh. Well, we
tried giving the "job creators" free reign and lowered their taxes.
Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent. Id this call for the
government to create jobs the long awaited admittance that the job creators have
no idea what they are talking about?
@marxist "...so it must be fair."I didn't offer a
judgement as to whether or not it's fair. What I said was that it's a
matter to be decided by the worker and the employer. They are engaging in trade.
Each has something the other wants. Both are free to associate, and both are
free to leave. They are the best judges of what is right for them. They
don't need my opinion about what's fair.
Isn't anyone here tired of the delusion between the Democrats and the
Republicans! How ignorant can anyone be? No one here recognizes the absolute
undeniable facts of the past 50 years that is indisputable that neither the
Republicans or the Democrats have done anything to help the poor? What is that
keeps people from looking in the mirror and seeing the truth! Far from being
ignorant, however, are the leaders in both parties that will lie to their
constituents in the very real acknowledgement that nothing they have done has
helped and the only thing it has done is kept them in power, which is their
primary motive! How sad that otherwise intelligent people can be thus deluded!
Something is amiss!
"...Robert J. Samuelson: To the Obama administration: make jobs, not
propaganda..."For years Republicans have told Americans that
government does not create jobs...only the private sector creates jobs.To Robert J. Samuelson:Why the paradigm shift?
@RedShirt "To "marxist" speaking as a person who has to deal with
many minimum wage workers. I think that far too many of them are over
compensated at the current minimum wage."No doubt some are
overpaid at the minimum wage. No question. But on average? I don't think
so. I know, also from experience, that many minimum wage workers are hard
working and underpaid relative to the service they provide. They are the rule,
not the exception.
@Nate "This is a question that should be decided between the worker and the
employer." So we have a clerk at McDonalds negotiating with McDoanlds. Not
an even match.The whole minimum wage issue points up the differences
between neoclassical economics and Marxist economics. The neoclassical says the
wage at McD's is determined by supply and demand so it must be fair.The Marxist sees that the supply of labor for McD's is high because
of a reserve army of the unemployed and that since McD's are millionaire
generators for franchisees that their labor is being low-balled big time,
relative to the value labor adds.One side needs to talk to the
re:JoeCapitalist2I fully expect the Obama regime to force a
"fair" gas price and force a "fair" food price and force a
"fair" restaurant compensation and the list goes on. It's called
Socialism and America elected a socialist twice so what do we really expect? If
America wants to return to freedom again then they are going to have to wise up
...in a hurry...and boot as many Democrat's out of the Senate and the White
house as possible.
Has anyone read Adam Smith? Wealth of Nations? Does anyone read at all? Or
have we become a nation of political soundbites and half truths?
SLars,Businesses don't set immigration policy. Politicians
legislate. No business owner can legislate. Some of the blame for expanding
immigration (legal immigration) has to be owned by the politicians who legislate
the policy.Business lobbyists are part of the problem, but so are
politicians. Especially when the Federal Government has proven they will sue
any State that even thinks about enforcing our immigration laws.It's not just politics. Usually when new people arrive (increased birth
rate, immigration, etc) more people means more of everything is needed (more
factories, stores, restaurants, banks, gas stations, etc... means more jobs).
But since we don't make anything in the United States any more, that just
means more people in the USA and more jobs in China, Mexico, Pakistan, etc. And
what little IS made in the United States is increasingly made by automation and
with increased efficiency... no new jobs are created. So we would have a
problem even if we didn't have a flood of immigration.11
million illegal immigrants (most of them growing families) and who knows how
many legal immigrants, doesn't help the way it did in the old days.
2 bits:So, can I assume that you also favor the government propping
up other elements of our free market economy? For example, gas prices are
largely affected by supply/demand cycles. Should the government decide that
every gas producer in this country has a constitutional right to a "fair
price" for every gallon of gas? It could set the minimum price of gas at
$5.00 per gallon and force every gas station in the country to charge at least
that much even if there were gas refineries all over the country who were
willing to sell their gas for less.Still think it is a good idea?
What makes a gallon of gas any different than an hour of work?
To "marxist" speaking as a person who has to deal with many minimum wage
workers. I think that far too many of them are over compensated at the current
minimum wage.To "UTAH Bill" what has Obama done to encourage
businesses to hire more? As head of the Executive branch he has overseen his
branch of government enact so many new regulations that it costs businesses
billions of dollars in lost revenue just to comply with government mandates.
2 bits.The past 30 years the business lobbyists have pushed for
double the legal immigration before 1976. We are seeing the greatest wave of
immigration this country has ever seen. Before 1976 we averaged 500,000 per
year, since 1976 it's been 1.1 million per year. Add in 11.5 million
illegal workers and there is nothing natural about it. We are seeing a labor
surplus manipulated by business lobbyists.
Utah BillSeriously, name what Obama has been doing to help create more
jobs. His policies have enabled many more to stay unemployed with government
assistance. And history and human nature have shown over and over that when the
freebees run out, then people will run out and find work. Obamas performance as
a job creator is one of Presidential histories worst. And, recent news has it
that we will have a lot more unemployed ex military folks and related private
sector folks due to the cuts proposed. So, when the Republicans in Congress,
and hopefully, some Democrats begin to argue against these cuts, that will be an
example of an action Congress is doing to stop unemployment.
Hutterite is right. There are way more people than they are jobs today (jobs
Americans will do, I mean). It's a buyer's market. The person
hiring has many people who can and will do the job to choose from, so naturally
the wage will tend to go down.That's what would happen
naturally. I don't know if we can overrule nature. Whenever we try, it
seems to work out short term, but we can't sustain it long term (and the
situation is even worse than letting the market take it's natural
course).I remember the days when employers had to do anything they
could to attract good candidates to come to them (and wages went up). But those
days are gone. I assume for good.Maybe the government needs to
intervene and make it all better. Propping things up is always better (until
you can't prop it up anymore and it totally collapses because you
wouldn't let nature take it's course).
This article would be more relevant if it were directed at Congress, not the
White House. Seriously, try and name examples of actions our current Congress
has taken to improve our economic situation. At least Obama has taken some
action and seems to be trying.
The only DIRECT way any President or Congress can actually create jobs is to
hire more government workers, and or give government contracts (like military)
to private businesses, like Boeing, or Northrup Grumman. However, with the
recent proposed cuts to the military, there will be more unemployed former
government workers, and related private sector workers, in the coming years. As
for creating jobs in the private sector, the only INFLUENCE a President and
Congress can have is to do things that promote hiring like tax cuts and reducing
some regulations and requirements. Obamacare by the way is just the opposite of
that. So, I don't see any major change in our 6% unemployment rate coming
in the near future regardless of whether this raise in the minimum wage has a
positive or negative effect on employment. My feeling is that is will be
Left exclusively to the employer and employee, the bargaining power in our
current economy is all on one side and wages will only go down.
The Obama Administration was claiming they CREATED millions of new jobs even in
months when the official unemployment numbers went UP!Now when you
can spin that and sell it to the people, and not even get a question asked by
the people or the media... you got a propaganda machine goin.
Speaking of propaganda, the raise would be closer to 25%, not 40%. I've heard raising the minimum would cause job loss for decades, but
never seen it happen. To believe otherwise is to believe that business hires
more employees than they need. That's not true, if the demand
is there, they hire the number of people that are needed for the business to
@marxist "...are current recipients of the minimum wage being compensated
enough relative to the value they add to a product or service?"This is a question that should be decided between the worker and the employer.
Not some bureaucrat at the Kremlin.
It seems to me that the only relevant question is this: are current recipients
of the minimum wage being compensated enough relative to the value they add to a
product or service? Samuelson doesn't answer.