What could be done to create large scale employment?

I can see the logic in that happening. But our workforce also needs to be properly trained to take on those jobs. Which means we need to enhance our education system, or provide employers more incentive to give better training. But as long as there is a country out there that can create borderline slave labor conditions, and produce products much cheaper, there will always be competition for us.

 

The main thing is to get out of the way. During the GW Bush and Obama administrations, the amount of regulations added to businesses were incredibly intrusive and were a disincentive to business growth.

 

I couldn't agree more. As far as the US is concerned, many have gotten soft expecting maximum return on little education and experience. I have been lucky to have gotten into the tech market very early in the game and now, with my experience and knowledge, what I have is valuable. Even those savvy new techies coming up cannot have the background and understanding I now have, some of which does not exist anymore but is still instructive.

The current stress of the market will change the way people here will look at what kind of education they need, but it will be slow.

 

Easy answer.

Reduce federal regulations to about where they were in 1975. This would require repeal of about three dozen federal statutes. Do the same with state and local regs.

Institute a "loser pays" system for litigation fees - at the federal, state, and local level.

 

Nice thing about creating jobs by eliminating regulations is that it doesn't cost anything.

 

Exactly which regulations do you believe is killing job growth?

 

Rebuilding America by American's is Socialist ...

Just exactly who the hell are they expecting to do it?

 

Oh God ... wait for this answer.

 

Stop wasting money on perpetual conflicts, and reinvest it in jobs for people. If you aren't happy with politicians heading up the initiative, then give stewardship of it to men like Bill Gates or a Richard Branson, they are innovators/entrepeuners, creating is what they do best.

 

I'm not holding my breath on this one.

 

Wow ... smart thinking ...

I'm sure you'll be attacked as a Socialist

Haven for bid we invest in Americans doing work for America.

GOP = Just say NO!

 

Actually there are enough surplus defunct missile silos throughout the midwest that they could be converted easily enough into cavernous survival barracks and stocked and maintained...

but in crony capitalism and local small time union thuggery that is so well known with these sorts of projects takes firm root and the result is a wasteful boondoggle that employs 10 people for a million a week each.

 

It seems such an obvious thing, and it could be reality, if enough people demanded that the criminal mafia that masquerade as politicians cease wasting their money on perpetual conflicts, and instead, invest it on infrastructure creation and job initiatives.

Naturally, the last people that want this are the tiny number that benefit from not investing in the above, and maintaining the status quo. And it really is a relatively tiny number of people. And what this tiny number of people have been v good at is getting turkey's to vote...for Xmas.

 

It would actually save money.

 

It's not a single regulation. It is the huge number of them.

The Small Business Administration did a study in 2008 of the effect of regulation on small businesses.

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf

 

The question should be: which ones don't?

We could start with Sarbonnes-Oxley, which companies roughly $5 million per year to comply with (that's each company, not overall.)

 

I don't think you are correct. I don't see how repealing section 20 & 32 of the act had anything to do with turning "mortgages into securities."

 

Those two provisions eliminated the firewalls between commercial lending practices and investment banking services. After its passage, a bank was able to engage in the lending and mortgage business, the securities business, and the insurance business. One bank can now control the underlyings for their securities, and have collateral (insurance) in case they failed. Under Glass-Steagall, no financial institution could create MBS's because if they did, they would be breaking a statutory firewall.

Source: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act." Webster's New World Finance and Investment Dictionary. Hoboken: Wiley, 2003. Credo Reference. Web. 06 February 2012.

 

In another thread here, someone posted a participation rate of employment. It peaked in 2000. So while the housing bubble was going full steam, we were bleeding jobs and making the umemployment rate look better than it was.

BTW - I think a massive infrastructure project is the right way to go.

 

Right, but that isn't what caused the financial crisis. If those sections of the Glass Steagall had never been repealed, I don't see that it would have done one thing to stop the crisis from occurring. European banks never had that restriction and the crisis didn't come from there. Nor as I had already mentioned in this thread, the mergers that saved many financial institutions would have never been able to occur. The crisis would have been much worse without the repeal.

 

OK, there is one in the world who doesn't think the repeal of glass-stegal played a major role in the financial disaster. I'm guessing he's an investment banker and got bailed out as well.

 

Hmm, that was when acid rain fell from the skies. The Great Lakes could not be used for anything other than dumping toxic wastes into it because they were so polluted.
Yes, let's kill the environment, that will be good for all of us.

 

Except the ability to breathe and drink water.
But it does so create something, cancers and other heath issues. So, medical care would greatly expand.

 

Of course it contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008. Let me break it down for you.

Banks gave mortgages with high interest rates to a lot of people who did not have the means to be able to pay those loans back.

Banks then bundled these bad mortgages (aka toxic assets) as securities for other banks to invest in. With the help of ratings agencies, these bad mortgages looked like they had AAA ratings. To other banks and investors these looked like low-risk securities because it was believed that those homeowners would be reliable enough to pay their mortgages on time.

Banks made a lot of money through the initial sales of those securities. The responsibility of receiving payment by homeowners no longer fell on the banks who gave out the mortgages but rather the ones who invested in the securities. When homeowners stopped paying their mortgages, investors stopped receiving money, thus all the money they spent on buying the securities was then lost and could not be repaid.

The banks used our money on this housing market scheme. They all conned each other and the whole system collapsed on itself. The money didn't simply vanish one day for no reason. It was the result of various poor business practices by our financial institutions that brought us here.

 

Pay Americans wages comparable to those paid in those parts of the world that have taken their jobs?