What could be done to create large scale employment?

Unemployment levels here are not great, and I would imagine that they are not great in some parts of the US, as well.

A high unemployment rate is never good for the Government that presently hold office, it is a bad reflection on them, imo, albeit they are not entirely responsible for job creation, of course.

It is all very well having welfare reforms and all of the rest of it, but only a fool would fail to see that you must have the level of jobs to truly absorb the demand. You cannot rely entirely on the private sector to absorb demand, as has been shown and proven - it can't and doesn't. So, unless you are a little more proactive in job or even self empoyment creation, then you are going to suffer all the ills that increased unemployment rates bring, not to mention the social misery to those that can't get work.

What I am looking for here is ONE idea from each member, that they think would stimulate large scale nationwide employment, in one or more fields (ideally multiple).

Something that you feel could be done that would create many (reasonably paid) jobs, to meet the demand.

A brief outline of your idea, what time scale you think it would take to establish, and to what level it's job creation prospects would be, would be good.

My suggestion would be a large scale programme to build social and affordable housing.

Not only would this serve a good social demand, but it would obviously stimulate the building industry, and many other industries, as well.

I think that with the will, a nationwide programme could be determined within a year, and completion within five years.

Jack

 

The Govt pumping 1-2 trillion dollars in direct infrastructure spending. Rebuild America.

 

Have you all not learned yet that the government cannot produce jobs? It's the private sector that creates jobs and wealth. My plan.............

1. Obama resigns
2. Congress repeals all of his job-killing bills and small business killing measures
3. Nation prospers
4. The Beginning

 

Yeah because 8 years under Bush of de-regulating business sectors and lower taxes turned out so great for us...

 

Excellent idea - and why not?

Let's be honest, they soon find the money to waste away on things that benefit only the few, like the London Gov were preaching to the British about 'austerity', and cuts to essential public services, yet spent millions and millions for EVERY DAY they were active in Libya.

Disgusts me.

 

It's a no brainer. People act as if people will stop working and stop producing if they added all that money. Yea right there would be a mass scramble of producers trying to suck up those trillions of dollars. Not only would we rebuild the infrastructure of America, we would have millions upon millions of new employed with incomes to go spend in the real economy. There is no reason why we should make ourselves suffer like we are.

 

This is one thing that akphidelt and I agree on, however, it should have been done 2 years ago.

Obama has recently talked about spending $5-$10 billion to prop the housing mortgage programs up. While this is a good idea, it is something that should have been started as soon as he took office. The problem with his plan now is that it does nothing for job creation.

Putting a sizable amount of money into the infrastructure system would create many long term jobs. It would not only provide jobs for the workers in the construction business, it will also create jobs for suppliers, truckers, manufacturers, Engineers, and even the mom & pop restaurants where the construction crews will eat breakfast.

One argument I hear is that the jobs will only be temporary. Well, isn't a temporary job better than no job at all? Even so, this viewpoint is not correct. Sure, the jobs initially might be temporary, but if the economy starts running at full speed, those jobs WILL become permanent.

 

The thing that irritates me is the Govt is ALREADY paying people. Instead of extending unemployment to pay people to sit on their butts, pay them to clean the streets, pick up trash, or something. Anything other than just a paycheck with out any labor attached. That would decreases the unemployment rate, put people to work, and still have the added benefit of increasing aggregate demand.

 

Napier, what you propose has good intentions. But I have to disagree.

Building more low income/affordable housing is good for a lot of people. But there aren't a whole lot of towns or cities that would welcome such a thing. With low income housing, it devalues properties everywhere nearby. It also brings in unwelcomed aspects of society such as criminal and drug activity. I'm not arguing there shouldn't be affordable housing for people. But for many towns and cities, affordable housing can be more of a burden than a benefit.

And it is also only temporary work for Americans. It would certainly bring in enough business for construction workers, contractors, and material suppliers. But doing such an undertaking only makes sense if we have the demand for it. Right now housing and property values are very very low. And thats great if you have the money to buy a new home. But the reason why home values are so low right now is because nobody is buying. Look at places like Florida or Las Vegas. Both were victims of the housing bubble and now we have millions of empty homes in both areas. Las Vegas was the fastest growing city in North America for a number of years. Now the city and the entire state of Nevada have the highest foreclosure rates in the country.

 

It isn't even unemployment that is the important figure but the participation rate. The unemployment rate goes up and down based on a number of things, one of them is how many drop out of the system altogether, so participation tells the real story and we are at an all time low, something like 68% if I remember correctly.

The idea of Keynesian spending spurring growth is valid, if kept only for the short term while the real economy stabilizes. That has not happened so the government wants more temporary spending for political reasons (temporary in that it does not create long term employment) while possibly sacrificing future growth due to the drag of having to take money out of the economy just to pay the interest on that debt, which is supposed to be something like a trillion dollars a year in 8 or so years.

Government intervention in housing and mortgages has only slowed the process of housing finding it's bottom and stabilizing earlier. It is painful but it must happen. More government intervention may have the effect of prolonging the problem.

 

I've always liked the idea of building disaster shelters. Lots of 'em. Big, secure, empty spaces underground. Some of these do exist, but not really enough of them. How many jobs would it create if we decided to have enough disaster shelters in the country to protect every person in the country?

I may have been playing too much Fallout.

 

I don't think it follows that if affordable housing is constructed, the value of the properties nearby goes down, in fact, I know that's not true in my very own city.

Rather than build slum housing schemes, which are poorly thought out, and only lend themselves to social problems, and rather than use the cheapest of materials, which is a false economy, build well thought out affordable and social housing, that is well constructed, and is therefore less of a cost to maintain, down the years.

I think the overwhelming majority of people who seek affordable and social housing these days, are not drug addicts or dysfunctional, but just good, normal people, who cannot find a place of their own, because to get a mortgage these days, you need a large deposit, and to rent private is stupidly expensive.

Affordable homes that people could rent.

It would stimulate the building industry, the other industries that you mentioned, and probably more besides.

Houses would be alloted on a reward basis, so that if someone had a history of criminality, they may not be given first priority, but if they had a history of being a good citizen, with no criminal record, then they would perhaps get a better or first choice.

 

I'm going to go with natural resources.

We'd have to find oil reserves that are presently unleased; so we're talking employing from the ground up, (hardest part) finding the un-leased field, the study folks to do environmental studies and all that, (for an un-leased field in AK it would also likely require building an infrastructure since the vast majority of the state is undeveloped so extra jobs there), then we'll need folks to install the pumps, run the pumps, and maintain them, then we build a processing plant, more builders, installers, maintainers.

Then we could either use the refined product to support us; which would create many jobs transporting it all over the country AND lower the bills of nearly everyone in the country (gas or natural gas) OR we could sell it to other countries and put the PROFIT into running our government and lowering taxes.

General timeline; depends on who runs it ... It could likely be done in 5 years or less, but if the government is involved... likely take well over 20 years to really get going.

 

Start a war with Russia, Iran, and Lichtenstein.

Build boats and planes and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and rockets and ammunition that doesn't turn corners (otherwise known as friendly fire.)

Declare martial law and force every person who survives on welfare to assist in the martial plan.

So, instead of creating a Europe from the ashes, create an ashes from Europe.

Problem solved. Mass employment and a return to a robust capitalist economy.

 

Is there a way to return to a robust capitalist economy that doesn't involve actively killing people?

 

Obviously not everyone who is poor are criminals or drug addicts. But people with lower incomes often have lower education and less means to find better opportunity for themselves. Not the case for everyone, but it certainly happens.

But conducting mass construction of infrastructure is no good if there isn't any demand. Just building things for the sake of building them doesn't always benefit society. China is a great example for this. There are entire cities that are deserted. Because contractors were given more work to build homes, office buildings, roads than there ever was demand for. All that money went out to various parties involved with the construction projects and that was great for employment for a short while. But now they have all these buildings, and homes that just sit there collecting dust and fall apart.

I'm just saying that in a stagnant or decreasing market for stuff like homes, there is no point in building more if we can't fill the millions of homes that are already empty now and are priced at levels that are less than what they were worth 4 years ago.

 

Mostly what poor people have less of is money, and the things that money buys. The old saying that it takes money to make money is mostly true. Money gets you an education and money brings you opportunities to make more money. TV makes people think that being poor is a moral punishment from God for being drug addicts or lazy or criminals, but in the real world, it seems that rich people are at least as likely as poor people to be drug addicts, lazy or criminals -- perhaps more likely, since with all that money, they can get away with it.

This is true. You would have to pick the projects carefully, aiming for things that will be profitable or at least useful once they're completed.

 

Short answer.

No. All types of industry are needed to return to a robust capitalist economy. So that means armaments to fight wars, food, transport for labour purposes, unrestricted amounts of oil, a reduction in welfare payments, and a lot more that I can't think of at the moment.

 

What's sad is the reason why killing people and paying for wars actually works economically is because it requires the Govt to spend money. If people just realized why this works, then they would realize that you don't need to spend money on a war to stimulate the economy, you can spend money on people to rebuild America to stimulate the economy. The most prosperous times in America came when America had massive structural jobs going on. Spend money, all will be good.

 

In that case, would it maybe be possible to build a robust non-capitalist economy?

I get the impression sometimes that there is no such thing as a robust non-capitalist economy. But that seems unlikely.

 

nah

10-20 trillion

why go small?

If we're going to go over the brink we may as well go in a blazing colors

and do not tap into the 3 centuries of oil sitting underneath us. That would never ever be a good idea

and more important, do not lower corporate tax rates. We do not want to give incentives to corporations to add jobs here. Also, do not loosen epa regs as we do not want it to be easier to do things here.

 

What is a robust non-capitalist economy?

If it's the liberal way, it's spend yourself out of trouble. But that hasn't worked in the past. Any Brit who doesn't vote Labour will tell you that.

 

10-20 trillion is too much.

 

Bush de-regulating? Are you serious?

 

Government can't create jobs. (as stated by John Boehner.... government employee).

The private sector is why we're where we are now. They've privately extracted all the life out of the system.