Anyone who has had to manage the P&L of a business, especially one which answers to outside shareholders, will tell that if they did this, they would be out of a job soon after, as would the "extra" workers they hired. If I am a hiring manager, do you think I'm going to put my own employment at-risk to hire more people than I need for some abstract social good? Not likely. I will only hire if I anticipate demand. Even then, I can't just hire anyone, I have to hire people with the right skills to meet that demand. From what I've read, there is a big skill gap between many of the unemployed and the jobs that are being created. This shows up in the differentials in unemployment rates among various demographics, with some demographics (graduate-degreed) being at essentially full employment and others (youth, new college grads) being at levels of unemployment even beyond the Great Depression.
Well said. From when 'Economic Rationalism' was the buzz phrase, First World infrastructure has been run down. Now is the time to rebuild. Politics: I don't care about left or right. Liberal or Conservative.
I mean take a chance and go out on a limb and start hiring even if you don't need the extra few workers, in the hope that if everyone pitches in a little, we can reach critical mass and start the economy up again. ------------------------------ The first one up to do additional hiring with that theory in mind is the fed and state gov't. I suppose the biggest boost in employment recently was the creation of the TSA. After that was the temp hiring of census workers. This is not working to boost the economy.
Now you've taken a great opening quote and turned it into stupidity. The government doesn't need to start hiring more. The government needs to get out of the way. Every job the government creates is a job the private sector can't. The government has too many regulations, rules and hoops to jump through for small business. Government doesn't create - it destroys. The government is supported on the backs of free enterprise. Only the strenth of the American economy has allowed government to become the huge monster that it is. Make America a good place to do business again by removing the thousands of regulations the Obama administration has created. Presently government is strangling business.
California is the leader in free shit. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7277242682364690.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop "From the mid-1980s to 2005, California's population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000..."
âCanât you live within your income?â He asked? âNo,â she said. âItâs all I can do to live within my credit.â
Take a look at the GDP numbers released yesterday, they show that while private sector spending was up, government spending was down.: http://money.cnn.com//2012/04/27/news/economy/gdp-economic-growth/index.htm Apparently that is why GDP growth was "only" 2.2%, instead of the 2.6% that was "forecast". So it seems that public sector employment has been kept in check, partly due to the pullout from Iraq and Fughanistan. Would going back to the "W" system be a better way to go?? You know, the one that took the US from a $300 budget SURPLUS (when Dubya took office), to a trillion dollar DEFICIT?? Rules and regulations prevent the type of greed and manipulation that caused the recent financial meltdown that almost led to the "Greatest Depression", and got the US into the recession that it finds itself mired in. Loosening those restrictions would not foster economic growth, but rather, allow those who believe "greed is good" to thrive as they did under Dubya.
If that made any sense then the bigger the government the better the economy. That's not how it works. Government is a drag on the economy in the medium and long run. Sure, government can inject money into the economy through spending and inflationary FED operations but it is our money they are spending and loaning. The only way to a robust economy in the long term is to shrink our bloated government and remove government impediments to business creation. Liberals have a difficult time understanding the reality of this. Take Europe for example.
Not a bigger government, but a more efficient one. One that does the job that it is mandated to do (enforce existing laws and regulations) and nothing more. And certainly not one that legislates removing restrictions on corporations that have historically proven to be self-serving and bottom-line oriented. You know, the ones who pay eight-figure bonuses to CEO's who put thousands out of jobs, in order to "make numbers".