10
The business of job creation
Megan McArdle
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Kai Ryssdal: There are probably dozens of reasons Occupy Wall Street has caught on. One reason, says commenator Megan McArdle, is its focus on work.
Megan McArdle: Occupy Wall Street's most compelling message comes from a simple website filled with the stories of desperate people who have lost their jobs. More than six million people have been out of work for more than six months. That's almost half of all unemployed people.
But what can we -- by which I take it we mean "our government" -- actually do? We don't really have another $800 billion to spend on a stimulus program that didn't bring unemployment to anything near normal. The Federal Reserve has pushed interest rates about as low as we can go. And as the Solyndra experience shows, there are real risks to subsidizing firms that promise jobs: if the company goes bust, so do the jobs and all the taxpayer money you spent on them.
So what about just hiring all those surplus workers? The idea has a lot of appeal. The longer people are out of work, the worse the toll on their finances, their skills, and their families. Breaking that cycle might permanently strengthen the workforce. It might even help us recover faster. And after all, it worked for Roosevelt, didn't it?
The problem is, this is not your FDR's America. Roosevelt controlled a government without environmental rules, community review standards, or powerful public sector unions. The United States government is no longer flexible enough to create the kind of temporary jobs we need: upgrading infrastructure, improving national parks, beautifying our public buildings.
The red tape we used to bind our civil servants has now trapped us as well. So what can we do for the unemployed, if we can't just hire them? How do we help the 99 percent? We can temporarily make unemployment benefits more generous, and allow people to stay on unemployment longer. In a normal market, we might worry that this would discourage people from looking for work. But right now there are almost five workers for every job opening. We can't make employers give them jobs. But we can make sure they don't starve while all of us wait for the economy to recover.
Ryssdal: Megan McArdle is a business writer at the Atlantic magazine. Your thoughts, whenever's good for you -- write to us.
Part of the problem is that these "charity" jobs are viewed as evil by a lot. For some people it's extra pork in the government. For others it's equivilant to slave labor. By there not being better jobs, the unemployeed will be forced to take low end jobs and forever be economic slaves. So ideas like these get attacked from both sides of the isle.
Plus, I think that the jobs of improving our national parks would get the same reception as unemployed in Georgia refusing to be farm laborer's "What, me work outside? Never".
In listening to this on my drive home, I was glad to hear someone taking seriously the question of "so what can we do?" regarding OWS, and not just politicking via ideology or conspiracy theories. I don't agree with all of her points or conclusions, but it's always nice to hear a voice of reason.
@db next, so what is your solution? The government can and must borrow, if necessary, to put 25 Million back to work. Do the Math for crissake!
Why do you think that 85+% of name Economists disagree with you?
@Scott Enderle, you need to study your History again. FDR, a conservative, just a basically optimistic one, did, in fact, put the Nation out of that GOP Deepression, not once, but twice.
Why twice? Because in 1937 following the 1936 Elections he got weak-kneed because of his own basic conservatism and paying too much attention to the ignorant deficit hawks. It took less than a year for him to realize the folly of austerity.
You've been listening to too many GOPper squawking points.
Keep well in mind that the "extraordinary debt" was run up by "fiscal CONServatives": Reagan, Bush41 & Bush43.
There is a way to not only to reduce but also to eliminate unemployment completely. It is not a new war or construction of unwanted bridges and roads. It is very simple, I'm surprised nobody suggested it yet. I agree to explain but wish to be heard. You are free to contact me to find it out.
While I generally agree with your article, I was disappointed to hear a familiar refrain that one of the reasons a jobs program won't work today is because of public employee unions. For years, unions have been on the forefront of calls for increased spending financed by increased taxes on the 1% to get people back to work in good jobs. We would gladly work with anyone who wanted to create real jobs for Americans today, as we demanded when FDR was around. Seems like the time, and the need, for us to get more demanding has come again.
I was disappointed that no one challenged her statement that "it worked for Roosevelt" The depression ended because of WWII not because of the programs that were implemented by FDR. Simply put unemployment 1940 > 14%
1942 < 5%
That is not to say that some of the programs did not have an effect however the cost was effectively the abolishment of portions of the Constitution that dealt with the roles of Congress. A cost that we still pay for today with extraordinary Debt.
That's a narrow argument that hinges on the word "temporary." Much of the current job losses are coming from the public sector. Federal, state and local job losses are wiping out any improvement in the private sector. Congress is making a conscious choice to eliminate jobs that currently exist with its self-imposed austerity. The people who had those jobs don't go away, but their contribution to the economy is severely diminished. Of course unemployment benefits should be extended in the current economy, but better to keep people employed.
I can't believe the low quality of reporters you put on your program. After rambling on about how the unemployed need to have work, her final solution is to not have them work and spend more money we don't have for unemployment benefits? The only thing dumber than this story is that marketplace put her on air.
Meagan said, "government is no longer flexible enough to create the kind of temporary jobs we need: ..."
Your wording is correct when applied to Congress. The GOP is obviously NOT going to "focus like a laser beam on Jobs ... Good Jobs" as John Boehner promised us.
While the governmentS are not AS flexible as in FDR Dreamtime, they ARE flexible enough to create Jobs.
The problem is not flexibility, but rather Will.
And reactionary forces of Greed have spent a lot of Time and Money trying to make sure that the Will does not exist.
