Bush Job Creation Promises Failing to Deliver

[GePap]

Protectionism is not the answer to this problem. Do I have an answer? No. This might be a structural change in the economy, which can only be dealt by reworking social programs.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by GePap
Protectionism is not the answer to this problem. Do I have an answer? No. This might be a structural change in the economy, which can only be dealt by reworking social programs.

Why is protectionism in a limited circumstance counter-productive, however? You've not answered that question.

[DanS]

The reason why there hasn't been much job growth is because businesses have been able to increase output greatly while not hiring any more people. In other words, people are becoming hugely more productive, which is in turn hugely beneficial occurence for Americans. I wonder why some are trying their best to kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs? Unemployment is not that bad and will get better over time.

Here's a graph that shows productivity growth -- output per hour of non-farm business. As you can see, we haven't had it this good for 40 years. Our work hours have become about 5% more productive in each of the last two years!

[GePap]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Why is protectionism in a limited circumstance counter-productive, however? You've not answered that question.

Becuase it is never limited in time, and it send a bad message anyway to states, that the solution to internal political worries is monkeying with the international trade system.

[MrBaggins]

DanS> I'd disagree with your assessment. I'd say that the productivity helps not the entire populace, but primarily the corporate balance sheets, which might translate to dividends (to the upper and a steadily shrinking middle class), but rarely will that wealth trickle down.

While productivity is increasing, in fact, there is no overwhelming reason to hire new people, as a company is showing growth, without the risk of new hires.

[Whoha]

most of the jobs being created are being termed mcjobs.

[DanS]

I'd say that the productivity helps not the entire populace, but primarily the corporate balance sheets, which might translate to dividends (to the upper and a steadily shrinking middle class), but rarely will that wealth trickle down.

That's bull****, Baggins. Corporations are taking a very low percentage of their business in profits (dividends are tied to profits over the long run). It's pretty much all flowing through to the employees. See the following graph that I prepared showing this fact.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by GePap


Becuase it is never limited in time,

No clue what you're referring to here.

and it send a bad message anyway to states, that the solution to internal political worries is monkeying with the international trade system.

Which would concern those who we are currently leaking wealth and jobs too. I'd rather discriminate against several third/second world countries, than my own populace.

Our natural trading partners would actually see more trade, and be happier. Equal trading partners should be trading... where possible. You shouldn't have poor nations just leeching off large ones.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DanS


That's bull****, Baggins. Corporations are taking a very low percentage of their business in profits. It's flowing through to the employees. See the following graph that I prepared showing this fact.

These figures entirely ignore capital reinvestment and debt repayment.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


That's bull****, Baggins. Corporations are taking a very low percentage of their business in profits (dividends are tied to profits over the long run). It's pretty much all flowing through to the employees. See the following graph that I prepared showing this fact.

Yes, corporate pay is way out of line-it hurts profits.

As for productivity helping-since when? Americans are working longer hours than ever. The question that matters is: are wages and salaries up to compensate workers for this marvelous jump in productivity? If not, all it means is corporations are getting more sweat out of less people and keeping the difference.

[DanS]

Those figures don't ignore capital reinvestment, but they do ignore debt repayment.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

Our natural trading partners would actually see more trade, and be happier. Equal trading partners should be trading... where possible. You shouldn't have poor nations just leeching off large ones.

The fact is that richer nations win form tarde more than small ones-I have no idea were you get the notion it is poor states that gain the most from free trade-since they begin with a huge disadvantage.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, corporate pay is way out of line-it hurts profits.

Another good point... executives typically make disproportionate salaries to their actual value to the corporation.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by GePap


The fact is that richer nations win form tarde more than small ones-I have no idea were you get the notion it is poor states that gain the most from free trade-since they begin with a huge disadvantage.

Case in point the recent tech-job exodus to India.

Every job lost negatively effects the US at a number of levels... payroll tax (partially), income tax and sales tax for instance... it sucks that wealth out of the US economic cycle.

[DanS]

Yes, corporate pay is way out of line-it hurts profits.

Well, guess who gets paid by corporations? It's ordinary Americans.

As for productivity helping-since when?

Since forever.

Americans are working longer hours than ever.

No they aren't. What are you talking about?

are wages and salaries up to compensate workers for this marvelous jump in productivity

It trails several months, but yes they are being compensated. Compensation per hour increased 3.9% in '01, 2.3% in '02 and 3.2% in '03.