The American Jobs Act

D

dmaul1114

Banned
Surprised there's no thread about this and Obama's speech last night.

Anywhere, here's an overview of his jobs proposal:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/09/08/the-american-jobs-act-summarized/

1. Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow

-Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.

-A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).

-Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.

-Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.


2. Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America

-A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.

-Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs,while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.

-Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country,supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.

-Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.

-A New “Project Rebuild”, which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations.

-Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation’s spectrum.

3. Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs.

-The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years: As part of an extension of unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President’s plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility to use UI funds to best support job-seekers, including:

-Work-Sharing: UI for workers whose employers choose work-sharing over layoffs.

-A new “Bridge to Work” program: The plan builds on and improves innovative state programs where those displaced take temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job training.

-Innovative entrepreneurship and wage insurance programs: States will also be empowered to implement wage insurance to help reemploy older workers and programs that make it easier for unemployed workers to start their own businesses.

-A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.

-Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.

-Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

4. Tax Relief for Every American Worker and Family

-Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.

-Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket.

5. Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.

To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the tax cuts, and him asking the Supercommittee on teh budget to identify even more spending cuts to pay for this. But a lot of the other parts are pretty good--putting teachers and first responders back to work, using infrastructure building to get construction workers back to work etc.

And while it's not listed here, in the speech he did harp again on the need for the wealthiest to pay their fair share in taxes, using Warren Buffett as an example etc.

Politically it was a very good speech to get his campaign rolling. Clearly put pressure on republicans to compromise and do what's best for the economy and getting people back to work, saying ordinary people don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months until the election for things to get done etc.
 
A lot of it sounds good, but it leaves me wondering why something like this wasn't proposed 2 years ago. Oh yeah, because the election wasn't a year away then.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']A lot of it sounds good, but it leaves me wondering why something like this wasn't proposed 2 years ago. Oh yeah, because the election wasn't a year away then.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

I also thought that any suggestion of tax cuts was supposed to make card carrying Democrats riot in the streets and burn pictures of George W. Bush.
 
I was busy watching the Republican debate from the other night instead...heh.

I share the same dismay at all the tax cuts when tax cuts have already been proven not to work. I haven't seen the speech yet and I intend to, but I can't shake the feeling that this will have little impact on raising the wage floor that's already at too low a level.

Worker retraining is good, but the unintended consequences of recent grads not being able to land those jobs that would otherwise be available is extremely problematic. So far, it just seems like another band-aid after an M-80 just blew off your hand.
 
That work sharing stuff is very disturbing. Essentially creating this weird gap of partially employed people (wonder how well your company will want to insure you if you're only part-time now?) that are subsidized? Where's that Guinness jpg...
 
[quote name='IRHari']Everybody chill out guys. As long as we cut taxes and regulations everything will be fine.[/QUOTE]

you are being Sarcastic right?

When has it ever been good to let the foxes oversee the hen house, lately it seems as the wealthy businesses/people get a chance to make more money they take it and careless about the lower class
 
[quote name='Romis']lately it seems as the job creators get a chance to make more money they take it and careless about the moocher class[/QUOTE]

Fixed to be more conservaccurate.
 
Funny that I saw this. Was just thinking about whether someone had made a thread about Obama's job speech yet , since I got an email from AmeriPAC about exactly that. They've really been on an tear lately sending messages about how Obama's gonna take all our guns , take political and religious TV shows/radio programs off the air except for those of a "super liberal" slant , giving all the illegals our jobs and amnesty , and spending tons of tax payers dollars on the ground zero mosque. I know that they are just fanatical and not worth paying attention to , but I can't help reading the emails they send me just for a laugh.

Here's the one about the job act:
http://emailactivity.ecn5.com/engines/publicPreview.aspx?blastID=409671&emailID=146008260

As far as reality is concerned , some good ideas in the plan , and hopefully it can actually get passed through.
 
It is a bit too little and too late, however look at StarKnights link there is really no rational response to this but that won't stop the usual fools to find a way to be against it.

The crazies have to really ratchet up the batshittery AND CAPS LOCK to try and keep things as bad as possible for the average American.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']This is the second recovery summer chill out guys. Everything is fine.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']Everybody chill out guys. As long as we cut taxes and regulations everything will be fine.[/QUOTE]

Chill out. Everything will be fine guys. tax cuts =~ stimulus checks except tax cuts are better because
1) Money is dispersed quicker (See $879M of the stimulus plan has yet to be spent)
2) Less risk of fraud, waste and abuse (see Solyndra, Recipient of $527M in Stimulus Funds, Files for Bankruptcy)
3) Smaller perception of nepotism
 
Republican leaders fear the political consequences if the GOP comes to be seen as supporting tax breaks for everyone except average workers.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-jobs-20110910,0,2942289.story

This summarizes the policy from a political standpoint to me.

I'd rather see a plan that emphasizes infrastructure spending and balances that spending by eliminating the Obama-nee-Bush-tax-cuts on those earning $250K and up.

But I'll settle for something that provides more income to real people - those who have to spend money on things. Our economic slump is a problem of demand, and we can only solve it by trying to effect demand. A payroll tax reduction is one way of helping that.

That all said, I'm going to enjoy sitting back and listen to and watch Republicans argue that we can't cut taxes. That will be amusing.

The poor wage-slave Republican voters who will ape the tortured logic of the GOP, and repeat right-wing dogma uncritically will be depressing to observe. I can't imagine something more bothersome to me than some cat who brings home $14.50 an hour and puts in a 40-50 hour work week spouting off that Obama is a socialist who wants to grow government and steal people's earnings, so he would reject a payroll tax that would put money in his own pocket in order to continue to fund the Bush-era tax cuts.

Now that kind of argument will be fucking heartbreaking.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']A lot of it sounds good, but it leaves me wondering why something like this wasn't proposed 2 years ago. Oh yeah, because the election wasn't a year away then.[/QUOTE]
Except he did propose this in 2009 with his economy stimulus and yet here we are still in a recession. Deja vu anyone? I couldn't stop laughing when he first said it was paid for and then announced the 'how'. More phantom cuts for money we already didn't have.

Also, company hiring kickbacks will not improve consumer spending, which is where the recession is.
 
[quote name='Jodou']Except he did propose this in 2009 with his economy stimulus and yet here we are still in a recession. Deja vu anyone? I couldn't stop laughing when he first said it was paid for and then announced the 'how'. More phantom cuts for money we already didn't have.

Also, company hiring kickbacks will not improve consumer spending, which is where the recession is.[/QUOTE]
You mean cause consumers have no money and hiring people won't somehow give them money to spend?:roll:

Btw, how's your union working out for you nowadays? Or is privatization only hiring non-union guards?
 
Yeah, this proposal is MUCH more focused on getting people back to work than the 2009 stimulus funding bill was, what with the tax credits for hiring people who are unemployed currently etc.

Only time will tell if it works (if most of it even gets passed), but I think it has more of a chance (if passed) to make a dent in unemployment.

And yes, that should help consumer spending some. Though honestly I'm not super concerned about that. It would be a plus if this recession gave consumerism a bit of a kick in the nuts and people quit spending money willy nilly on crap they don't really need...

I'd really be interested to see how much spending on necessities like groceries is down, vs. spending in luxury stores like Best Buy that only sell non-essential items.
 
[quote name='Jodou']Except he did propose this in 2009 with his economy stimulus and yet here we are still in a recession.[/QUOTE]

It is too bad the stimulus wasn't bigger.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']A lot of it sounds good, but it leaves me wondering why something like this wasn't proposed 2 years ago. Oh yeah, because the election wasn't a year away then.[/QUOTE]

Ditto. My one complaint with the proposed plan is that the majority of the cuts amount to nothing more than payroll tax cuts, which do not have as big an impact on the economy/recovery. I wish we would just do away with NAFTA but that's never going to happen.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You mean cause consumers have no money and hiring people won't somehow give them money to spend?:roll:

Btw, how's your union working out for you nowadays? Or is privatization only hiring non-union guards?[/QUOTE]
It will give the people out of work money to spend on food and necessities, not luxuries. It does not improve consumer confidence and it doesn't directly impact the recession.

And what union? Pretty sure you have the wrong person, because I'm against them.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/09/zakaria-obamas-proposals-not-enough/

Fareed Zakaria's take on the bill in a short interview. I agree with him pretty much 100%. Especially on the need for a long-term growth strategy focused on spurring investment rather than a short-terms strategy focused on promoting consumption.[/QUOTE]
I agree with Zakaria that this is a somewhat short term solution, but considering he's a less than moderate conservative, I question his solution to social programs which mostlikely involve cutting them as I'm skeptical whenever someone uses language like "entitlements" and "reform" nowadays. I'm also not sure if he's really hinting towards more privatization on public works projects because if history has shown us anythings, corporations will half-ass infrastructure, with the more egregious example of wireless and broadband infrastructure in rural/semi-rural areas. This also bleeds into areas like research when most of the research in the country is actually not conducted by the private sector or by the time it reaches the private sector, a lot of the expensive groundwork has already been done.

[quote name='Jodou']It will give the people out of work money to spend on food and necessities, not luxuries. It does not improve consumer confidence and it doesn't directly impact the recession.[/quote]
Luxuries are always purchased unless you consider internet, cable, or cellphones, etc necessities.

And what union? Pretty sure you have the wrong person, because I'm against them.
Click to expand...
You do know that the prison lobby is one of the strongest lobbies in the country that are heavily bolstered by unions right? Just because you're not involved in one doesn't mean that you don't benefit heavily from them.

And no, I do not have the wrong person.
 
Problem is everybody wants the economy to get better, but each party wants their party to be standing front and center to take the standing ovation when it happens. The grandstanding has only led to underfunded projects doomed to failure and a credit rating drop that should have never have happened.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I agree with Zakaria that this is a somewhat short term solution, but considering he's a less than moderate conservative,[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say that. I think Zakaria is pretty firmly a centrist. He's more conservative on some fiscal issues--but not always. I seem to recall him being pretty supportive of the stimulus and even agreeing with Krugman that it was too small--though I'm not 100% on that and don't care enough to go dig up his old columns!

He's one of my favorite commentators, and both his books are very good as well. I like that he's not a pure left/right guy and tends to have pretty nuanced and thought out opinions/stances on issues that don't just follow party lines like most writers out there these days. I don't always agree with him by any means, but even when I disagree I can usually respect his stance as it's thought out and not just partisan rhetoric.
 
One area proposed that has a history of helping in times like this is spending specifically on infastructure, many of the bridges, roads, & highways are in die need of repair. If they could do something similiar to what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Tenenessee Valley Authority Act did in 1933 to help get people to work, and tackle energy problems. I'm sure corporations would fight tooth & nail to stop it likely
 
Aside from the fact that they would use your teeth and your nails, yeah, pretty spot on.

Why should they risk anything when they have blue collar foot soldiers who will slit their own throats in order to sate the bloodlust of their corporate masters?
 
[quote name='Romis']One area proposed that has a history of helping in times like this is spending specifically on infastructure, many of the bridges, roads, & highways are in die need of repair. If they could do something similiar to what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Tenenessee Valley Authority Act did in 1933 to help get people to work, and tackle energy problems. I'm sure corporations would fight tooth & nail to stop it likely[/QUOTE]

Conservatives will never allow a Newer Deal. To them, that was the equivalent of 40 years in the desert. Only they don't have a Moses/Ronald Reagan to lead us back to the "promised land."
 
I support the idea, but wish it was more like 80% building projects and 20% payroll cuts or whatever. At least with building projects are guarenteed to put people to work. (Even though it's temporary work)
Payroll tax breaks? That's good for me as a worker, but I don't see how that changes into hiring more workers.

Also, the idea of "We'll make the super comitte find ways to pay for this later" doesn't seem to be thought out that well.
 
I think we're all mistaken if we think that unemployment will be solved with these back breaking infrastructure jobs. There are plenty of jobs to be had in retail, and food service but nobody wants them. Hell, even Comcast is hiring technicians with ZERO experience.

Americans don't want to do hard jobs. This is especially true for the out of work lawyers, pharmaceutical reps, and middle management types. They feel entitled to their career choice even though positions are evaporating by the minute.

I'm not blowing smoke either. I used to work in the recruiting field. I can't tell you how many people turned down jobs because it involved a "demotion" from assistant director to manager or relocation. The money might have been very close to what they were making before but Americans have too much pride to go backwards. I've had guys turn down six figure positions because it involved relocation.

People would much rather work odd jobs, sell on ebay, sell a car, or sell their house and move in with parents or kids instead of getting anywhere close to a saw or pickaxe.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I think we're all mistaken if we think that unemployment will be solved with these back breaking infrastructure jobs. There are plenty of jobs to be had in retail, and food service but nobody wants them. Hell, even Comcast is hiring technicians with ZERO experience.

Americans don't want to do hard jobs. This is especially true for the out of work lawyers, pharmaceutical reps, and middle management types. They feel entitled to their career choice even though positions are evaporating by the minute.

I'm not blowing smoke either. I used to work in the recruiting field. I can't tell you how many people turned down jobs because it involved a "demotion" from assistant director to manager or relocation. The money might have been very close to what they were making before but Americans have too much pride to go backwards. I've had guys turn down six figure positions because it involved relocation.

People would much rather work odd jobs, sell on ebay, sell a car, or sell their house and move in with parents or kids instead of getting anywhere close to a saw or pickaxe.[/QUOTE]

Reposting just in case anyone skipped over this.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I think we're all mistaken if we think that unemployment will be solved with these back breaking infrastructure jobs. There are plenty of jobs to be had in retail, and food service but nobody wants them. Hell, even Comcast is hiring technicians with ZERO experience.

Americans don't want to do hard jobs. This is especially true for the out of work lawyers, pharmaceutical reps, and middle management types. They feel entitled to their career choice even though positions are evaporating by the minute.

I'm not blowing smoke either. I used to work in the recruiting field. I can't tell you how many people turned down jobs because it involved a "demotion" from assistant director to manager or relocation. The money might have been very close to what they were making before but Americans have too much pride to go backwards. I've had guys turn down six figure positions because it involved relocation.

People would much rather work odd jobs, sell on ebay, sell a car, or sell their house and move in with parents or kids instead of getting anywhere close to a saw or pickaxe.[/QUOTE]
So are u working in fast food or taking a pay cut. I do agree with u, but there are some people that did take a 20%-50% pay cut. Understand that places like comcast has so many people applying. People that had like a high end job like DM or whatever are overqualified for some of the low paying jobs. Would u hire someone that had a nice resume knowing that they will take anything at the moment and will take a better job later if it came around? Most places that hire dont want a high turn over rate. True, some people think that they too good for these low wage jobs, but see if u are willing to do that if u were in their shoes.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I think we're all mistaken if we think that unemployment will be solved with these back breaking infrastructure jobs.[/QUOTE]

Agreed on this point. The rest of your post was just a little too broad to qualify.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Alternately, WTF does Comcast need with people swinging pickaxes?[/QUOTE]

What else do you think happens to people who threaten to switch to Verizon?
 
images
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No true American, you say?

Alternately, WTF does Comcast need with people swinging pickaxes?[/QUOTE]

You know what I mean, dude. People don't want to install cable or lay asphalt in 100 degree weather. Americans don't like to work hard anymore. It sucks to say it but it's true.

As for broad generalities, isn't the unemployment number a broad generality? Its lumps every unemployed person together regardless of back story, education, or ability. Out of that huge number, there's a small percentage that's qualified to work on these massive infrastructure jobs. Do you really want the neck beard that got laid off from Gamestop helping out with a dam?

@Punisher

I work in healthcare. 3% raise last year and 1.5% this year. Barely enough to keep up with everything else. That being said, I've taken a pretty big paycut from when I ran my own recruiting firm. Luckily, I had a trade to fall back on when the economy hit the shitter and everybody stopped hiring.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No true American, you say?

Alternately, WTF does Comcast need with people swinging pickaxes?[/QUOTE]

I have Comcast. This might explain why my internet sucks.

[quote name='depascal22']
I work in healthcare. 3% raise last year and 1.5% this year. Barely enough to keep up with everything else. That being said, I've taken a pretty big paycut from when I ran my own recruiting firm. Luckily, I had a trade to fall back on when the economy hit the shitter and everybody stopped hiring.[/QUOTE]

Just be glad you work for a company that believes in raises. I currently work for one that outright says if you want a raise, apply for a different position.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You know what I mean, dude. People don't want to install cable or lay asphalt in 100 degree weather. Americans don't like to work hard anymore. It sucks to say it but it's true.[/QUOTE]

I totally disagree. By your definition hard work only equals manual labor. Well how about lawyers who work 80 hour weeks? Doctors who are on call/working for 36 hours straight? Programmers who never see the light of day? Americans work harder than most but we don't necessarily do so in the most efficient manner. Additionally, IMO the solution to our current economic crisis lies in a better educated workforce and not manual labor.
 
[quote name='depascal22']

Americans don't want to do hard jobs. This is especially true for the out of work lawyers, pharmaceutical reps, and middle management types. They feel entitled to their career choice even though positions are evaporating by the minute.

I'm not blowing smoke either. I used to work in the recruiting field. I can't tell you how many people turned down jobs because it involved a "demotion" from assistant director to manager or relocation. The money might have been very close to what they were making before but Americans have too much pride to go backwards.[/QUOTE]

A job is not the same as a career. A demotion for most people equals career suicide. Yes it is true that such people can do other odd jobs but in doing so they are turning their backs on their career and chosen profession. How does it help our economy if unemployed laweyers, pharma reps and middle management take other odd jobs? long term a shift from careers to jobs would have an adverse effect on our economy.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You know what I mean, dude. People don't want to install cable or lay asphalt in 100 degree weather. Americans don't like to work hard anymore. It sucks to say it but it's true.[/QUOTE]

I take it you've never been involved in an outsourcing operation.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']I totally disagree. By your definition hard work only equals manual labor. Well how about lawyers who work 80 hour weeks? Doctors who are on call/working for 36 hours straight? Programmers who never see the light of day? Americans work harder than most but we don't necessarily do so in the most efficient manner. Additionally, IMO the solution to our current economic crisis lies in a better educated workforce and not manual labor.[/QUOTE]

I do agree with that.

It's not that people aren't willing to work hard so much as it is that blue collar/manual labor jobs have become stigmatized.

And on top of the stigmatization, there aren't many good blue collar union jobs relative to the past. So even for those willing to do the work it usually means lesser pay, benefits and job stability than our parents or grand parents had in blue collar careers.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do agree with that.

It's not that people aren't willing to work hard so much as it is that blue collar/manual labor jobs have become stigmatized.

And on top of the stigmatization, there aren't many good blue collar union jobs relative to the past. So even for those willing to do the work it usually means lesser pay, benefits and job stability than our parents or grand parents had in blue collar careers.[/QUOTE]

Ditto. These jobs are a short term solution to a lifelong employment problem. Blue collar careers have been marginalized or outsourced, leaving folks with few options and collecting unemployment.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do agree with that.

It's not that people aren't willing to work hard so much as it is that blue collar/manual labor jobs have become stigmatized.

And on top of the stigmatization, there aren't many good blue collar union jobs relative to the past. So even for those willing to do the work it usually means lesser pay, benefits and job stability than our parents or grand parents had in blue collar careers.[/QUOTE]

Personally I think it's more the latter. Was frycook or shelf stocker ever a glamourous job?
 
[quote name='camoor']Personally I think it's more the latter. Was frycook or shelf stocker ever a glamourous job?[/QUOTE]

No they were never glamorous jobs but by the same token they were never union jobs either, which is what dmaul was referring too. Jobs in food/restaurant industry have been available for years but in the northeast they have been manned my immigrants since the 80's. Before anyone chimes in and says that "the avg American feels that they are too good for such jobs" just take a look at what they pay and the benefits they offer. Such jobs do not pay enough to support your avg American lifestyle (at least in the northeast).
 
[quote name='depascal22']You know what I mean, dude. People don't want to install cable or lay asphalt in 100 degree weather. Americans don't like to work hard anymore. It sucks to say it but it's true.

As for broad generalities, isn't the unemployment number a broad generality? Its lumps every unemployed person together regardless of back story, education, or ability. Out of that huge number, there's a small percentage that's qualified to work on these massive infrastructure jobs. Do you really want the neck beard that got laid off from Gamestop helping out with a dam?[/QUOTE]
I half agree with what you're saying, but the how it plays out is that if/when hiring rates increase again, then you're still kinda stuck as an employer looking at a person that went "slumming" in a different job capacity compared to people that might not be as rusty.

On the otherhand, you're completely right about the generality of unemployment numbers. By education alone, unemployment rates are about 5% for college grads, and 15%+ for hs grads.

And to be honest, a neckbeard would end up being the gofer for those with more experience, so I would have no problem with that.;)

[quote name='kill3r7']I totally disagree. By your definition hard work only equals manual labor. Well how about lawyers who work 80 hour weeks? Doctors who are on call/working for 36 hours straight? Programmers who never see the light of day? Americans work harder than most but we don't necessarily do so in the most efficient manner. Additionally, IMO the solution to our current economic crisis lies in a better educated workforce and not manual labor.[/QUOTE]
That point is actually a big reason why we have the income disparity rate that we have today. Better educating the populace is important, BUT there will ALWAYS be a need for manual labor in this country and we need to make sure that there is a manufacturing base as well as living wages for those that do those jobs. Outsourcing service jobs just supports low domestic wages and even depresses areas that they've been outsourced too...a sweatshop is still a sweatshop; location doesn't make a difference.

And yes, those professionals may work those crazy hours, but ask any one of them if they'd rather work a manual labor job for half the time and less than half the money in the outdoors. No one is questioning that they work hard, but manual labor is MUCH tougher.
 
Maybe the invisible hand should stop beating itself off and work to raise wages for these jobs that require people to pick up a pickaxe, then.

"People don't want to work" is an unfinished sentence. People don't want to work for shit wages and no benefits. The middle class and working class in the United States experience a decline in wages, a severe decline in benefits, and a decline in the spending power of that dollar on top of it all - and you have the audacity to blame people for not having a work ethic.

Now, don't get me wrong. I still think your world where jobs are plentiful and people are lazy is a bullshit world that doesn't exist at all except in the imagination of the already imaginary Horatio Alger. But if it were real, maybe it means it's time that "real jobs" saw some wage increases like the CEOs are getting year in and year out. We have a rhetoric that defends the preposterously high wage and benefits packages CEOs get - we have to pay people for their performance or we'll lose them. CEOs must be well compensated for their work, or else they won't want the job.

You have the logic that applies to the cats who fly first class and have three martini lunches; now take that logic and apply it to the motherfucker with the pickaxe and the bologna sammich on wonder bread lunch.
 
[quote name='dohdough']

That point is actually a big reason why we have the income disparity rate that we have today. Better educating the populace is important, BUT there will ALWAYS be a need for manual labor in this country and we need to make sure that there is a manufacturing base as well as living wages for those that do those jobs. Outsourcing service jobs just supports low domestic wages and even depresses areas that they've been outsourced too...a sweatshop is still a sweatshop; location doesn't make a difference.

And yes, those professionals may work those crazy hours, but ask any one of them if they'd rather work a manual labor job for half the time and less than half the money in the outdoors. No one is questioning that they work hard, but manual labor is MUCH tougher.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you that we need to pay our workforce better. The middle class is the backbone of our society and we should try everything under the sun to keep it from shrinking. This is ultimately the job of our goverment because we all know that corporations are inherently driven by the bottom line. With that said I feel that our workforce needs to be better educated so we don't have to fear offshoring or outsourcing as much. Many professionals today are getting jobs overseas because they are educated enough to take advantage of such opportunities.

Also, I was responding to an earlier poster who claimed that Americans don't like to work hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top