We Need a Jobs Package, Not a Stimulus Package

by: Mike Lux

Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 16:00


This seems like Framing and Political Strategy 101 to me, but since few other people are talking in this way, let me just lay out a basic idea: all this talk about doing a stimulus package versus not doing a stimulus package is fundamentally besides the point. What we need is a comprehensive policy package that is very simply focused on one thing and one thing only: jobs.

I know the policy wonks on Capitol Hill may be confused by that paragraph because, they would say, well, a stimulus program would create jobs. Well, yeah, that is the idea of stimulus. But my point is this: the politics of a second stimulus package are a dead end. The politics of having a debate about a policy package that will create jobs is a helpful thing. Announcing a second stimulus package gets Democrats into a defensive crouch about why the first one failed, and gets us into that same "can we get to 60" dance with Ben Nelson, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins that caused the first stimulus bill to be pared back and rendered less effective.

Voters don't know what it means to say you are going to stimulate the economy, but they do know what a job is. And right now, what we need is jobs sooner rather than later. My point here is not to just rename the stimulus bill the jobs bill. In fact, there are quite a few things the White House and Congress can do to focus on jobs that don't involve just spending more, although more money will certainly need to be spent. Here is what I would include in a comprehensive package:

Mike Lux :: We Need a Jobs Package, Not a Stimulus Package
1. Take on, far more aggressively than now, the currency manipulation going on in China. Our balance of trade problem and big losses in our manufacturing sector will not be solved without aggressively dealing with the country that we have by far and away our biggest trade deficit with, and China's policy of currency manipulation is a huge part of the problem.

2. A serious industrial policy that helps emerging industries grow. Every other industrialized country in the world has an industrial policy that helps emerging industries quickly grow and create new jobs. Yes, it does mean picking winners and losers, but we need to get over our reticence about doing that so that we can help the industries with the most potential for producing big numbers of good jobs.

3. Force every big bank that was propped up during the financial collapse- which is pretty much all of them when you include the Federal Reserve dollars sloshing around the system- to actually make loans to businesses so that they can create jobs. This "money for nothing and your kicks for free" philosophy has to end. The big banks need to understand very clearly that we expect something more from them, after all they have been given, than merging with other banks and giving record bonuses to their executives.

4. Direct the Justice Department to actually use existing antitrust law (and then beef it up where necessary) to break up the big banks and other mega-corporations stifling small business and competition. Promoting real competition in these industries will produce real jobs.

5. Fundamentally restructure the corporate tax system to incentivize American job creation and dis-incentivize the outsourcing of jobs.

6. Consistent with what every other industrialized country in the world, and consistent with existing WTO rules, have our federal purchases (20% plus of the economy right now) buy from companies producing goods in America. Big business and media elites will scream protectionism, but it would just be doing what every other economic power does.

7. And yes, spend some more money- on infrastructure, on green jobs, on state revenue sharing. On all those things that were foolishly cut in the last stimulus package by the Nelson/Specter/Collins/Snowe cabal. But this time, just add the money into the federal budget so the job-killing Senators can't screw things up with a filibuster.

I've said it before and will likely say it again): this economy will not recover, and Barack Obama will not have a successful presidency, without a laser beam focus on creating good jobs. Resuscitating the big banks, whether you believe that needed to be done or not, did not create any new jobs (although it did save a few bank executives' jobs, and I'm sure their record bonuses will someday trickle down to the rest of us. Or maybe not). What we need is not another short-term stimulus package, what we need is a real plan, a comprehensive plan, to create good jobs ASAP over the short and long term.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
what do you think of this framing? (4.00 / 2)
What could 1,000 West Virginians accomplish in 1,000 Days?

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

Hurrrah! And so what? (0.00 / 0)
Hurrah!

The real Mike Lux finally stepped out from the behind the koolaid chuggin' apologist for Obama who temporarily replaced him!

And so what?

There is nothing in this particular diary or anywhere else about the importance of creating jobs that everybody didn't already know when the ridiculous tax-cutting slo-mo first stimulus was enacted, and even if there was some moron living in a tree in Idaho who somehow didn't understand the importance of creating jobs to stimulate the economy, Paul Krugman kept explaining and explaining and predicting that Obama would have to come back to Congress for a second stimulus at a time when he didn't have nearly as much political momentum.

And even if our hypothetical moron living in a tree in Idaho didn't have a subscription to the New York Times or access to the internet, maybe somebody climbed his tree and repeated a great speech Dennis Kucinich made way back in November 2008, explaining how Obama and Geithner and Paulson and Bush were busy selling out the future of the United States to save criminal bankers.

And here we are.

So welcome back to the bright, sunny world of relatively honest political commentary, Mike!

But while you were snoozing your way through the crisis like that other legendary "koolaid" over-indulger and sleepy-head Rip van Winkle, this sad old world changed around you, and now you come running back into the assembly of relatively honest citizens shouting "jobs, jobs, jobs ..." and it's very old news.


[ Parent ]
Wonks (4.00 / 1)
Wonks get caught up in discussing means rather than ends. So a stimulus package gets framed as to whether it should be based upon tax breaks, loans or other techniques. This loses sight of the goal - putting people to work.

Similarly the health program gets bogged down in funding mechanisms and cost control instead of focusing on health care itself.

We should set the goals first:
1. Every person who wants to work is guaranteed a job
2. Every person has access to all necessary care

The goals are easy to state and easy for everyone to understand. In Europe the are much more sensitive to these aims. So Germany has instituted job cutbacks with the loss of income partially subsidized by the government, for example.

We need a WPA or CCC type of program. There are lots of things that need to be done, from increasing teachers in the classroom, to providing aid to the infirm to expanding social programs. This is in addition to the traditional hammer and shovel tasks that usually come to mind.

The problem is that this is seen as "socialism" and that business still likes the idea of surplus labor to hold down wages. They are so caught up in this ideology that they have lost sight of the fact that unemployed workers can't buy their products.

Unfortunately congress is just as ideologically blind (or bought) as business and the result is half-hearted, symbolic or ineffective programs.

It attitudes are going to change it is not going to come from either of these directions.

Policies not Politics


The only way (0.00 / 0)
to effectively increase worker's real wages in a free market economy is through full employment.

Democrats used the say the words: "full employment".

It's been a decade since I heard a Democrat talk about the importance of that idea.


[ Parent ]
Full employment (0.00 / 0)
Is, speaking in economic theory terms, not the greatest idea because, per the Phillips curve, it will lead to high inflation. It is also hard to define as there will always be people who consider themselves underemployed and thus will report to the government when they do their surveys that they are so, and then unemployment is no longer 0%.

(I date a labor economist)

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
"jobs" and "economy" are not the same thing (4.00 / 1)
what you're pointing to goes beyond framing.  You're asking them to abandon the idea that the market will solve everything and the government shouldn't intervene, except to bolster the market when necessary, so the market can do its magical equilibrium dance.

I agree with your idea, but I am skeptical that many of the Democrats in Congress or the Administration share it because of the 15 years of kowtowing that members of both parites - but especially the Democrats, because they were overcompensating - have had to do to supply side economics, minimal government, monetarism, comparative advantage, and everything else that goes with Reagan - Clinton economics.  This might be why the obvious framing escapes them.

Or, it could be that you are right and they are simply bad politicians.  I don't really know, but I have learned to be skeptical.


Yeah. (4.00 / 1)
It goes beyond framing. A lot of these policy ideas are controversial to quite a few Democrats.

[ Parent ]
i do agree with you - inexplicably controversial (0.00 / 0)
they're so slow to respond to changing circumstances!  It may have to do with the lack of leadership stemming from the number of Clinton appointees who are now Obama appointees on economic/social issues.

[ Parent ]
The frame is right (4.00 / 2)
Nobody really knows what the hell "stimulus" is.

I don't think pursuing China would work given that they are effectively financing our deficit.  More broadly, I support many of these proposals though they still will not confront the central reality of the global economy:

In a global free labor market, probably 80% of Americans are overpaid.

Paul had a good piece this weekend about how the political debate doesn't address the magnitude of the problems we face.  On no issue is this more true than the issue of globalization.  Almost all of corporate America has some high level project with a name like "Global Job Efficiency Optimization".  All the business consulting firms (eg McKinsey) are pitching these projects to senior corporate leadership.  I have heard these pitches myself.  And they are about one thing:

Screwing the American Worker

In fact, in my business network everyone notes the irony that the only growth industry in America is the one aimed at outsourcing.

The proposals suggested above would help at the margins, but at the end of the day outsourcing is about paying someone 30 cents an hour for a job that someone is currently getting 20 dollars an hour for.

We need a debate that confronts that reality clearly.  If there has been one I haven't heard it.  

I see the effects of this everyday in jobs lossed and lives destroyed.  

And the political class either doesn't have a fucking clue, or does and just wants to look like it is doing something but really thinks at the end of the day that there is nothing they can do



I haven't heard it, either, though I note that Ross Perot is still kicking... (0.00 / 0)
and, judging by his website, he's no longer interested in fixing "free trade" agreements.

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
Labor Arbitrage (0.00 / 0)
Only those firms which move first can actually make money on the transaction.  Once the dollar begins to fall relative to foreign currencies, the wage differential begins to even out.  In an honest world, a currency like the yuan or RMB would have appreciated such that outsourcing would have made no sense, because the exchange rate would have equilibrated the wage differential.  The first movers steal a jump on competition and have disproportionately better profits temporarily.  That's why fixing the exchange rate issue with the Chinese is so important.  They know they're milking a temporary advantage, something nobody in our government seems to have a clue about, to the detriment of large groups in our society.  If all of the pain being inflicted were spread evenly throughout our society, you can bet globalization would have gone nowhere.

[ Parent ]
Anti-Trust Pursuit Needed Desperately (4.00 / 1)
"...Direct the Justice Department to actually use existing antitrust law (and then beef it up where necessary) to break up the big banks and other mega-corporations stifling small business and competition. Promoting real competition in these industries will produce real jobs..."

Busting up the trusts will produce jobs immediately.  Every illegal (and all of them are illegal) trust busted up means that the resulting component corporations will need staffs for the C-suite, not to mention the B-suite, level executives.  The resulting law suits against the banks who promoted and vetted these illegal combinations will also create a lot of jobs too, though not of the right kind.  Under our current circumstances anything which takes money out of the hands of the banksters can't be all bad.  


State & Local Government Funding (4.00 / 3)
The three biggest problems with the stimulus bill were (1) emphasis on tax cuts, which are poor job-producers, (2) failure to fully fund state & local government shortfalls, therefore causing spending cuts, which are counter-stimulative, and (3) failure to include short-term job-creation programs, ala WPA, which are the cheapest way to create jobs in a jobs/$ spent metric.

A proper focus on job creation would lead to everything else falling into proper place as well.

State & local government funding are crucial, since both (2) and (3) would be implicated (it's much more quick and efficient to have WPA-type programs launched by local governments meeting local needs), and since manifesting the benefits of spending as close to home as possible helps counter the misleading allure of tax cuts in the individual wallet.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


There are also existing mechanisms to get $ to the general economy (0.00 / 0)
Federal grant institutions like the NSF and NIH. These funds could go directly to University labs that are either looking at laying personnel off, or scaling back plans because they can't afford to add staff. The mechanisms are in place. When Federal funds fall short, we all take a % cut for that fiscal year. No reason that can't be reversed and send a % addition directly into the hands of people who are waiting to spend it. Spend it on paying salaries and buying materials, very often from US companies.

All in addition to what you suggest, of course.

Disclaimer: I have a vested interest in seeing more $ flow to these institutions because I hope to tap into them.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Need a laugh...or cry? (0.00 / 0)
Senate Dems, led by John Kerry, are gutting fair carbon taxes on imports from the House's Cab-n-Trade Bill.

Hardly a peep on Huffpost, etc. about this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f91e...

CHORUS: "it could start a trade war".

It's like 1944 allies canceling Normandy invasion because "it could start a war".  


Better unemployment benefits and a 35 hour workweek (0.00 / 0)
Better unemployment benefits and a 35 hour workweek would be the ideal solutions I think.  


http://transgendermom.blogspot....

We need a more massive welfare state now than ever (0.00 / 0)
as robots and AI replace the need for human labor.

The Reganomics solution was to to borrow a lot of money and McJobs.

We need a change, starting with honesty and pedagogy from the White House.

People need to be told the truth, not given pep talks.


Agree completely (0.00 / 0)
I seriously doubt that full employment will ever be attainable.  There are too many people and too few jobs requiring unskilled labor.  Advancing technology only accelerates this trend.  Given that it's also the main factor giving people more choices and improving human lives, we need to adapt and compensate for the side-effects.  We need a system that can:
1)  support people who don't have the skills to be useful,
2)  find something to do for those who want to contribute.

Of course, I would argue that training and investing in the next generation is even more important, but then I've always believed in sacrificing the present for the future.


[ Parent ]
how about creating jobs for people will different skills (0.00 / 0)
rather than investing in the military industrial complex.  A lot of this is not a fait accompli but something that can be changed wtih policy and political changes.  But the latter has to be a starting point.

I'm fine with sacrificing the present for the future as long as the people doing the sacrificing are the ones making the choice.


[ Parent ]
A Goldman Sachs stimulus (0.00 / 0)
The stimulus was devised by people from Goldman Sachs. therefore it will produce very few jobs. Once again, Goldman Sachs 10, USA 0.

What? (0.00 / 0)
You don't believe that GS is working in the best interests of America?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left










Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search