Jzyehoshua
06-28-2011, 09:38 AM
My biggest concern is that the Convention Center and some of these other projects are hi-tech, high-expense projects that won't necessarily create jobs effectively per dollar spent. There's a wonderful report by the University of Massachusetts, "The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities (http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf)", that breaks down the exact amounts of jobs and total wages/benefits created per $1 billion of spending by different government sectors (military, healthcare, education, etc.).
Page 6 has a great chart revealing that Education, Mass Transit, and Healthcare are most effective for job creation, in that order. As noted on pg. 10:
You see, the Stimulus just threw money around, to the states, to people, to various causes, without spending wisely. Much of it consisted of tax cuts for personal consumption (about a third), the least effective form of spending according to that 2007 report I mentioned. If we want to truly create jobs effectively per dollar spent, we should model after FDR, creating work programs that pay people to dig ditches, repair roads and schools, or clean up community areas and buildings. Census work might be another low-cost example. These are all labor-intensive, and spend little on extraneous expenses, and thus will create jobs effectively.
I would recommend that we thus look to create numerous labor-intensive jobs as mentioned above, and that we also look to create jobs in government sectors that are effective for job creation as mentioned in the IPS report, Education, Mass Transit, and Healthcare, in that order.
I would also recommend that we explore the legality of tax breaks for companies that hire Oklahoma workers, perhaps in proportion to company earnings. This would allow companies which do more hiring to cope with the higher payroll costs, and incentivize companies to hire many workers as opposed to few.
At a macro level, we need to look as a nation at a suitable setting for our minimum wage, as well as the result of variance in national minimum wages relating to global trade. You see, hiking the minimum wage to $7.25 from $5.15 in 2007 with the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 sounds like a good idea, but what do you do about the companies who are thinking, "we can't bear these higher payroll costs, we need to make changes"?
You see, the smaller companies are most adversely affected, and will go first, unable to afford the higher payroll expense, and less able to outsource or change their workforce location - as well as just having less information access about how to cope. So the higher minimum wage destroys small business. But it also results in companies outsourcing jobs to other countries, hiring illegal immigrants, using more automation as opposed to workers, and shifting to part-time or temporary employees to avoid paying overtime and benefits (Lester Thurow in Ray F. Marshall's book, "Back To Shared Prosperity", pages 261-264)
Furthermore, we instituted free trade agreements starting in 1985 that allow companies to move factories overseas and then ship the goods back to the U.S. at reduced cost. Our policy of free trade as instituted just in the past 3 decades has resulted in a mass exodus of vital manufacturing jobs, and everything now being 'Made in China'. The reason? Communist countries like China and Russia do not care about their people, and use low minimum wages to siphon jobs from us, as well as the tax revenue and prosperity they bring. Which do you think is cheaper, to pay 36 workers 25 cents an hour in China, or one U.S. worker $7.25 an hour? The shipping cost simply won't change that sort of discrepancy.
What we need to do is implement a new policy, a stop to trade with countries whose minimum wages are below a $4.00/hour equivalent, and whose previous year's imports exceeded $10 billion (so that we don't focus on third-world countries we have little trade with, and to reduce bureaucracy). This would affect only 20 countries, and reduce our trade deficit from $638 billion a year to $28 billion. It would not affect whatsoever many of our Democratic allies (Canada, the U.K., Israel, Taiwan, Japan, France, Spain, Australia, etc.) who have minimum wages well above $4.00 an hour.
We should also reduce our own minimum wage back to $5.15 an hour, if not $5.00 an hour, which I suspect would rejuvenate small business. We should also enact restrictions on Wal-Mart and stores that practice Predatory Pricing (dropping prices when moving into an area to destroy competing small businesses) or other anti-competitive practices. This will result in more competition, more businesses, and more jobs.
Page 6 has a great chart revealing that Education, Mass Transit, and Healthcare are most effective for job creation, in that order. As noted on pg. 10:
You see, the Stimulus just threw money around, to the states, to people, to various causes, without spending wisely. Much of it consisted of tax cuts for personal consumption (about a third), the least effective form of spending according to that 2007 report I mentioned. If we want to truly create jobs effectively per dollar spent, we should model after FDR, creating work programs that pay people to dig ditches, repair roads and schools, or clean up community areas and buildings. Census work might be another low-cost example. These are all labor-intensive, and spend little on extraneous expenses, and thus will create jobs effectively.
I would recommend that we thus look to create numerous labor-intensive jobs as mentioned above, and that we also look to create jobs in government sectors that are effective for job creation as mentioned in the IPS report, Education, Mass Transit, and Healthcare, in that order.
I would also recommend that we explore the legality of tax breaks for companies that hire Oklahoma workers, perhaps in proportion to company earnings. This would allow companies which do more hiring to cope with the higher payroll costs, and incentivize companies to hire many workers as opposed to few.
At a macro level, we need to look as a nation at a suitable setting for our minimum wage, as well as the result of variance in national minimum wages relating to global trade. You see, hiking the minimum wage to $7.25 from $5.15 in 2007 with the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 sounds like a good idea, but what do you do about the companies who are thinking, "we can't bear these higher payroll costs, we need to make changes"?
You see, the smaller companies are most adversely affected, and will go first, unable to afford the higher payroll expense, and less able to outsource or change their workforce location - as well as just having less information access about how to cope. So the higher minimum wage destroys small business. But it also results in companies outsourcing jobs to other countries, hiring illegal immigrants, using more automation as opposed to workers, and shifting to part-time or temporary employees to avoid paying overtime and benefits (Lester Thurow in Ray F. Marshall's book, "Back To Shared Prosperity", pages 261-264)
Furthermore, we instituted free trade agreements starting in 1985 that allow companies to move factories overseas and then ship the goods back to the U.S. at reduced cost. Our policy of free trade as instituted just in the past 3 decades has resulted in a mass exodus of vital manufacturing jobs, and everything now being 'Made in China'. The reason? Communist countries like China and Russia do not care about their people, and use low minimum wages to siphon jobs from us, as well as the tax revenue and prosperity they bring. Which do you think is cheaper, to pay 36 workers 25 cents an hour in China, or one U.S. worker $7.25 an hour? The shipping cost simply won't change that sort of discrepancy.
What we need to do is implement a new policy, a stop to trade with countries whose minimum wages are below a $4.00/hour equivalent, and whose previous year's imports exceeded $10 billion (so that we don't focus on third-world countries we have little trade with, and to reduce bureaucracy). This would affect only 20 countries, and reduce our trade deficit from $638 billion a year to $28 billion. It would not affect whatsoever many of our Democratic allies (Canada, the U.K., Israel, Taiwan, Japan, France, Spain, Australia, etc.) who have minimum wages well above $4.00 an hour.
We should also reduce our own minimum wage back to $5.15 an hour, if not $5.00 an hour, which I suspect would rejuvenate small business. We should also enact restrictions on Wal-Mart and stores that practice Predatory Pricing (dropping prices when moving into an area to destroy competing small businesses) or other anti-competitive practices. This will result in more competition, more businesses, and more jobs.