Who created your job?

18 posts / 0 new

I have yet to meet anyone who claims that his job was created by the President of the United States. Not this president, not ANY President. I cannot think of any job that I have ever had that can be tied in any way to the president. We need to stop this silly assed notion that if you are employed, the president made it happen. And of you are unemployed blame the President. The Whitehouse claims that they have created 2 million jobs. Well if that is the case, why are we not hearing from thousands of people thanking the President for giving them a job. If you got your job during the Bush adminstration, did Bush create your job? What about Obama? Did he create your job?

How many of you give credit to the President for creating your job?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Comments

My job was created by the masses of people who demand my services. Without that demand I would be doing something else. The President and or government can make claim to job creation by either spending government money on services such as infrastructure work or by finding a way to put more money in the publics pockets. The more money in an average persons pocket the more they are going to spend which in turn creates a demand for products and services which in turn creates opportunities for more jobs. The more people who have jobs the more money gets spent and the more taxes that can be generated which in turn will create more jobs still. It's definitely a trickle up economy.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Rigel1: Some policies make it easy for businesses to create jobs. If we pass green friendly policies, maybe giving a credit for solar panels or energy efficiency, then those companies in that industry will see a demand for their products and create jobs to meet that demand. Also, Roosevelts policies did create direct hire programs during the Depression. WPA, TVA etc.

As an aside, lower taxes only lead to corporations paying out to their shareholders. No new demand is created with this action, therefore no need to create more jobs.

scriber1's picture
scriber1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote scriber1:

Rigel1: Some policies make it easy for businesses to create jobs. If we pass green friendly policies, maybe giving a credit for solar panels or energy efficiency, then those companies in that industry will see a demand for their products and create jobs to meet that demand. Also, Roosevelts policies did create direct hire programs during the Depression. WPA, TVA etc.

As an aside, lower taxes only lead to corporations paying out to their shareholders. No new demand is created with this action, therefore no need to create more jobs.

True, Roosevelt did create jobs. But I do make a distinction between government jobs and private sector jobs. If the president cuts taxes, and you and I go on a spending spree with the money, then companies may need to hire. But I do not equate being allowed to keep more of what I already own as job creation. That is why we need to be very careful when we increase taxes on the "rich." Right now the rich are the only one still spending a lot of money. If the rich stop spending, then we will be in big trouble.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

rigel1: The rich spend money up to a certain point. After that point, they save it. That is why cutting taxes on the wealthy does not produce jobs. Similarly, cutting taxes on corporations leads to them paying it to stock holders who are generally wealthy. When the government creates jobs, eg a public works program creating, refurbishing or updating infrastructure, or pays unemployment to the unemployed, they (the unemployed) spend all of it because every bit of money they have, they need to spend to survive, ie food, housing, car notes. When they spend, this creates demand and refreshes the cycle. Do you really think a business will hire someone to make a product if there is no demand for it? If there is no demand, their (businesses') extra tax cut cash is pocketed as they have already bought what they needed before the tax cut. They have extra cash as they are rich. Hence, the tax cut will not induce them to spend.

scriber1's picture
scriber1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Probably banksters don't create a whole lot of jobs with their billion dollar bonuses. They are plowed right back into financial paper.

Don't confuse Wall Street with entrepreneurs .

.Note that Roosevelt's construction projects relied on the private sector to bring them to completion...as did Eisenhower's construction of the Inter-State Highway System. Private industry jobs were created in the process. Consumer demand expanded and increased the profitability of other businesses. Increased demand encouraged opening more businesses. Tax revenues rose from the expanded economic activity.

Go beyond looking at surface appearances.and WallStreet/Bankster propoganda. It's called "critical thinking".

Retired Monk -"Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

My job, in part, is created by Federal Policies and Federal money. I work in a state university which receives a significant amount of money from federal financial aid and various other channels. I also have a summer job working for a family in my town. One of the parents works for the State Government but because it is in the transportation department, his position is partly funded by federal dollars. Without his income, I would not be working for him. So, that is two jobs created by federal dollars. The FAA who had just been on furlough were federal workers and also funded by federal dollars. Anyone and everyone in the military, all federal money. Do you want me to go on?

The President doesn't create jobs on his own, he requires funding from congress but he can certainly be the arbiter of policies which do create jobs.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote scriber1:

rigel1: The rich spend money up to a certain point. After that point, they save it. That is why cutting taxes on the wealthy does not produce jobs. Similarly, cutting taxes on corporations leads to them paying it to stock holders who are generally wealthy. When the government creates jobs, eg a public works program creating, refurbishing or updating infrastructure, or pays unemployment to the unemployed, they (the unemployed) spend all of it because every bit of money they have, they need to spend to survive, ie food, housing, car notes. When they spend, this creates demand and refreshes the cycle. Do you really think a business will hire someone to make a product if there is no demand for it? If there is no demand, their (businesses') extra tax cut cash is pocketed as they have already bought what they needed before the tax cut. They have extra cash as they are rich. Hence, the tax cut will not induce them to spend.

No I don't think that anyone will hire if there is no demand. When Obama tells companies to hire more workers they must have a reason to do it. I would not hire someone to cut my grass if my grass did not need cutting. There must be a demand. Demand is created by you and me. Not the feds.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote ah2:

My job, in part, is created by Federal Policies and Federal money. I work in a state university which receives a significant amount of money from federal financial aid and various other channels. I also have a summer job working for a family in my town. One of the parents works for the State Government but because it is in the transportation department, his position is partly funded by federal dollars. Without his income, I would not be working for him. So, that is two jobs created by federal dollars. The FAA who had just been on furlough were federal workers and also funded by federal dollars. Anyone and everyone in the military, all federal money. Do you want me to go on?

Fair enough. But did the president create your job? It doesn't sound that way.

The President doesn't create jobs on his own, he requires funding from congress but he can certainly be the arbiter of policies which do create jobs.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

"I have yet to meet anyone who claims that his job was created by the President of the United States." rigel

For years I counselled veterans suffering from PTSD and other mental ailments thanks to Bush's lies which brought the US to illegally invade and bomb Iraq and Afghanistan back into the stone age. I suppose I should have cut Bush and Cheney in for a percentage. If I return to that line of work I guess ill have to include Obama in for his cut as well.

If I was sans conscience I could make it a going concern... go coast to coast.. profiting off of the misery of others... like most modern corporations...

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote ah2:

My job, in part, is created by Federal Policies and Federal money. I work in a state university which receives a significant amount of money from federal financial aid and various other channels. I also have a summer job working for a family in my town. One of the parents works for the State Government but because it is in the transportation department, his position is partly funded by federal dollars. Without his income, I would not be working for him. So, that is two jobs created by federal dollars. The FAA who had just been on furlough were federal workers and also funded by federal dollars. Anyone and everyone in the military, all federal money. Do you want me to go on?

The President doesn't create jobs on his own, he requires funding from congress but he can certainly be the arbiter of policies which do create jobs.

Fair enough. But did the president create your job? It doesn't sound that way.

rigel you need to figure out how to place your text in relation to the quote commands. I fixed your last post here.

The President put education spending in the stimulus. He has protected a good portion of educational spending from the Republicans. In this way, he has probably save several thousand university jobs across the country. As institutions of this nature have multitudes of funding sources - patents, tuition, state funds, grants, federal funds, etc. - it is sort of a stupid way to ask the question. Federal funds often come in the form of block grants and the administration of those funds fall to local actors. The way you phrase the question tries to leverage the idea that Obama is physically hiring people and writing them their paychecks. That is just moronic. The president has the ability to produce broad economic effects through policy which do indeed result in the employment of people - both in the public and private realms.

I would say that typically the amount of jobs Presidents claim they create is usually conservative in its estimate. For example, when people get their disability or social security check, they go and spend that money. That flow of federal dollars is relatively persistent and does not "create jobs" but it sure as hell creates aggregate demand which DOES create jobs.

In other words, like all conservatives, you are very good at framing debates in a way that is already leveraged to promote your viewpoint. I reject this framing of the issue and urge you (and all others here) to consider that the relationship the President has with the overall economy is a little more complex than him putting out a "Help Wanted" sign.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

I'm with Bush_Wacker on this. I have a job because of demand for my services. And the fact that my particular job can't really be shipped outside the US makes it better than some, however, now that I've passed my 50th birthday I've begun feeling the pressure of younger workers willing to do the same job for less. All that being said, I believe government, in general, can sway the job market by use of tax laws that would encourage certain industries to expand and hire. Over the past few decades we have seen how this can work destructively when special interests want tax laws to make it easier to use foreign labor to produce goods.

hodenkat's picture
hodenkat
Joined:
Jul. 21, 2011 12:00 pm

Just remember that demand is not simply the desire for a service or good. It is also the ability to purchase said good at a particular price. I have a high DESIRE for some computer upgrades but my effective DEMAND is very low because I have no expendable income.

The President can affect the ability of people to purchase goods (positively or negatively) they desire through various policy mechanisms - tax incentives, tax breaks, price regulations, etc. on the one hand, or taxes, tax disincentives, austerity measures, etc. on the other. This is one way that he can increase demand and produce jobs.

Alternatively, he can spend money to provide goods that have a lot of DESIRE but low DEMAND as a result of financial restriction. Example: infrastructure spending that states would really like to do but can't due to budgetary problems OR hiring a bunch of people to do a temporary task in the public interest which spurs economic activity and expansion - both through the purchasing of goods to completely the task and also the spending done by the employees.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Some willl never understand that it's the current economic policy at the federal level that has reduced consumer demand...and job creation to fill that demand... That policy has been in effect forseveral decades.We've utilized credit to make up for wacky "feed the wealthy at any cost" federal policy. Do whatever it takes. Lower their taxes, subsidize outsourcing, de-regulate finance.

Credit has eached a dead end, just like it did in the Great Depression.. "Faced by a failure of credit,they have proposed only the lending of more money". - FDR

Just exactly who is going to lend money to a near-bankrupt or unemployed consumer? What business is going to borrow when they don't have enough customers to justify expansion? The economy has reached a dead end....again. Only the Federal Government,alter that. That requires a reversal of its "feed the financier/bankster" policies. It had best start feeding the economy of Main Street. That includes reversing outsourcing..

It isn't likely. Both parties adhere to the neo-liberalism that brought Argentina to collapse in 2001.. Argentina also fed the wealthy at the expense of the many and outsourced employment. Don't expect a different result here from identical policy.

The super rich aren't creating jobs. They are throwing money into financial speculation. Government can either tax it and spend it back into the economy...or let the spiral into decline continue on its not so merry way....

Rentired Monk - Ideology is a disease"

..

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I don't know if I'd say I'm employed because of "demand" in the traditional sense since I am a public school teacher.

My empoyment definitely hinges on various levels of government from the Federal all the way down to the local level.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am
Quote Dominic C:

I don't know if I'd say I'm employed because of "demand" in the traditional sense since I am a public school teacher.

My empoyment definitely hinges on various levels of government from the Federal all the way down to the local level.

Democracy DEMANDS an educated populous. The polis has DEMANDED the government produce a public system.

Not really the proper economic term usage but whatever... lol.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote rigel1:

I have yet to meet anyone who claims that his job was created by the President of the United States. Not this president, not ANY President. I cannot think of any job that I have ever had that can be tied in any way to the president. We need to stop this silly assed notion that if you are employed, the president made it happen. And of you are unemployed blame the President. The Whitehouse claims that they have created 2 million jobs. Well if that is the case, why are we not hearing from thousands of people thanking the President for giving them a job. If you got your job during the Bush adminstration, did Bush create your job? What about Obama? Did he create your job?

How many of you give credit to the President for creating your job?

I'm not sure how to take that remark. There is something call economic policy, and we debate it here and elsewhere. Perhaps if learn what that is, we could debate it at some time.

But I do agree with you that presdients get unfair blame and credit for the economy.

Bush destroyed our economy with his lack of housing and financial regulations. Obama's weak stimulus bill prevented a catastrophe, but it was not a large enough stimulus to get us back on track. And, because of the housing situation, whenever the economy starts to recover, more houses are put on the market, which reduces asset values and we are right back to where we started. The only way to solve the problem is to simply nationalize the housing industry, print up some money, cause some inflation, and elliminate the housing overstock.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote rigel1:
Quote ah2:

My job, in part, is created by Federal Policies and Federal money. I work in a state university which receives a significant amount of money from federal financial aid and various other channels. I also have a summer job working for a family in my town. One of the parents works for the State Government but because it is in the transportation department, his position is partly funded by federal dollars. Without his income, I would not be working for him. So, that is two jobs created by federal dollars. The FAA who had just been on furlough were federal workers and also funded by federal dollars. Anyone and everyone in the military, all federal money. Do you want me to go on?

The President doesn't create jobs on his own, he requires funding from congress but he can certainly be the arbiter of policies which do create jobs.

Fair enough. But did the president create your job? It doesn't sound that way.

rigel you need to figure out how to place your text in relation to the quote commands. I fixed your last post here.

I usually get it where it belongs. But I appreciate your help.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Currently Chatting

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system