Jesse Jackson: Recovery must start with job creation

[Ed Barrow]

President Obama this weekend called on the Congress to pass a $50 billion bill in aid to states that will help forestall the layoff of 300,000 teachers, police, firefighters and more. Despite this, the prospects for the legislation are not great. Deficit hawks seem to rule the roost these days on Capitol Hill. How can that be? The most recent report of researchers from Goldman Sachs projects unemployment will rise to 9.9 percent in 2011 and end that year at 9.7 percent. That means more than 20 million unemployed. One of three African-American young men unemployed. Half of all urban teenagers in need of full time work. It means that long-term unemployment now at record levels will continue to worsen.

President Obama inherited an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. His recovery plan stanched the fall and brought the economy back to where it is generating growth and beginning to generate jobs. But the hole was much deeper than most economists thought. And we've got a long way to go to get out of it. Economists estimate it will take about 500,000 jobs a month for three years to get us back to the levels of unemployment that existed when the recession started. And those levels weren't wonderful: workers were losing ground on wages even before the recession.

Moreover, the headwinds are growing ever more fierce. The banks aren't doing much lending. States and localities are facing rising budget deficits, even as the recovery money runs out. And Europe has now turned to full-bore austerity in the wake of the euro crisis. Last month, the U.S. private economy generated only about 41,000 jobs net. The economy was boosted only by 400,000 census jobs that will disappear soon.

Despite the hysteria about deficits, this is a good time to borrow and invest. Interest rates are low. There is no sign of inflation. There is massive unused private capacity and capital. Instead of crowding private capital out, public investment now can draw private capital in. Economists like Brad DeLong argue this is the time for the U.S. to borrow long-term, create an investment bank to modernize our infrastructure, mobilize private capital and rebuild America.

But this isn't an economists' question. It is a moral question. Will the U.S. adjust to mass long-term unemployment? Or will we insist on putting people to work, and make the economy work around that commitment? This is a moral choice. Long-term mass unemployment puts those afflicted under great stress. Divorce, depression, drug use, suicide all rise. It also undermines the broad middle class. It creates a society divided from the top down, separate and unequal society, in which a declining middle class grows ever more angry.

A commitment to full employment ensures rising wages. It forces companies to be efficient, rewards innovation and creates mass, not elite, markets.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/2392860,CST-EDT-jesse15.article

[xultar]

1. I cannot stand Jesse Jackson, he is NOT GP worthy.

[PSPS]

2. I don't know what "GP worthy" means, but I like Jesse Jackson just fine.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Why don't you like Jesse Jackson? nt

[xultar]

5. He is opportunistic, sleazy and greasy.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. so do you agree with him?

or do you support the Republican message on this

[xultar]

10. I agree with him. I don't like him because of his sleaze factor

[onpatrol98]

13. +1

[jody]

3. Job creation in the private, for-profit sector begins with entrepreneurs who make business decisions...

I hope people don't forget that government and other not-for profit organizations create permanent jobs only after for-profit businesses generate profits.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. we have to manufacture items and sell them

so we need workers here not India

[jody]

9. Agree but how do you get consumers to buy expensive products produced domestically rather than

cheaper foreign products?

For example, you have opportunities to choose more expensive items produced in the US over cheaper items produced in another country.

Do you always buy the more expensive domestic item?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. why should they be expensive?

the bosses cream off the profits. Why not have cooperative organizations so that workers can benefit in the profit as well as increase motivation to produce? workers cooperatives can produce products inexpensively.

There should be a large tax imposed on companies who outsource to foreign companies. Just think of that revenue. Companies shouldn't be allowed to shoot off and re register in the Cayman Islands.

[jody]

15. There are no laws preventing workers from starting a business. Why do you think they don't do that?

Wal-Mart does not outsource production, it buys from foreign companies that produce cheaper products than can be produced in the US.

Consumers like cheaper products and their demand validates retail companies selling products that are produced overseas.

Again, there are no laws that prevent a group of workers from producing such things as sports shoes and completing with Nike.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. people in general need a helping hand

for those out of work it would be a great opportunity to work a coop online or create a factory. I don't believe that coops have to be expensive - it needs marketing. In fact Walmart should be made to buy American. How many billions are they making in profit world wide. Maybe Congress should pas a bill that retailers should have to buy a certain percentage from start up businesses in the USA? They are ways.
I think that we could do a lot more for the 'little people.'

[jody]

22. I've worked with a number of small businesses including 8A and have a special admiration for anyone

individual or group, with a dream to start a business.

I admire them, rare as they are, because it's that type spirit that led the founders of our nation to leave their native lands and venture into uncharted country.

I've advised start up ventures and watched most of them fail, a few survive, and a small number become very prosperous.

I love their can-do attitude and willingness to work 100 hour weeks to make their dreams come true.

:toast: to entrepreneurs who created this nation.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

16. You are very judgemental. n/t

[bemildred]

17. The private sector basically wants the minimum necessary number of jobs.

So it is an anti-solution to unemployment.

And the government creates lots of good jobs, and there is nothing wrong with that. It works very well.

There are lots of people out there in rural America who would be malnourished without good government jobs.

So I am OK with the government (state or federal) creating jobs amd paying well for them.

[jody]

18. You say "I am OK with the government (state or federal) creating jobs amd

paying well for them" but really in our economic system those salaries are paid by taxing workers in for-profit businesses.

Russia and China experimented with government owned means of production and finally gave that up as unsuccessful.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. sure and there are many projects that the govt. can initiate to create jobs

[jody]

23. Wasn't that the purpose of Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? n/t

[RC]

8. Where is any mention of "Living Wage"?

Without living wage jobs there will not be any real recovery.

[Myrina]

11. Instead of giving it to the private sector for 'job creation' ...

... its time for another WPA or CCC - hire people (start with those who've been out of work the longest) as civil servants to fix potholes, pave roads, paint schools, patch up buildings, plant trees, mow grass, pick up garbage, etc etc ... our cities are falling down around our eyes and all we do is throw money at the military and the financiers, and push tax credits at small business.

Pay we the people to fix what's broke, and we'll spend that money reinvigorating the local tax coffers and local businesses.

It's just that simple, Mr. President. Really.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. yes Congress needs to come up with somehting postive

they are the lawmakers