Like why? Why are they doing business in other countries, and giving jobs to other countries (with very little pay, by the way)? What about the American people? Why don’t they actually create more jobs and help build America for the better?
I am looking at this from an overall viewpoint. I am independent in my political standing, so don’t come at me with political toxicity. 😂😂😂
Updates
1 y
Not just the government, but also American companies. Why look outward and not inward?
Updates
1 y
Read the dang update.
In case you guys do not know, companies lobby. 😊 So, companies and our political figures all have a part to play. 😊
Why isn’t the government creating more jobs in America 🤔?
Well the problem at the moment is not the lack of availability of jobs. It is rather the reluctance of workers to return to the labor force. A factor that government intervention would likely make worse, not better, while exacerbating the rate of inflation at the moment.
Currently, the rate of unemployment is 3.6%. By any standards that is historically a low level and is, for all intents and purposes, what economists call statistical full employment. By contrast, the workforce participation rate - that is the percentage of workers who are eligible to work and who are employed or are looking for work - is only 62.2% That is an historic low.
Put simply, in the post-pandemic era, people are not returning to work. The reasons for this being complex. Some wish to stay home and no longer work - this being particularly true of working mothers. Some are living off the savings that they accumulated - with government help in many cases - during the pandemic. (Do recall that during the pandemic, the government sent out three stimulus checks to the entire workforce, plus spending during that time declined sharply. This leading to a record high savings rate and record savings.)
The list goes on. The bottom line being that this question is asking to solve a problem that is not a problem. Moreover, doing so, under the current circumstances when productivity and workforce participation is down would likely send the already 8.4% rate of inflation - a 40 year high - even higher. The classic cause of inflation being "too many dollars chasing too few goods."
Adding to all this, government does not create jobs - beyond those it needs to do its own work. Put simply, if you want a larger bureaucracy, add to the government workforce. This also, under the circumstances, likely to lead to higher deficits, a bigger national debt, and once again, higher inflation.
Beyond that, the government does not add workers or subtract them. Rather, within a limited range, it helps to manage the overall economy. (If you want greater government control of the economy, try communist China or North Korea.) Even here, government competence is more limited than the public - ever banging its' spoon on its' high chair when it wants what it wants - and presumably (and I say this with no offense intended) the questioner - assumes.
The economy is a massively complex thing. Government competence is much more limited and thus the law of unintended consequences prevails. See also the pandemic, in which the United States conducted a giant uncontrolled social experiment on itself, using itself as the guinea pig.
So what did the government - but if this question is any indication NOT the American public - learn? They turned off the economy in response to the pandemic. However, turning it back on is more complicated than they anticipated. Hence the current economy that the questioner has mistakenly diagnosed and demands to be fixed.
Bottom line, don't count on it. The last time the USA faced a mass pandemic of this kind was the Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1919. This after World War I and during what is now called the Forgotten Depression. At that time, the prevailing economic doctrines in not just America, but the world, was to allow the economy to heal itself. This it did by 1920 and the economy soared for the next decade. (Though not without its own problems leading to the Stock Market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression.)
Bottom line, the nation and the government are facing economic circumstances that are somewhat unique and certainly are unusual and there is no agreed upon consensus for dealing with it. Thus the government is "not creating more jobs." Indeed, were it to try, under the circumstances, it would likely make matters much worse.
You left out those who took early retirement and retirement. That is what set off the work shortage at my company. You aren't going to get the 58 year and older crowd that retired to come back to work. It will take years to replace them.
@Blueeyes81 Well, given space limitations I did not set out to list every demographic that is involved. Rather I sought to cite a couple of examples and then made reference to the workforce participation rate - which covers all the appropriate demographics.
That said, certainly the aging of the population is a significant - albeit long term - factor. As happens in all industrialized societies, as the population ages the workforce - and the tax base - will shrink.
However, this is a longer term problem for which there is no solution and the economy will have to adjust over time. It being the case that all the available data suggests that government policies have - at most - a very limited impact on long term demographic patterns.
However, in the current situation, that is merely one long term factor in a larger mosaic.
Far as I know the US government is the largest employer in the country.
They directly create jobs by having people work for them but they also do not directly create jobs any other way.
They need to let the private sector create jobs itself, have policies that won't hurt the private sector.
Things like free trade is great, until you have a country like China that subsidizes its companies to ship stuff to the USA, thus under selling what American companies can do.
At the same time, minimum wage laws in the US mean the most expensive part of running a business has a baseline, where other countries may use child labor.
Think about it, minimum wage in US $7.25 an hour (assuming anyone will even work for it, unlikely) another countries minimum wage is half that... how can a business compete? they cannot... so they move their labor force to the cheaper country.
Lower corporate tax rates helps a lot too. My company gave bonuses and created lots of new jobs when the 2018 tax cuts came into effect.
The bottom line though is they are there to make money, if their profits don't keep making money they will do whatever they can to keep those profits up... up to and including off shoring jobs to a cheaper country.
My country has also moved tech support over sea's recently because a starting wage of $20 dollars an hour was not enough to fill over a 100 open positions... they could not raise the starting pay to more than that, without raising costs on customers which would make them more expensive than the competition... so they'd lose customers.
They outsourced instead.
Keep in mind this was STARTING PAY of $20 an hour, someone could self advance through tech levels and within 4 or 5 years be making $30 an hour, as each level gives a raise.
People just don't want to work right now, but those jobs are gone for good I'd imagine.
Less regulation helps to create more jobs. Regulation is good for some things, safety and trying to be fair but when it gets in the way... not a lot.
Covid shutdowns has seen more than 50% of the restaurants around here go out of business. It is going to take years for new ones to open back up and get to where it was before that. Not just restaurants but businesses in general that rely on customers to walk through the doors, retail, and others... lots of empty buildings every where you go.
All the jobs created by the government are funded by taxpayers. We are basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need good factory jobs in the private sector. This guy is a prime example that it can be done. https://www.weathertech.com/behindtech/
well, when Ford can pay a Mexican worker. 1/3 of what they will pay to an American worker while also being allowed to avoid paying import fees taxs and Tarifs handing any of the cost saving they get from the slave Mexican labor they use to make thier cars and trucks back to the American consumer who buys a ford while continuing to inflate the prices and reap giant profits. there is literally no incentive for these giant corporations to not use cheap and expendable slave labor in other countries and smaller companies can't compete with them. It is globalism 101. Why pay a American to do it safely reliably and with pride... when you can force Black brown and yellow people (often children) to do it in atrocious working conditions for a fraction of the money people in first tear countries will do?
Lol right now we just have a labor shortage... The real recession is about to hit. Then there really won't be any jobs for anyone. Genz is about to get a healthy taste of the same BS that made Melinials so jaded Nihilistic and hopeless...
In my view it's less of a problem that the government is creating jobs in America, or has a responsibility to, but is excluding jobs. The red tape in the US is no joke, I've worked federal, state, and local level jobs, for the most part it's a paradise of unlimited funding.
Going over to private sector you're beholden to those same agencies while having to follow OSHA and NIOSH guidelines, which they do not. At the same time I could use the knowledge I gained before to open chains of chemical companies for short periods of time and never fall under the government umbrella just by chaining the 3 month grace period of inspection, A-2 chemical, A-A2 chemical A-B2 Chemical, etc. just keep selling it back to yourself under a different name with the same equipment and purpose.
If I went to, say, Africa or Australia and said I wanted to open a chemical company, I'd get a tax break for employing people rather than having to set that kind of shit up and risk prison time if filing the shut down and start-up of a company is off by a week. I also agree that it isn't Democrat or Republican, but both. Democrats put more red tape up for whatever the hot button issue is, Republicans put up more red tape to help out their big boy donors like when W was president.
The end result is the same, business is more difficult to conduct in the US. You know, unless you're at the level of Haliburton.
Many people believe that government created jobs are artificial, won't last, and cost too much. Instead, they think that government should make it easier for small businesses to expand and create real jobs that don't require taxpayer funding.
Well, the way the government “creates jobs”, other than actually creating jobs in government agencies (which would come at the taxpayers’ dime, presumably), there’s not much you can do besides create a climate where you give favorable circumstances to private business owners who will hopefully grow their business and thusly “create jobs.” This is the basic idea behind Reagan’s “Trickle-Down Economics.” It sounds good on paper, but I don’t feel like it’s proven itself to be a sound strategy, as there’s no way to counter greed from the business owners, and that seems to be a widespread, almost ubiquitous problem among them, trying to max their personal profits at anyone else’s expense. That’s kind of what’s broken about capitalism to start with, in my opinion, it leans into people’s greed rather than trying to discourage it like we probably should do. But regardless, the point is that you might give these corporate tax breaks to companies, maybe they grow, maybe some jobs get created…. but the spirit behind it is all wrong, that’s where it runs afoul. These business owners aren’t doing it because it helps their local community. They’ll do that if it benefits them, but it’s not down out of benevolence, it’s done as an attempt to increase revenue. The workers aren’t taken care of as they should be in this situation. As a general rule, I find the American business owner to be a problematic demographic. If it was done in better faith, I’d be cool with it, but it still boils down to personal greed from the guy or the gal at the top, and no matter what financial risk they’re taking by operating the business, I’ll just never have respect for that mentality.
In America we think that you can simultaneously outsource jobs and move factories overseas while also allowing in millions of illegal migrants to flood the labor market is a “good” idea.
You’re not a racist, right?
Thats their response when you point out this insanity and obvious fucking over of American citizens all in the shameless desire of an extra billion dollars in revenue for your stupid company headquartered in some foreign tax haven. It’s all such a goddamn joke. Businesses and corporations used to care about American workers and customers. Now they care about serving a global customer base. They don’t care what’s good for America because they are globalists. They believe they are citizens of the world, and American patriotism or exceptionalism to them is a hateful, antiquated concept. They are citizens of the world, and if they have to move a factory or hire a bunch of illegal aliens to do the job and pay them next to nothing, they will. Apple and Nike have sweatshops in places like China. Can we really not make a pair of running shoes in America? They’d still operate at a profit. It’s not like people are going to stop wearing Nikes. No, it’s that they won’t be making as BIG of a profit. So screw the American people, the boss needs to buy another island.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
1 y
It's not the government's job to: Make more jobs ------ Police where companies get their labor from ------ Or say hey people stop buying products that use the cheapest foreign labor possible & charge imbecile buyers ten times that cost in markup.
Why should they when every fool born means that the government makes more money through taxing, etc? And it is obvious the average consumer is stupid.
I don't know how many car dealerships add maybe 1 or 2 features between a 2021 model & a 2022 model - features that typically don't add much - increase the price by $5,000 or more and consumers come running like starving slobbering hyenas to purchase that 2022 model. Same with cell phones. Basic functionality there is little to no difference between an Iphone 12 & 13.
Maybe if people weren't so stupid and realized that the global economy - the pivotal factor of most western countries - is nothing more than a means for large companies to continue to get rich and idiots to continue to be poor there wouldn't be such an issue.
Everyone in the west screams socialism and similar is so evil. Done properly, per the book and without tyranny, it's superior to any government the west has possessed.
Well looking abroad means that they can create cheaper and sell for the same price. As for government creating jobs that's not a sustainable plan. Most people don't know that the Great Depression continued long after such groups such as the CCP disbanded. Once their works were completed they ceased to exist. Companies exist to maximize profits. They currently can't by only hiring in the US when other countries let you hire for less of a salary. Let's say you can produce products that sell for $200 a piece and you need 100 workers for this. Now you'd want to minimize expenses, the workers salaries and the price for supplies. Now the minimum wage in the US is (due to local laws) around $10/hr. (federal is lower, but states, cities, and companies are increasing it). So production in the US is $1,000 for workers salaries. This means you need to sell 5 to cover salaries alone. In Venezuela $2 is a more reasonable salary to expect (and I think it might not even be for as short as an hour, but I don't fully remember if it actually was). If we assume it was $2/hr. then we're looking at you needing to sell only 1 to cover salaries. Multiply this by hundred for sale, you get to keep the profits that don't go to workers and supplies. The less you pay for that the more you make.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
1 y
It's not the government's job to create jobs. As it says in the Constitution "to promote the general welfare". That doesn't mean to GIVE the people welfare either! It means to create favorable conditions so that job creation will thrive. In the modern Era the U. S. is the world lone superpower our influence is worldwide. And the mingling of business and politics gets complicated very quickly. I agree, Americans come first! The biggest problem (and there's really no way to fix it) is that our governance is based on a 4 year election cycle. You'd hope that what is done during an adminastrations term is done with America's long term goals in mind. But after 4 years it's another adminastrations problem. This is why America's past is littered with, "well this is the legacy of the ______ adminastration". Example: During the Clinton adminastration you didn't hear much about Kim Jong IL after the death of Kim IL Sung. Because Kim Jong IL wanted to build a nuclear reactor. Of they said it was for nuclear power (which of course no one believed). But The Clinton administration solution was simple. Buy them off with free oil. The agreement satisfied the North Korean's temporary need for power and alleviated the potential for a nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. But the Clinton adminastrations quick fix set up every following administration for failure as North Korea knew they could now EXTORT free oil out of the United States using the threat of Nuclear proliferation. As soon as the next adminastration took a hard line to this. Naturally North Korea responded with hostility as well as restarting their nuclear program. I'm not just criticizing the Clinton adminastration. You could come up with examples from every adminastration. Where their short sighteness, their inability to consider the longterm affects to the United States interests really bit us in the ass.
The government doesn't create jobs. Mostly what they do is subsidize companies - that is give them tax money. Sometimes they do this and the company creates jobs. Sometimes they do this and the company stock goes up (increasing retirement accounts for those invested in the company). Sometimes they do this and the company gives the politicians responsible book deals or positions on the board worth millions. Republicans seem to mostly court the businesses for sensitization that will do the third. Democrats aim for the first or second but republicans usually stand in the way and call it socialism.
There is also the problem of innovation. With our declining public education comes jobs with less need for people to have to think about what they are doing. This results in jobs that can mostly be accomplished through automation, which is cheaper in the long run.
So, short answer is jobs need to entail bringing money to the owner in some way. And there aren't many such jobs left to be made, really.
Federal government jobs are fine but those are being systematically privatized, which results in them being cut to save costs. Sure, we can pay people to dig a hole and then fill it up again (the military does pleanty of that) but people are quick to catch on to that being meaningless work. People increasingly want to apply their brain power over their physical power. Which is good, but no one can figure out how to turn the vast majority of what people think into a tangible profit, other than through scams or subterfuge.
Personally, I like the ideal of a "universal basic job" which would be political participation. One nonpartisan activity per month and one "whatever" activity per month, at a minimum. Everyone must do it and everyone gets paid for that time. But, if one is unemployed they can make politics their full time job. That could involve debates, showing up for school boards, whatever. As long as half is nonpartisan.
Joy, don't listen to these people that say the government can't create jobs, because they do it all the time. First Lady Michelle Obama had 24 personal staff members. I get that the president needs tons of staff members and advisors, and maybe even the vice president needs a bunch. But what does the first lady even do? Now keep in mind, these numbers are from 2009. (13 years ago)
Her chief of staff made $ 172,200.00 per year Her deputy chief of staff made only made $90,000.00
1: Government only "creates" jobs at public expense given it is being made by politicians they don't normally come close to justifying said expense. If they did, then someone would have already provided said service for profit.
2: Companies like everyone else hire the lowest price available labor to get a job done. If they are allowed to work overseas or import forign labor here willing to work for less they will, and the result will be lower wages for that skill group. Perhaps below the threshold required to live in said area.
So I guess the real question is why do we make free trade deals with poor countries, and why do we allow the importation of large amounts of competing labor into our country? Both of which drive down the value of our own labor up to and including the point where said job cannot legally exist?
It's to exploit cheap or slave labor In other countries. A few years ago the media asked Tim Cook why is making jobs in China and not the USA and he said "Americans don't want these kinds of jobs", but really it's because the labor is cheap in other countries. Also the USA dollar is worth a lot more in other countries. You can get a house in the Philippines for $300 compared to the USA with 1 millions for a house. A lot new start up countries test things out in cheap countries to see how it goes before they create jobs in the USA. A lot the rich people keep their headquarters in other countries so they can avoid paying taxes in the USA. Running a business in the USA isn't cheap.
The government have very little control over it. Companies only have control to the extent that the market creates something for the employees to do. If nobody is buying whatever the company offers, then there is nothing for new employees to do.
A better question is, why do people expect the government, companies, or anyone else to do everything for them? People are responsible for their own lives. That includes getting a job. Or they can just go out and start working without a job.
Not once have I met someone who claimed they couldn't find a job who was seriously looking. If everyone would start doing for themselves, the economy would explode. You can't have a robust economy when so many people are sitting around not working and not truly putting in any effort to do so.
They're all onboard with what's basically a globalist view of the world in which nations and borders don't matter or should even be undermined so that their own factions can claim control; essentially turning the United Nations (or a successor organization) While I don't doubt that half of the people at the World Economic Forum would stab each other in the back if they could get away with it, they're all envious of the idea of a world run by corpo-governments and submissive populations or "consumer-employees" as Jeff Bezos would call it. In other words, they've gotten so large, globalized, and entrenched that profits and reputation are taking a backseat to power and influence, and gatekeeping socio-economic mobility is imparative for them to succeed.
Just noticed I didn't finish a sentence here- I meant to say... turning the United Nations (or a successor organization) into a world government of puppets controlled by authoritarian oligarchs.
well, that's capitalism... corporatism and consumerism, and globalism, and that is what we, in general, have decided to become, that is America
we want new things, better things all the time, and we also also want it affordable and cheap. so the companies make sure that we get that exactly... cheaper everything is possible because of cheap labor and cheap manufacturing, etcétera
also, there's plenty of jobs out there... they are just jobs most people don't want to do, if anyone knows and wants to drive a truck, there's at least 150,000 spots to fill up, (pay is not good though, in fact you might end up owing your employer, lol)
Unless you are living in a socialist country it is not the government that really creates the jobs but the free market. As for why governments love foreign imports? Because it is more reliable, often cheaper and good for your local economy. For example, if your country grows its own food you are at the mercy of having a good harvest and if you do not then your country will starve. If you import it then you can just buy it from somewhere else and continue as normal.
The more you trade with other countries and lets them do the work for you the harder it will be for disasters to impact your economy growth. Furthermore you can rely on other countries to do the menial and unimportant jobs while your own citizens focuses on jobs that produces more value.
Companies have no real national loyalty. Companies in a capitalist economy are Amoral machines that will do anything for profit. This is why there is such a requirement to regulate and oversee them so they do not resort to immoral actions such as child labor or ignore health and safety and likewise they do not care about the prosperity or national interest of their local country.
It is not an exaggeration to say that a capitalist company would intentionally destroy the world if it made them richer. Do not expect them to act like a person with things like loyalty or morality, it is not. It will cheat, murder and steal if it is more beneficial than being honest and good. It is the job of the government to make sure the financial interests of the company is aligned with the national interests of the government and the results of this can be... mixed...
This is also why corporate power over the government is generally not a good thing. They are indeed interested in success but only in personal success which usually means they can benefit greatly by tearing the country to pieces.
Sadly it becomes even worse when you have people in charge of the companies who do not understand what they are doing, more specifically fail to have long term plans. For example it might be very easy to make short term gains by destroying your future. Someone who does not plan 10 years or 20 years or 100 years in the future might not give a crap about if their own business can operate then much less if the country even exists.
Not sure if they need to create more job. In our town it seems like everyone is looking for people to work. The local icecream place can ony open on weekends, not enough help. So many open jobs in the state. It is almost impossible for the supply chain to keep up with demand. I go in our local grocery store and I have a hard time finding canned cat food. I have an older fussy cat and finding him what he likes is almost impossible. even on line. so there are plenty of jobs, just not enough people that want to fill them.
Because in a capitalistic economy the market is the ruler or to make it more clear the price. Because people won't a product at a certain price like no one would buy an IPhone for 10k. So companies look for a place where they can produce something cheaply to be able to go down with the price. That way big companies in general go to the US for selling but not producing. Which leads to big companies leaving the US or having left the US. If you wanna change that you have to make socialist reform by letting the government interfer in the market in such gives companies money that they can compensate higher costs that arise through higher wages or restrictions of any kind. But because that would collide with neoliberalism and the idea that the market alone sets up the balance that probably won't happen anytime in the US.
If you can get it for cheap and sell it for a high price then you make more money. Fact is the companies in the United States don't actually care about you or their employees they care about money and money alone and where does these companies get their money? by doing things like this. It's about an overall financial gain. The government really doesn't have much control over the situation in that matter the most they can do is Levy taxes and do embargoes and that's not going to go over well for the government
Uh oh, careful- you’re starting to sound like a Trump supporter lol.
In all seriousness, globalism is an American invention and used to bring countries into our sphere of influence and in order to create global stability we have to create the trade deficit we have and sacrifice American jobs and lower to middle class lifestyles to support it.
Rome had a similar problem - among others before it’s fall.
Portugal, Spain, England, etc. it’s a matter of top end greed with no regard for bottom end workers or conditions. You end up with a country where government is the only growth industry, and it eventually asphyxiates under its own bloated, cancerous growth when there is more money going out to pensioners and welfare recipients than is coming in from taxes, and the young men aren’t putting up with conscription to keep invading nearby countries in search of more resources to steal.
In general, Governmental treaties, regulations, taxes and illegal immigration stifle or prevents job creation.
Unfortunately it is all very political and is ultimately about control (whether it be governmental or corporate).
Over regulate or tax, companies will move corporate headquarters, manufacturing locations, etc….
Allow illegal immigration, import cheaper labor……
Everyone is looking for a loophole to keep their money, no matter how much you make. When risk outweighs reward, we will all make a change….. and people/corporations with significant quantities of $ can and will move offshore base on all the things listed above.
I took a tour of the world-famous Buck knives factory. I asked the lady if all Buck knives were made in America. Her face got beet red and she looked down at the floor. She said: "No, most are made in China." It's just a sad thing.
Most Helpful Opinions