What helps Job Creation more: Infrastructure, Education, Tax Cuts, or Other?

[Blue3]

What is the best public policy path for Job Creation in the current United States?


* Infrastructure

* Education

* Tax Cuts

* Other (please specify)

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Other, Bill Clinton

[memphis]

Infrastructure, obviously. It doesn't build itself.

[Person Man]

Other- Large innovative public projects that will mature into large private sector industries.  et. DARPANet, the Interstate, the Manhattan Project, Apollo Program. For capitalism to work, we need to rely on things that are not invented yet.

[Dave from Michigan]

of those 3, infrastructure and education. no more tax cuts.

we really need some major infrastructure spending in this country.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Definitely not tax cuts,  There is enough liquidity in the economy for it to grow if people think it will grow,  Increasing the deficit will encourage people to think the economy is growing.

[Link]

It depends.  If taxes are really high, which in the US they are not, then perhaps tax cuts.  Education is important but clearly more spending on education isn't going to be fruitful in the US unless you mean funding more basic science research at the collegiate and above level.  Infrastructure just needs to be done.  We need to make a commitment to our roads, airports, sea ports, and rail.  It is shameful that we haven't installed high speed rail in the Northeast corridor.  I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to hop a train to New York, Boston, or DC and taken a plane or car instead.

[traininthedistance]

I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to hop a train to New York, Boston, or DC and taken a plane or car instead.

Even with our current, creaky, outdated, rail system, it is still faster (within the Northeast Corridor) to get from one downtown to another via Amtrak than it is via airplane.  Once you factor in transit time to the airports, as well as time going through security and waiting (and buffer since you need to schedule extra time for security), the train actually is competitive time-wise within the Northeast- especially for the DC-Philly-NY segment, which is much straighter than the parts in Connecticut.

Imagine how things would be if we actually invested in rail for once. 

[barfbag]

Wow good question. Tax cuts help rich people higher workers. Let's face it, no one has ever been hired by a poor person. Education helps people learn skills for higher paying jobs and professions. Infastructure works when we invest money into different sectors like research and construction as long as it's short term. It creates jobs in the short run, helps get unemployed workers to have jobs, and stimulates the economy with more money going into it. Some researchers can earn enough to start their own businesses if they're successful enough. I'd have to say in the short run, tax cuts.

[Dave from Michigan]

I'm not against investing in a national high speed rail system connecting American cities but it seems that in lots of Cities local transportation like light rail is lacking. Yes this is a local issue too but the federal government should help cities fund it. Detroit has no rail lines at all for public transportation. Yes they are trying to build a 3.3 mile line but due to lack of funding that is all it will go rather than the original 8 miles. I prefer investing in local rail public transportation first then national rail.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Tax cuts have diminishing returns... 2001-2008 should have been boom-times because of the Bush tax cuts... they weren't. Actual evidence shows that when tax cuts go disproportionally to the top, it's not going to people who actually need it. Upper-end tax cuts do NOT arguably increase employment, what does work is middle-class and lower-income tax cuts.

You can't create a business without a market to serve, therefore tax cuts enable more people who need the money to spend, to spend it.

I think all of them play their part... but tax cuts should be targeted at the lower and middle-income brackets. More liquidity in the economy, more of a market to serve, business booms, the business owners win out.

[barfbag]

Tax cuts have diminishing returns... 2001-2008 should have been boom-times because of the Bush tax cuts... they weren't. Actual evidence shows that when tax cuts go disproportionally to the top, it's not going to people who actually need it. Upper-end tax cuts do NOT arguably increase employment, what does work is middle-class and lower-income tax cuts.

You can't create a business without a market to serve, therefore tax cuts enable more people who need the money to spend, to spend it.

I think all of them play their part... but tax cuts should be targeted at the lower and middle-income brackets. More liquidity in the economy, more of a market to serve, business booms, the business owners win out.

It doesn't matter who needs it but who can create jobs. Even if the rich spend their money or invest it, someone will be needed to manage their money or jobs will be created in sectors where money are spent. Government should stay out of the economy other than some infrastructure, environmental regulations, and to a small extent minimum wage.

[traininthedistance]

I'm not against investing in a national high speed rail system connecting American cities but it seems that in lots of Cities local transportation like light rail is lacking. Yes this is a local issue too but the federal government should help cities fund it. Detroit has no rail lines at all for public transportation. Yes they are trying to build a 3.3 mile line but due to lack of funding that is all it will go rather than the original 8 miles. I prefer investing in local rail public transportation first then national rail.

Yeah, I totally agree with this.  While high-speed rail is fantastic as a replacement/supplement for long-distance car trips or short-haul air routes between major nodes (100 to 600 miles, roughly), improving public transit within metro areas absolutely needs to be a higher priority.  Of course,  you want to have systems connect to each other when feasible, especially in the Northeast where the metros are so close together and a lot of trips cross state or MSA lines.  You can cobble together some inter-city rail improvements that way.  

Anyway, infrastructure is the obvious answer to the OP's question.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

All of the above.

[Cory]

Other- Large innovative public projects that will mature into large private sector industries.  et. DARPANet, the Interstate, the Manhattan Project, Apollo Program. For capitalism to work, we need to rely on things that are not invented yet.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Tax cuts have diminishing returns... 2001-2008 should have been boom-times because of the Bush tax cuts... they weren't. Actual evidence shows that when tax cuts go disproportionally to the top, it's not going to people who actually need it. Upper-end tax cuts do NOT arguably increase employment, what does work is middle-class and lower-income tax cuts.

You can't create a business without a market to serve, therefore tax cuts enable more people who need the money to spend, to spend it.

I think all of them play their part... but tax cuts should be targeted at the lower and middle-income brackets. More liquidity in the economy, more of a market to serve, business booms, the business owners win out.

It doesn't matter who needs it but who can create jobs. Even if the rich spend their money or invest it, someone will be needed to manage their money or jobs will be created in sectors where money are spent. Government should stay out of the economy other than some infrastructure, environmental regulations, and to a small extent minimum wage.

Problem is my response is based on what actually works, yours is ideological and based on what you think SHOULD work.

[Blue3]

Other- Large innovative public projects that will mature into large private sector industries.  et. DARPANet, the Interstate, the Manhattan Project, Apollo Program. For capitalism to work, we need to rely on things that are not invented yet.

A lot of that would fall under Infrastructure.


And honestly, I love science and technology and space exploration, and by all means we should continue and increase our funding for them... but... the truth that everyone has been trying to ignore for years is that our improving technologies make less jobs necessary. It's only a matter of time before almost everything is automated. There will still be jobs requiring creative and critical thinking, which machines can't do that well, but they won't be enough jobs to employ everyone aged 18-70. A big paradigm shift is coming, but that's another discussion.

My point is, research projects aren't necessarily Job Creation. Besides, it's not these types of workers that are unemployed or partially-employed or in terrible jobs rights now. There aren't enough of those math/science graduates, actually, they don't have an unemployment problem. It's everyone else.

[Donerail]

For creating jobs NOW, in the short-term, it's infrastructure; for long-term economic growth it's education.

[DC Al Fine]

In today's America? Infrastructure, although I can think of other times when the other two would work better.

[Goldwater]

All of the above.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

For creating jobs NOW, in the short-term, it's infrastructure; for long-term economic growth it's education.

^^^ This. But for the record, I voted infrastructure.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

For creating jobs NOW, in the short-term, it's infrastructure; for long-term economic growth it's education.

Yep.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

For creating jobs NOW, in the short-term, it's infrastructure; for long-term economic growth it's education.

Yep.

[pbrower2a]

Infrastructure for putting people to work -- education so that people can know what they are doing with infrastructure.

Tax cuts simply satisfy the loudest and best-organized people, namely those who buy the politicians and hire lobbyists. They are easy to enact but largely fruitless unless the taxes are inordinately high. Tax cuts usually come with huge reductions in government spending, so the combination usually shrinks the economy.

[bballrox4717]

For creating jobs NOW, in the short-term, it's infrastructure; for long-term economic growth it's education.

Yep.

This, though I would also add that increasing consumer confidence would be huge short term as well.