How can government create jobs in the private sector?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:38:32 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  How can government create jobs in the private sector?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: How can government create jobs in the private sector?  (Read 1352 times)
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 11, 2013, 09:41:50 AM »

According to your economic ideology, how does the government influence the marketplace to create jobs in the short term and in the long term? If you do not believe it can (or should), please explain why.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2013, 10:08:58 AM »

Boost demand.
Logged
Marnetmar
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 495
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.58, S: -8.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2013, 11:05:55 AM »

Cut military spending but license work out to private contractors to keep the GOP happy.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2013, 11:44:42 AM »


This. By any means necessary.  (essentially boosting demand in practice does mean redistribution)
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2013, 03:54:17 PM »

By nationalizing it.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2013, 04:06:00 PM »

Rule of law
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2013, 12:28:06 AM »


Huh
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2013, 01:35:07 AM »

Can you guys go into a bit more detail about how exactly these ideas affect the public sector? How does government create demand? I can get behind that redistribution creates more powerful consumers to create demand, but (to play devil's advocate) wouldn't confiscating the wealth of the owning class cause economic stagnation as people would be less motivated to start businesses if their wealth would just be taken?
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2013, 01:41:07 AM »


A stable, safe society creates an encouraging societal atmosphere for businesses to operate in. I imagine that this is the only role he sees for government. To that I would say: don't regulations that keep society safe and healthy do a similar thing?
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,503
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2013, 02:20:48 AM »

Not directly, but by:

1.  improving the education system such that graduates are ready from Day 1 to work; and

2. investing in infrastructure improvements -and given the magnitude of the task in front of us, that investment should be massive indeed.  
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2013, 03:04:59 AM »
« Edited: October 12, 2013, 03:09:12 AM by Governor Tyrion »

Can you guys go into a bit more detail about how exactly these ideas affect the public sector? How does government create demand? I can get behind that redistribution creates more powerful consumers to create demand, but (to play devil's advocate) wouldn't confiscating the wealth of the owning class cause economic stagnation as people would be less motivated to start businesses if their wealth would just be taken?

You're assuming an ideology here.

In Keynesian Theory, redistribution occurs in a form, but the shifting out of aggregate demand isn't a diatribe on government inlays, only outlays. Simply put, the redistribution referenced by opebo and TNF isn't "taxing the rich to feed the poor" necessarily. It may be a long term strategy to finance such demand-boosting by progressively taxing the upper class, but that's a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. In fact, increasing taxes undercuts demand anywhere on the income spectrum; the economic question that must be answered isn't whether or not that drop in demand will happen, but how much the corresponding spending by the government will boost demand in response to it.

And, obliquely, we've arrived at the answer. Boosting demand is "spending."

[As an aside, do note that spending is not the ONLY way to boost aggregate demand. Tax cuts do this as well. Since we're talking about MY ideology, though, I won't harp on them, because I don't believe them to be as effective. ]

This may be spending by consumers, businesses, or the government, but it is surely spending. Spending creates job growth; that's a fact. The political question is "Where do we spend?" Reagan favored a top-down approach (supply-side economics[again, more to tax incentives, so it's only spending when you consider inlays and outlays equal, which is actually somewhat false]), and TNF, Opebo, and I are surely advocating a bottom-up strategy.

It's obviously more nuanced than that. To answer the question very directly, spending in the short term, safety nets, worker's rights, and protection of the middle class in the long term. Essentially, in the roughest economic sense, you want to protect the people who help the economy the most. Republicans and Democrats disagree on who that is.

Now, I realized at the end of my post that you probably didn't want a lecture. I apologize. I hope someone else finds this post revealing, anyway.
Logged
tik 🪀✨
ComradeCarter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,499
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2013, 06:24:43 PM »

I welcome and appreciate lectures from people with more knowledge than me. I find it gratifying and have expressed that many times. So, thank you for the explanation! I have a few questions still as economic jargon is something I'm not overly familiar with..

By inlays and outlays do you mean the flow of money into and out of government? Your sentence about supply-side economics and inlays and outlays being equal confuses me. Is that cutting spending alongside cutting taxes? I apologise if this is a stupid question.

And anyway, in Keynesian theory shouldn't government increase taxes and decrease spending during healthy growing economic periods? If that's the case, wouldn't it have a deleterious effect on the economy? If spending creates demand, wouldn't we always want the government to be spending as much as possible?
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2013, 06:44:11 PM »


A stable, safe society creates an encouraging societal atmosphere for businesses to operate in. I imagine that this is the only role he sees for government. To that I would say: don't regulations that keep society safe and healthy do a similar thing?

I concur. I'm a socon, not a libertarian.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2013, 07:05:18 PM »

I welcome and appreciate lectures from people with more knowledge than me. I find it gratifying and have expressed that many times. So, thank you for the explanation! I have a few questions still as economic jargon is something I'm not overly familiar with..

By inlays and outlays do you mean the flow of money into and out of government? Your sentence about supply-side economics and inlays and outlays being equal confuses me. Is that cutting spending alongside cutting taxes? I apologise if this is a stupid question.

It's not stupid. There are entire college courses devoted to the theories at hand, here. And yes, by inlays and outlays, I just mean government cash inflow and outflow.

Supply-side economics isn't as simple as cutting spending and taxes, but that is an end goal. Essentially, Keynesian economics stimulates demand through gov't spending, while supply-side stimulates the economy by cutting taxes and providing incentives to the so-called "drivers" of the economy (aka businesses).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Theoretically, yes, proper fiscal management should yield a surplus during strong economic times, and, yes, cutting spending and increasing taxes would definitely halt economic growth. That's why we see the deficits we do; no one has any problems with increasing spending to get out of a rut, but cutting it back to pre-recession levels is nigh impossible. You're basically actively poaching jobs during a fiscal upturn, and that's a very, very difficult thing for any person to do.

And, spending all the time is a bit dangerous. There's something called "crowding out", whereby spending leads to inflation, which leads to reduced consumption and business investment. Eventually, the theory is that government spending would be too much of GDP. Hence, "crowding out" is a cautionary tale against spending infinite money for infinite growth; again, the political disagreement here is "How much?"
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2013, 01:18:03 PM »
« Edited: October 14, 2013, 01:30:17 PM by Redalgo »

According to your economic ideology, how does the government influence the marketplace to create jobs in the short term and in the long term? If you do not believe it can (or should), please explain why.

Economics is really one of my soft spots in politics, i.e. I am a bit of a novice here. Nonetheless...


The government can but should not promote job creation in the short term:

Increasing the money supply threatens to incur inflation, which seems more dangerous to me.
It would be unjust and harm inter-class solidarity to increase demand via heavier redistribution.
State jobs for the unemployed erodes efficiency and makes government excessively expensive.
Stimulus could work but is very expensive and won't be implemented properly under our order.
An increase to the basic income would raise demand, but it is dangerous to leave easy to alter.
Corporatist ideas risk increased corruption and distorting otherwise fairer market competitions.


The government could and should promote job creation over the long term:

Maintain a livable basic income to prop up demand, increase social mobility, and bolster freedom.
Help increase the ease of doing business; simplify and reform both the tax code and regulations.
Focus on fostering fair terms of competition and meddle in fewer informed, risk-taking behaviors.
Pursue trade agreements, providing the People with increased access to business opportunities.
Sustain state investments in infrastructure and basic R&D to pour foundations for future growth.
Protect workers' means of self-help: socialism, workplace democracy, upkeep of other rights, etc.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2013, 01:45:36 PM »

The government should boost demand, but should also subsidize infant industries and nurture basic research and innovation.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2013, 02:21:29 PM »

Boost demand and small businesses.  Reduce FICA taxes significantly, but lift the cap.  FICA is a REGRESSIVE TAX!!!!!  People need to come to grips with that.  Not forced savings for retirement.  It's a damn TAX!!!!!!!  Self employment taxes are KILLING small businesses!  Ronald Reagan duped us badly to push through his tax cuts by raising FICA and raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and throwing working class and small businesses under the bus.  That's why it's a tax people!
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2013, 10:00:19 PM »

The government should stay out of the private sector the same as it should stay out of the church and religion. However, infrastructure can be useful in order to create short term jobs especially when in a recession. Contractors and construction workers then have money to spend in the economy which benefits other sectors. While I'm a fan of the trickle down effect, wealth doesn't have to trickle down from the top. Food stamps are another good job creator whether some people on my side of the aisle can see it or not. If it weren't for food stamps, then the grocery store I currently work at would not exist. Not only do the less fortunate get to eat, but grocery stores are needed in the less fortunate areas where residents may not have the means or funds to travel as far for their groceries. Medicare and Medicaid are superb ways to help our healthcare system and the medical field. If there are two sectors that are a must be strong for our nation, it's the medical and labor industries. Social Security creates jobs for younger people as it allows our seniors to retire at age 62, well later in a lot of cases now, but it does get younger workers into the workforce. I praise Roosevelt to this day for the program. Now having said that, the life expectancy is about 18 years longer than it was when he was in office so people are on the program longer. Al Gore proposed the lockbox in the 2000 campaign as a solution to this and I still believe that he had the right answer. As social security is used in the private sector more jobs are created as the money is spent at some point along the line. Again, trickle down doesn't have to come from the top of our income brackets. Lastly, an elimination of the corporate tax would indeed encourage companies to come back from overseas. The more of one's own income one has to spend, the better off they are in terms of self-sustainability and the same goes for the private sector economy. As a company or corporation is able to keep and save more of their own money, the more wealth stays in the private sector. Some companies will spend more on advertisements which leads to higher sale numbers and better production. Other companies such as malls and grocery stores will use money for renovations which brings more business to their propriety. Even if the company saves the money, which most places wouldn't do, accountants and account managers are still needed and jobs are created for such a matter.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2013, 04:00:10 PM »

Boost demand and small businesses.  Reduce FICA taxes significantly, but lift the cap.  FICA is a REGRESSIVE TAX!!!!!  People need to come to grips with that.  Not forced savings for retirement.  It's a damn TAX!!!!!!!  Self employment taxes are KILLING small businesses!  Ronald Reagan duped us badly to push through his tax cuts by raising FICA and raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and throwing working class and small businesses under the bus.  That's why it's a tax people!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And the other side of the coin, of course, is that Social Security is a "welfare" program, and a quite expensive one too. It's hilarious that people pretend otherwise.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2013, 08:48:30 PM »

Boost demand and small businesses.  Reduce FICA taxes significantly, but lift the cap.  FICA is a REGRESSIVE TAX!!!!!  People need to come to grips with that.  Not forced savings for retirement.  It's a damn TAX!!!!!!!  Self employment taxes are KILLING small businesses!  Ronald Reagan duped us badly to push through his tax cuts by raising FICA and raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and throwing working class and small businesses under the bus.  That's why it's a tax people!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And the other side of the coin, of course, is that Social Security is a "welfare" program, and a quite expensive one too. It's hilarious that people pretend otherwise.

Exact opposite. People pay into social security and therefore it's not a welfare or entitlement program. We work for it.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2013, 01:23:33 PM »

Boost demand and small businesses.  Reduce FICA taxes significantly, but lift the cap.  FICA is a REGRESSIVE TAX!!!!!  People need to come to grips with that.  Not forced savings for retirement.  It's a damn TAX!!!!!!!  Self employment taxes are KILLING small businesses!  Ronald Reagan duped us badly to push through his tax cuts by raising FICA and raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and throwing working class and small businesses under the bus.  That's why it's a tax people!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And the other side of the coin, of course, is that Social Security is a "welfare" program, and a quite expensive one too. It's hilarious that people pretend otherwise.

Exact opposite. People pay into social security and therefore it's not a welfare or entitlement program. We work for it.

It may be a bit of a tautology, but the government very clearly defines Social Security as an entitlement.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2013, 01:31:02 PM »

Boost demand and small businesses.  Reduce FICA taxes significantly, but lift the cap.  FICA is a REGRESSIVE TAX!!!!!  People need to come to grips with that.  Not forced savings for retirement.  It's a damn TAX!!!!!!!  Self employment taxes are KILLING small businesses!  Ronald Reagan duped us badly to push through his tax cuts by raising FICA and raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and throwing working class and small businesses under the bus.  That's why it's a tax people!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And the other side of the coin, of course, is that Social Security is a "welfare" program, and a quite expensive one too. It's hilarious that people pretend otherwise.

Exact opposite. People pay into social security and therefore it's not a welfare or entitlement program. We work for it.

It may be a bit of a tautology, but the government very clearly defines Social Security as an entitlement.

So?
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2013, 01:35:00 PM »

Boost demand and small businesses.  Reduce FICA taxes significantly, but lift the cap.  FICA is a REGRESSIVE TAX!!!!!  People need to come to grips with that.  Not forced savings for retirement.  It's a damn TAX!!!!!!!  Self employment taxes are KILLING small businesses!  Ronald Reagan duped us badly to push through his tax cuts by raising FICA and raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and throwing working class and small businesses under the bus.  That's why it's a tax people!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And the other side of the coin, of course, is that Social Security is a "welfare" program, and a quite expensive one too. It's hilarious that people pretend otherwise.

Exact opposite. People pay into social security and therefore it's not a welfare or entitlement program. We work for it.

It may be a bit of a tautology, but the government very clearly defines Social Security as an entitlement.

So?

Nothing, really.

In any case, the reason it's defined as such is because it's not an account based payout, but rather an expected future payment for an income-less individual.

Add to that the general nature of government accounting; anything of that nature necessarily on the books is an "entitlement" by definition.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,851


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2013, 01:39:51 PM »

The private sector wouldn't even exist without government. It would have no roads to deliver its products on, no airwaves to advertise its products on, no internet to sell its products through, no education system to provide it with a workforce that can read and do math, no intellectual property law allowing it to profit from what it creates, no police force to protect its factories and its employees from violence, etc.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2013, 02:12:29 PM »

The private sector wouldn't even exist without government. It would have no roads to deliver its products on, no airwaves to advertise its products on, no internet to sell its products through, no education system to provide it with a workforce that can read and do math, no intellectual property law allowing it to profit from what it creates, no police force to protect its factories and its employees from violence, etc.

+1. But those aren't the things about government that private sector interests object to...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 11 queries.