How do democrats plan to promote job creation for all busine

Post Reply New Topic

How do democrats plan to promote job creation for all businesses not just small business ? Big businesses can create jobs too in America like Microsoft Apple and IBM from what I read Microsoft and other big businesses did well and created jobs in the 1990's when the Democrat Bill Clinton was President what did he do to promote job creation among both small and big businesses ? I know that Democrats say we need Consumer Spending to help help Economic Growth ? I hear some people say that we need Infrastructure Spending to help Consumer Spending when did John Maynard Keynes ever talk about this thank you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_creat ... tial_terms

Wikipeida is not a good source of information just sayin.

There's more variables involved in the economy than any president alone can ever hope to control. In any case big business seems to be doing fine, considering the fact that developing economies are still growing. The problem is large corporations no longer have any reason to create jobs for Americans. They don't give a crap what the unemployment situation is in the US. Giving them tax breaks will not suddenly put them in a charitable mood. They won't hire any more Americans when they can take the same money and hire more Indians for a fraction of the price.

Big corporations tend to mostly create jobs overseas these days, since labour is so much cheaper there (don't get me started on that). So unless protectionist measure are put in place (not likely to happen) I really can't see big corporations as being a significant help in these things (with a few exceptions, for example shale gas exploration--although there are plenty of other issues with that). Consumer spending won't help too much either, I can't imagine, since most of the stuff people buy seems to be made overseas.

Marshall is quite right in saying that creating jobs is incredibly difficult for the government to do, because the economy is just so complicated. About the only way that I can think of to guarantee that jobs are created is instituting government works projects--which is expensive of course (although not as expensive as bailing out banks or going to war in Iraq). Of course, I suppose that it's possible that this would somehow damage other parts of the economy, destroying jobs there.

I'm skeptical of either of the major parties' ability to create jobs. I think that the Green Party has a good, but expensive plan, to do so through public works projects (focused on decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels), but of course they don't stand a chance of even getting a few percent of the vote. And of course who knows how their other policies would effect the economy, since they propose some pretty major changes.

Let's go to WAR! Wars create jobs. In fact, Keynes is sometimes put down because WWII actually brought the country out of the Great Depression. Now let's see what third world tyrant needs to be removed. I'm open for suggestions.

The unemployment rate, especially for the young, will create the incentive to serve one's country. Again, I say what country should it be?

To chime in on what William said, the markets are scared now because the economy is in the hands of politicians and politicians are like the UN, noble intentions but little gets done right.

On the note of tech creating jobs in the 1990s under a democratic president was a case of Mr. Clinton's time on office correlating with a new industry being born. To assume that Clinton had a big effect on markets is like arguing that Eisenhower and Truman had a big effect on the markets when the car industry was booming in the post-war US.

The challenge is that the incentives to create jobs in the US are dodgy, because not only a labor costs higher, but the US is doing a piss-poor job at education whereas China has millions of fresh University graduates every year. Corporations can trust that China will continue to create a fresh stream of highly qualified and capable employees for years to come.

China also has a government which isn't made up of what seems to be 80 - 90% lawyers, they have engineers, scientists, economists and so on in their government to a much larger degree. Law is a profession which isn't about who is objectively "right" its about who can argue their view of reality the best and that's not conducive to good politics.

The tech boom stayed in the US because the US had the most qualified graduates that had the competence and knowledge required by the companies. In the US now, you are paying more for people who often have poorer qualifications.

Well, the private sector has demonstrated itself to woefully incapable of supporting economic growth in the United States.

Government has two--and only two--levers which it can use to maintain growth in the economy: fiscal policy and monetary policy.

So the United States is going to go into the next fiscal year (starting October 1) with no fiscal policy solutions. Drastic public sector spending cuts are on the way--unless you believe that anyone in Congress has the cojones to introduce a solution before then. Without resolution, economic contraction in the order of 5 to 10 percent is an immediate consequence of cuts--depending upon their timing, and depending upon the speed of reaction from the rest of the economy.

Even if you reduced administrative and tax burdens on business to zero tomorrow, there would be no immediate surge in the economy. Chances are that those savings would go in two directions: into shareholders pockets and into reduced prices. And that will only serve to create deflationary pressure which will further erode the value of the US dollar.

Economies are organic systems--those who would attempt to make large scale changes in them are either mad, bad or stupid. Incremental change is the safer course--but the US political system is incapable of seeing beyond the grand gesture.

Look north, then.

We have realtively low levels of taxation (slightly higher than yours, but well smaller than any in Europe) along with reasonable levels of debt (smaller as a %'ge of GDP than yours or any of the lower taxed OECD nations, except Australia).

On top of that, our public pension program is funded on a going-forward basis (it is able to continue to pay projected benefits with no increase in premiums for 75 years). We provide medically necessary care to every person (though we haven't come to grips with the prescription drug issue, yet).

Quality of life is high, health indicators are good.

Maybe founding your country on the principles of "peace, order and good government" is a better recipe for national contentment than, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It's not perfect here, to be sure, but we have damn few things to complain about, and the quality of our governments is a significant factor in that.