Will Obama's Job Creation Plan Reduce Government Dependency?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jobs Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential effectiveness of Obama's job creation plan and its implications for government dependency. Participants explore various aspects of job creation, including the quality and types of jobs, the role of government in job creation, and the economic context in which these jobs would be created. The conversation touches on theoretical, conceptual, and practical implications of the plan.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the job creation plan will effectively reduce government dependency or simply replace low-paying jobs with similar ones.
  • There is a concern about the quality of jobs created, with some arguing that creating higher-paying jobs is preferable, while others suggest that any job is better than none in a depressed economy.
  • Some participants highlight the limitations of presidential power in job creation, suggesting that the President cannot directly create jobs but can influence conditions for job growth.
  • There are discussions about the potential for government spending on infrastructure to generate jobs, with some expressing skepticism about the quality of construction and materials used by contractors.
  • Participants express differing views on whether the focus should be on the number of jobs created or the quality of those jobs, with some advocating for a balance between the two.
  • Some argue that historical examples show government job creation efforts often lead to undesirable outcomes, such as supporting outdated industries.
  • There is a debate over the economic impact of job creation, with some suggesting that even low-wage jobs contribute to increased spending, while others argue that they may not improve overall economic conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the effectiveness and implications of the job creation plan. There is significant disagreement on the importance of job quality versus quantity and the role of government in fostering job growth.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of job quality, differing economic contexts, and unresolved assumptions about the effectiveness of government intervention in job creation.

  • #31
This plan will not work. 8% unemployment in 2009 here we come!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
drankin said:
As far as the gov't "creating" jobs (assuming this means gov't jobs), I'm concerned about a significant amount of Americans relying on the gov't in order work. ...
One in six now, working directly for some level of government.
http://www.independentsector.org/PDFs/npemployment.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Add in all those working in the defence industries, which are effectively government jobs, and it gets worse.
 
  • #34
It worked once as Roosevelt's Works Projects. The mistake that Roosevelt made was that he failed to capitalize the banks, which we have already done.
 
  • #35
mgb_phys said:
Add in all those working in the defence industries, which are effectively government jobs, and it gets worse.

But those are private contracts. My company does a lot of military aerospace work. I don't think that necessarily counts. I'm more concerned about working directly for Uncle Sam. Excluding military.
 
  • #36
Roosevelt only showed that the government could create government jobs, not that it created net new jobs for the country at large.
 
  • #37
mheslep said:
One in six now, working directly for some level of government.
http://www.independentsector.org/PDFs/npemployment.pdf

Thanks for the info, that's interesting. I don't want to see that percentage increase.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
mheslep said:
Though the foreign purchased share of US debt is increasing, the majority of US debt is still held and purchased by US citizens and entities, and the majority of that US share comes directly through the investment of the US Social Security trust fund.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2007.pdf

What matters is not who holds the debt we already have. It is who finances additional debt.

In any case, whether the capital investment pool diverted to the US government is domestically sourced or foreign, that capital is not then available to create jobs in the private sector.

If we didn't have a crisis, we wouldn't be borrowing the money, so it would have never entered the economy. Also, we can still print more money.
 
  • #39
drankin said:
But those are private contracts. My company does a lot of military aerospace work. I don't think that necessarily counts. I'm more concerned about working directly for Uncle Sam. Excluding military.
And they could survive without the government contracts?

I'm not saying it's bad - but the government paying Boeing to build the ISS or General Dynamics/Raytheon to build aircraft carriers is exactly the same government works project as paying people to build the Hoover dam.
 
  • #40
Ivan Seeking said:
What matters is not who holds the debt we already have. It is who finances additional debt.
True, but the US still purchases a large chunk of its new debt offerings through the Social Security trust fund.

...Also, we can still print more money.
Printing more of a deflated currency won't buy any extra jobs.
 
  • #41
He isn't really going to create 2.5 million jobs like his Nov. 21st Youtube announcement indicated.


He is going to create or save 2.5 million jobs. No measureable endpoint there... as usual for Obama.

President-elect Barack Obama today announced a bold initiative to save or create 2.5 million jobs in the next two years.
http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/2_5_million_jobs/

From the SAME page as the "create or save" quote...

I have already directed my economic team to come up with an Economic Recovery Plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011 –

It's going to be a looong four years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
mgb_phys said:
And they could survive without the government contracts?

I'm not saying it's bad - but the government paying Boeing to build the ISS or General Dynamics/Raytheon to build aircraft carriers is exactly the same government works project as paying people to build the Hoover dam.

I just don't want to see a significant increase in bureaucracy. Which equates to increased taxes and gov't dependency. Military projects are a security necessity. Infrastructure projects are also prudent. These we've always had.
 

Similar threads

News The US Digital Service, aka DOGE
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Finding Meaningful Work: Career Advice for Young Scientists
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
News Job Creation - the Key To Protecting Entitlements
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Jobs increase, unemployment lowest in 4 years
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
13K
News Criticize your choice for president
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Mathematica NDSolve with forcing function via "digital waveguide"
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Unison - A new approach to Distributed computing, Storing Code, etc.
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
News Can Obama inspire change in Washington?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Undergrad Series Expansion of the Infinitesimal Spacetime Interval
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K