Creating jobs: A politics-reality disconnect, part 1

Dealing with economic issues is unsettling. Unlike most traditional sciences (physics, math, medical science, chemistry, climate science) where there usually is a clearer consensus for major issues, some economic debates over central issues just don't seem to more or less "resolve" themselves into consensus. Or, if they do, the resolution doesn't come across to very clearly. Not to me at least.

On the one hand, . . . . . (X), but on the other . . . . . (not X) 

Some economists say that the federal 2008 TARP program and the 2009 economic stimulus bill had positive economic effects. Some disagree with that. Some economists say that the cash for clunkers program and the tax incentive for 1st time home buyers (part of the 2009 bill) worked, some don't. Some economists say that those programs did have their intended effects, but that after the programs ended, so did most or all of the benefit, or there was a negative rebound effect, e.g., by taking future buyers out of the market for cars or homes.

Visiting Japanese warships

The spinable science

Politicians added to the confusion for a while. Now they don't. Ignoring them as biased spinners (pervaricators) when they talk about economic issues removes that source of confusion. Nonetheless, it is still hard to find consensus among economists who are reasonably unbiased and willing to acknowledge reality for what it is. Bias can be very hard to spot, unless you carefully vet the people you are listening to. Essentially nobody has the skill, time and inclination for that.

Jobs, jobs, jobs . . . . . .

The question is how does one create jobs in the U.S. That has to be done in the face of low cost competitors, labor and environmental laws some of our competitors do not have, chronic dependence on expensive energy imports, chronic negative trade balance, chronic national debt and a few other factors. To some extent, maybe a large extent, we play by a different set of rules than some of our competitors. That arguably imperils our standard of living, despite coming from a recent history of advantages compared to other countries.

Hm, no 18" guns - how disappointing - what 

kind of an ally is that?

If you listen to the two parties and their elected leaders, each knows how to fix things. Democrats want, among other things, to invest in education, build some infrastructure and try not to decrease spending so fast that it knocks down the current anemic recovery. Republicans want to decrease taxes, crush government, kill regulations and generally unleash the raw power and beauty of unrestrained capitalist impulses. None of it is enlightening or provides details needed to understand how their ideas would work in the real world. They aren't convincing.

What's in those little boxes mounted on that 

radar/computer controlled precision mount?

Burger flippers with a history degree?

The Democratic plan to get everyone to get a college education seems misguided. Why would someone need that to work in an average minimum wage job in a restaurant, retail store, hotel or food supplier (e.g., meat packing plant or lettuce picker)? How do those degrees help in view of their high cost and four years of lost productivity, especially for degrees from expensive private schools? Does having a degree in history, English literature or philosophy make one a commensurately better burger flipper, truck driver or retail clerk? Maybe we need more engineers or scientists in specific specialties, but that has little or nothing obvious to do with training that is relevant to the vast majority of jobs in the U.S. economy.

It is hard to see how the Democrats' unfocused college education will change much of anything for the better any time soon. How does college for everyone create jobs? Unless I am mistaken, the vast majority of people that go to college in the U.S. are not going to be engineers, doctors, lawyers, computer scientists and all that hard core stuff. Right? If nothing else, we don't have the educational bandwidth to come even close to graduating everyone as an engineer, lawyer, doctor and/or another professional.

Assuming we did, how many people with a professional / engineering degree wants to be a hotel desk clerk, worker in a meat packing plant, gas station attendant, grocery store clerk or sewer plant worker? If they did, why on Earth did they get a professional degree? That would have been unnecessary and very expensive. That isn't a criticism of those jobs. They are critical to our economy. It is a statement of the disconnect between getting an expensive 4-year (at least) education and low paying jobs in our economy that arguably don't need that qualification.* And, we can't all be engineers, lawyers or scientists, in any economy. Someone has to do the other things and those other things constitute the vast majority of jobs. There is no way to deny that. The disconnet between universal college education Democrats advocate and creating good mainstream jobs is glaring. It seems to be just more empty, hopeful rhetoric from clueless, powerful ideologues on the left.

* In a perfect world, everyone should have a college education because it helps people think for themselves and usually adds to one's ability to understand others and situations one might be uncomfortable with. It may even make some people more civilized and tolerant. Education usually isn't bad. Its usually good. But, it isn't clear if college education is worth it in our relatively ruthless, unforgiving capitalist economy.

One redeeming idea: On the other hand, Democratic suggestions to rebuild infrastructure do make sense, if one assumes that good infrastructure helps our economy. I assume that is generally true. Infrastructure spending should therefore help, at least transiently if the countervailing debt increase didn't negate the spending.

The need for good jobs is obvious. I just would like to know how to create those jobs under some reasonably persuasive scheme from the left, right, center or elsewhere. So far, the thinking on the left is not good enough. Its too generalized and unfocused to be persuasive. We have to be able to do better.

End of part 1 (link to part 2)