The latest person to learn that things they believe in are really "better left unsaid" when the consequences of saying them is considered is Mitt Romney (again) whose pitch to big ticket donors included language he would not have used to the general public. But don't many of us also hold personal views about other groups or organizations, the voicing of which can serve only to create enemies and animosity? Being too honest some times can hurt. And as always, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ... and if their windows are open, perhaps they should keep their mouths shut.
Jack Lippman
Thoughts on Unemployment
I have wrtten on this subject in the past, but because I feel solving this problem is so important to our economic recovery, I will address it again. I don't have the full answer to our
unemployment crisis, but I am beginning to think it is a permanent problem and
demands a permanent solution. Your thoughts are welcome.
So long as labor is less costly outside of the United States,
manufacturing will continue to take place overseas. Down through our nation's history, our domestic economy has
always demanded cheap labor in the form of indentured servants, slaves,
unlimited immigrant labor and imported quasi-legal labor, such as the Chinese coolies who
built the trans-continental railroads and the many agricultural workers here
today. It is a fact of life that these sources are drying up so it would be foolish to look for new
manufacturing jobs in this country. The days of inexpensive labor in this
country are gone. So our manufacturers will go elsewhere for it.
Even if some manufacturing does remain, computerization and
robotics will reduce the number of jobs it requires. For example, when a bar code
scanned at a super market check-out counter enters an inventory system, the
need for replenishment of stock of that item often results in an order being picked,
routed and loaded on a truck for shipment to that supermarket, all without
human involvement, other than that of the original cashier and the truck driver
and whoever unloads the truck. And of course, robots have replaced human
hands in many remaining manufacturing settings.
The bottom line as I see it is that there is going to be a
limited, finite, amount of employment available in this country in the
future. Advances in technology and the lower cost of overseas labor will
assure that. How then, do we achieve something close to full employment
with what will be a drastically limited number of employment opportunities in
the future?
As I have said in earlier postings, this can be done by a strategy
involving the limiting of the age to which people can work. Mandatory
retirement at age 55, for example, will open up jobs to high school and college
graduates which otherwise would not be there. Similarly, limiting the
work week to a maximum number of hours, such as 30 or 35, would open up job
opportunities as well. This maximum hour limit could be adjusted
periodically as the unemployment rate varies.
This solution gets more challenging, unfortunately, when we
consider how families will support themselves, provide for food and housing,
and plan for their childrens' education and their ultimate retirement with the
reduced income resulting from workers stopping working at a younger age and a
reduced work week on top of that.
Working Americans, in exchange for this "strategic" solution to the unemployment problem will be earning less money. One way of looking at it is that the nation's total payroll will be divided among a greater number of workers, resulting in smaller paychecks. This will amount to a kind of wealth redistribution, but only involving wealth derived from salaries.
Dealing with this will initially involve a measure of austerity requiting such things as inter-generational housing (i.e. parents moving in with their children), more localization in higher education, eating out less often and similar cut backs. This may be only temporary, however, because there will be more employed people paying taxes, having a paycheck and spending it on consumer goods.
An illustration: 100 employees each receive a paycheck of $1000 each week. Most of this total payroll of $100,000 will be spent, but not all of it. Some money will be left over and not spent. With a mandatory reduced work week, however, the company will need to hire 25 new employees to get the same amount of work done but their total payroll will still be $100,000 even though their workforce is now 125. Each employee would now be paid $800 a week, but it is very unlikely that a penny of that will remain at the end of the week. It all will be spent. So more money will be pumped back into the economy through the consumption spending of the workers, a greater amount than it was back when there were only 100 employees. And 25 unemployed workers would have jobs and no longer be collecting benefits.
Ultimately, this increased consumption will start to create jobs on its own, initially at the retail and service level. And some of these jobs will be jobs that never existed before. They will be part of the economy's economic growth, and expressed as an increased Gross Domestic Product. This "consumption-oriented" approach is the reverse of what has been called "trickle down" economics, and might be considered its opposite, or "trickle up economics."
An illustration: 100 employees each receive a paycheck of $1000 each week. Most of this total payroll of $100,000 will be spent, but not all of it. Some money will be left over and not spent. With a mandatory reduced work week, however, the company will need to hire 25 new employees to get the same amount of work done but their total payroll will still be $100,000 even though their workforce is now 125. Each employee would now be paid $800 a week, but it is very unlikely that a penny of that will remain at the end of the week. It all will be spent. So more money will be pumped back into the economy through the consumption spending of the workers, a greater amount than it was back when there were only 100 employees. And 25 unemployed workers would have jobs and no longer be collecting benefits.
Ultimately, this increased consumption will start to create jobs on its own, initially at the retail and service level. And some of these jobs will be jobs that never existed before. They will be part of the economy's economic growth, and expressed as an increased Gross Domestic Product. This "consumption-oriented" approach is the reverse of what has been called "trickle down" economics, and might be considered its opposite, or "trickle up economics."
Undeniably, there will have to be an increase of taxes on the wealthy to fortify the nation's economic safety net to provide help for employees who find themselves confronted with earlier than expected retirement and a reduced work week. Frankly, this will amount to second form of wealth redistribution (the first involved workers' paychecks) but the money has to come from somewhere and sacrifice must be shared. Austerity will be less painful for the wealthy. Also, new innovations in pension and retirement plans will be needed. But as austerity begins to fade as consumption increases, such tax increases can be reduced. At the same time, as unemployment lessens, the weekly maximum work hours limit can be adjusted accordingly, creating still more taxable income. I believe such "synthetic" full employment will enable the country's economy to gradually recover.
Under this plan, the country will certainly still have problems, but unemployment will not be one of them. Psychologically, this can be beneficial to working people, although it might have the opposite effect on unexpectedly retired workers.
Readers of this blog know the low esteem in which I hold economists, so when I venture into subjects like this, whatever I write is far from polished, includes too many generalizaitons and has a lot of loose ends ... like most economic theory. Why should I be any different? Any comments on these ideas would be appreciated. And now ...
* * * * *
A few words about "Wealth Redistribution"
In the preceding article, I used the phrase "wealth redistribution" twice. I want to make it clear that "wealth redistribution" is not a dirty word. It conjures up, at least in the minds of conservative Republicans, an image of a Robin Hood robbing the rich and giving the spoils to the poor. If things get really bad, this type of "wealth redistribution" can occur, as it did in Russia in 1919 when the Soviet Union, a Communist state, was established, and took over all of the means of production in that country's economy.
Robin Hood Lenin
Normally, spreading the wealth among the people in our society is done in a calmer, more civilized way. WE CALL IT TAXATION. For example, from wealth redistributed through taxation, we have schools which many families, were it not for taxes, could not afford. That "socialist" Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, was big on this idea! The same goes for other government services. Getting back to the Soviet Union for a moment, when their economy finally collapsed, there was a tremendous redistribution of the wealth held by the state. It ended up in the hands of many individuals who set up private capitalist type businesses with it.
Throughout history, wealth has always been redistributed in one manner or another, sometimes at gunpoint, sometimes peacefully. In the Bible, the Old Testament concept of the Jubilee involved forgiving old debts every fifty years. This certainly redistributed wealth, particularly if someone owed you and they were forgiven from having to pay up! The next time you hear of a penniless immigrant coming to this country, working hard and ending up a millionaire, think of his success as wealth redistribution because someone else once possessed what ended up in his bank account. It just got "redistributed."
Along with this "redistribution" can come economic growth because the new holders of this wealth might better use it to increase the nation's GDP. The hope of this happening is probably why the "redistribution" occurred in the first place, but if they fail to do this, they become vulnerable to a further "redistribution."
Of course, people who want to hold on to what they have, and not share it with anyone else in our society, oppose "wealth redistribution" and classify it as something almost as abhorrent as rape. That's why they are against taxes, new taxes, old taxes and any taxes, all of which they see as tools of wealth redistribution. They worship at the shrine of Grover Norquist. Of course, they vote Republican. Calling them selfish is far too charitable.
Jack
LippmanReaders of this blog know the low esteem in which I hold economists, so when I venture into subjects like this, whatever I write is far from polished, includes too many generalizaitons and has a lot of loose ends ... like most economic theory. Why should I be any different? Any comments on these ideas would be appreciated. And now ...
* * * * *
A few words about "Wealth Redistribution"
In the preceding article, I used the phrase "wealth redistribution" twice. I want to make it clear that "wealth redistribution" is not a dirty word. It conjures up, at least in the minds of conservative Republicans, an image of a Robin Hood robbing the rich and giving the spoils to the poor. If things get really bad, this type of "wealth redistribution" can occur, as it did in Russia in 1919 when the Soviet Union, a Communist state, was established, and took over all of the means of production in that country's economy.
Robin Hood Lenin
Normally, spreading the wealth among the people in our society is done in a calmer, more civilized way. WE CALL IT TAXATION. For example, from wealth redistributed through taxation, we have schools which many families, were it not for taxes, could not afford. That "socialist" Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, was big on this idea! The same goes for other government services. Getting back to the Soviet Union for a moment, when their economy finally collapsed, there was a tremendous redistribution of the wealth held by the state. It ended up in the hands of many individuals who set up private capitalist type businesses with it.
Throughout history, wealth has always been redistributed in one manner or another, sometimes at gunpoint, sometimes peacefully. In the Bible, the Old Testament concept of the Jubilee involved forgiving old debts every fifty years. This certainly redistributed wealth, particularly if someone owed you and they were forgiven from having to pay up! The next time you hear of a penniless immigrant coming to this country, working hard and ending up a millionaire, think of his success as wealth redistribution because someone else once possessed what ended up in his bank account. It just got "redistributed."
Along with this "redistribution" can come economic growth because the new holders of this wealth might better use it to increase the nation's GDP. The hope of this happening is probably why the "redistribution" occurred in the first place, but if they fail to do this, they become vulnerable to a further "redistribution."
Of course, people who want to hold on to what they have, and not share it with anyone else in our society, oppose "wealth redistribution" and classify it as something almost as abhorrent as rape. That's why they are against taxes, new taxes, old taxes and any taxes, all of which they see as tools of wealth redistribution. They worship at the shrine of Grover Norquist. Of course, they vote Republican. Calling them selfish is far too charitable.
The following posting originally appeared on this blog on Dec. 7, 2011. It is just as true today .... and we have an election approaching!
JL
Obama's Israel Policy
The following information was received by Email from Dr. Robert Watson at Lynn University. It is being passed on to readers of the blog. You are encouraged to pass it on to others, if you wish, by copying and pasting it into your Email, or referring them to this blog.
Dr. Robert Watson
* * * * *
Friends,
I am always being asked to comment on Obama’s
Israel policy and I get a regular dose of angry misinformation – much of it 180
degrees from the truth – alleging that the Obama administration does not
support Israel. So, here are some thoughts and, more importantly, some facts…
When
President Truman supported statehood on May 14, 1948 by having theUnited States
be the first nation to recognize Israel (Truman signed the proclamation at 6:11
EST, about 11 minutes after statehood), it was but part of the vital role
Truman played in both establishing Israel and supporting the plight of the
Jewish diaspora after the Second World War. For instance, Truman improved
conditions for displaced persons after the Holocaust, supported Jewish refugees
relocating to Palestine over British objections, forced the Brits to stand down
from their policy of intercepting Jewish craft headed to Palestine, secured
Jewish immigration to the US in the critical years after WWII, built
international support for Israel, and much, much more. Much of what Truman did
was unpopular politically, especially with his base of white, southern voters
(including during the 1948 election) and among key allies, White House aides,
and the US State Department.
Harry S Truman
Harry S Truman
Additionally, the great Zionist leaders
indicated to Truman Israel’s need for more than simply official recognition of
statehood. There was the need for:
- Loan guarantees
- Agricultural support and aid
- Joint intelligence sharing
- Military cooperation
- Economic cooperation and commercial
development
- Trade
- Immigration
- Cultural exchanges between the two, new
allies
- Key vetoes in the UN of anti-Israel measures
and symbolic support for the fledgling state in the international community
- Missile defense
Truman delivered and is rightly recognized as a great champion of Israel. It is now said, however, that President Obama has abandoned the historical alliance between the United States and Israel when the fact of the matter is that he has delivered in every one of the aforementioned 10 critical areas. Here is a partial list of Obama’s substantive support for Israel:
1. Sent Israel the largest ever security package
of $2.775 billion (2010)
2. Surpassed the 2010 package with a $3 billion
package in 2011
3. Provided Israel with the most advanced
missile defense system
Israel’s Iron Dome Missile Defense System
4.
Ordered the largest-ever joint US and Israel military training exercise in
history
5. Supported the Gaza Counter-Arms Smuggling Program
with 10 other nations
6. Vetoed the 2010 Security Council resolution
criticizing Israel’s construction of settlements (the US was the only one of
the 15 members on the Security Council to veto)
7. Obama has vetoed over a half-dozen
anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council
8. Pushed a UN Security Council measure hitting
Iran with the toughest sanctions to date
9. Promoted and signed into law the
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act
10. Promoted and supported sanctions against
Syria
11. Repeatedly opposed unilateral efforts at a
Palestinian state
12. Obama’s two-state proposal for Palestine
based on the 1967 borders was only a starting point. Both sides were able to
negotiate up or down from that point and would have to sign off on any firm
deal. There were an array of territorial swaps built into the proposal,
requiring the support of both sides.
13. Called for the immediate release of Gilad
Shalit
14. Obama has sent countless senior White House
and Pentagon officials, Cabinet officials, and Vice President Biden to Israel
(hundreds of visits in total)
Barack Obama
Here is a partial list of Obama’s symbolic but
important support for Israel:
1. Refused to condemn Israel when asked
repeatedly to do so by many countries after the so-called Turkish flotilla
incident
2. Repeatedly advocated in the UN and in the
international community Israel’s right to self-defense and self-determination
3. Has continued the long history of immigration
between the two nations
4. Has continued the long history of cultural
exchanges between the two countries
5. Publically criticized Syria’s arming of
Hezbollah
6. Criticized the Goldstone Report and lobbied
the world community to oppose it
7. Discussed and ordered a study to examine
textbooks and curriculum in Saudi Arabia to determine possible anti-Semitism
8. Repeatedly proposed efforts to address the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
9. Publically and repeatedly called for a
non-militarized Palestinian state
10. Publically and repeatedly condemned Hamas
violence
11. Obama has met with Netanyahu 7 times thus
far
12. Obama repeatedly in speeches states the US
commitment to Israel
One of the best ways the United States can
support Israel is to be respected around the world and engage the world
community in a constructive, multi-lateral manner. This is happening.
US support for Israel is not a Democratic or
Republican thing – and friends of Israel should never want that to become the
case. However, there are individuals alleging as much today, which is
potentially very harmful to Israel. Both parties have
supported Israel. Liberals such as LBJ and conservatives such as Reagan were
champions of Israel. At the same time, presidents such as Jimmy Carter
(Democrat) and George H.W. Bush (Republican) have, at times, not exactly promoted
policies and positions helpful to Israel. To suggest that Obama,
however, has not been supportive of Israel is simply not true.
Robert P. Watson, Ph.D.,
Professor of American Studies, Coordinator of
the American Studies Program, Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL
Email: rwatson@lynn.edu Phone: 561.237.7432 Work: www.lynn.edu
web: www.robertwatson.us
FaceBook: /ProfessorWatson Twitter:
/ProfessorWatson
Sid's Corner
JARED
Sid Bolotin
He's my oldest grandson
And attending services for this Rosh Hashanah
I was flooded with thoughts of him
His upcoming marriage
Memories of walks on the beach
Swimming with him and my son
Shopping the malls
Debating religion
Comparing beliefs
Sweet contemplation on my patio
Me sitting on my Zen cushion
He standing shrouded in his tallis
Quietly reciting ancient prayers
Bobbing, weaving, shuckling his body
I erect in silent meditation
First and third generations
Separated by a few feet
Yet connected in the realm of Mystery
Quite likely to be joined
By a fourth generation
In the near future
Most readers of this blog
are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears. If you wish to be
added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com.
Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com
is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.
Our family of web
sites also includes:
www.computerdrek.com
Check
all of them out, find out what “drek” really means and feel free to submit your
thoughts and articles for publication on these sites, which, while still “under
construction,” already contain some interesting content.
Additional
new material will continue to be posted on www.politicaldrek.com until the
Presidential election, after which the future of these sites will be
re-evaluated.
Jack
Lippman
* * * * * *
* * *
To view
older postings, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” off to
the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Postings” notation at
the very bottom of this posting. The
“Search” box can also be used to find older postings.
To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom
you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the
"Comments" line directly below.
No comments:
Post a Comment