# So what do we do about the job situation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2009, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661 "2009-01-10T11:54:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/21 "2009-01-10T19:42:32Z")
I don’t know about America but over here I’d like to see a removal of fuel duty (it’s over 100%, maybe 200%) and a slashing of sales tax from the current 15% to 5% or less. The former would make it vastly easier for people to travel to new jobs and the latter would encourage spending. I’d also like to see large tax allowances for children - again this will encourage spending. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/22 "2009-01-10T20:00:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Because smart people realize that we won’t always be in a recession, and they will want to invest in the future. The less it costs to do that, the more likely it will happen. You can invest without expanding capacity. So the tax cuts aren’t going to create jobs in the short run? And why would government ‘invest’ in companies if the payoff won’t come until after the recession? After the recession, companies shouldn’t need subsidies from the government; good companies will attract investment from the private sector. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Product development. New business start-ups. R&D. Compared to manufacturing, those activities produce relatively few jobs. If job creation during a deep recession is the goal, business tax cuts are a poor way to do it. ---
**Author:** ![ASAKMOTSD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@ASAKMOTSD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASAKMOTSD)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/23 "2009-01-10T20:01:12Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > Most of the jobs that are sent offshore are manufacturing and other production jobs. If we kept them all here, retail prices would skyrocket due to giant increases in wage and benefit costs to the employers. So the “people” would still get screwed, because they couldn’t afford to buy anything. Perhaps its time to offshore a few CxO jobs? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/24 "2009-01-10T20:25:25Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > You entirely missed **shallora** ’s point, which is completely compatible with yours. S/he was pointing out that a $3K tax break will not encourage a business to hire someone to a $50K job they would not have hired them to anyway. This is what happens when people sprinkle their arguments with hateful, troll-like, rhetoric; people don’t get the point on focus on the name calling… ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/25 "2009-01-10T20:55:09Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Compared to manufacturing, [R&D, etc] produce relatively few jobs. If job creation during a deep recession is the goal, business tax cuts are a poor way to do it. Creating new products and new brands produces few jobs? That is exactly what creates jobs. The 90s started out in a recession. It only became a time of wealth and affluence around 1995 when a combination of concern over Y2K and the commercialization of the Internet and business technologies created thousands of new jobs. Here are some actions that tend to create jobs: Lower taxes so people have more money to spend and invest Government investment in infrastructure and research Investing in training and education Here are some actions that tend not to create jobs: Tax increases Protectionism Clinging to obsolete or declining industries ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/26 "2009-01-10T21:16:35Z")
What about a sales-tax holiday? The problem with giving out money is that people might save it for the proverbial storm clouds on the horizon. Instead, how about making the good cheaper? That way, you can’t benefit from it unless you spend the money. There’s no “Welfare state!” objections because a dollar is a dollar, regardless of who it comes from. So if a poor guy spends 5 bucks and a rich guy spends 5 bucks, they both benefit the same. If states don’t want to do it, the federal gov’t can reimburse them for their losses. Consider also that if there’s a sales tax relief for, say, a month, people with money would go and buy the most expensive things they’ve had their eye on. That means houses and cars. And which two industries are hurting the worst right now (besides finance)? Auto and Real Estate. It just makes sense to me. The problem is that no one will buy goods right now and people thus get fired. So the best way to encourage buying is by making stuff cheaper. I say don’t give people money, just let them keep what they’ve got- but only if they start spending it. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/27 "2009-01-10T21:37:27Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > What about a sales-tax holiday? The problem with giving out money is that people might save it for the proverbial storm clouds on the horizon. Instead, how about making the good cheaper? That way, you can’t benefit from it unless you spend the money. Many states already do this. It usually makes for poor stimulus as consumers simply tend to buy a bunch of stuff at once during the holiday rather then buy the same amount of goods all at once. For example, from [The Tax Foundation](http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1771.html): > [@](#): > > According to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, while the Empire State’s first sales tax holiday increased sales during the period of the holiday, sales for the year were virtually unchanged. In other words, shoppers didn’t buy more; they just shifted the timing of their purchases. > > Other studies have indicated that retailers may raise their pre-tax prices during the tax holiday, leaving consumers out of the full tax savings. > > As it turns out, sales tax holidays are more hype than anything. Not only do they fail to live up to their advertising, they generate numerous problems. For one, the complexity and administrative burden that sales tax holidays create can be mind-numbing for small-business owners. Tax holidays create unstable tax codes that force businesses to develop new administrative and compliance strategies every time a tax holiday is enacted. The complexity mentioned in the last paragraph would be greatly multiplied in the case of a federal sales tax holiday, since the entity funding the holiday would be different then the one collecting the sales tax. Also, politically some (probably also mind-numbingly complicated) mechanism would have to be adopted so that the stimulus money didn’t end up going only to those states with high sales tax while totally skipping those with no state sales tax. Other rebate schemes might work better, but I think people are pretty uncomfortable with schemes that basically have the federal government bribing its citizens to go buy a bunch of big-screen TV’s and the like. ---
**Author:** ![dgrdfd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb8c5e/32.png) [@dgrdfd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dgrdfd)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/28 "2009-01-10T23:59:11Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Consider also that if there’s a sales tax relief for, say, a month, people with money would go and buy the most expensive things they’ve had their eye on. That means houses and cars. And which two industries are hurting the worst right now (besides finance)? Auto and Real Estate. What kind of sales tax do you pay on a house? In the two states I have lived you pay 5% or less in tax when you buy a car. That’s certainly not enough to make one decide to buy or not buy. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/29 "2009-01-11T00:42:45Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Public works require a considerable amount of long-term planning before any actual construction can be done. I don’t see that as a good way to stimulate short-term economic growth. There are many works that have already been planned and just need funding. We’re not talking about the Hoover Dam. We’re talking about rebuilding schools, highways, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/30 "2009-01-11T18:26:05Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I don’t know about America but over here I’d like to see a removal of fuel duty (it’s over 100%, maybe 200%) and a slashing of sales tax from the current 15% to 5% or less. The former would make it vastly easier for people to travel to new jobs and the latter would encourage spending. I’d also like to see large tax allowances for children - again this will encourage spending. It’s also a good way to stimulate the use of petroleum products. Let’s take the people who have made the greatest strides in turning toward alternative energy sources, and give them incentives to use more petroleum instead. In the meantime, the US will stimulate R&D in green tech with government spending, eliminating the leg-up that Europe currently has in these fields. Yeah, that’s a great idea. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/31 "2009-01-11T19:49:28Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > It’s also a good way to stimulate the use of petroleum products. I’m not interested in discussing AGW in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/32 "2009-01-12T01:45:14Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Creating new products and new brands produces few jobs? That is exactly what creates jobs. > > The 90s started out in a recession. It only became a time of wealth and affluence around 1995 when a combination of concern over Y2K and the commercialization of the Internet and business technologies created thousands of new jobs. Ah yes, the Dot Com bubble. That was a fairly good time wasn’t it ? When people could make millions on an email adress and a vaguely worded mission statement. That’ll build a strong economy 😉 > [@](#): > > Here are some actions that tend to create jobs: > Lower taxes so people have more money to spend and invest > Government investment in infrastructure and research > Investing in training and education > > Here are some actions that tend not to create jobs: > Tax increases > Protectionism > Clinging to obsolete or declining industries Considering the choice is between the first two items on you list of things that create jobs, I don’t see you making a relevant argument here :dubious:. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/33 "2009-01-12T02:04:01Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’m not interested in discussing AGW in this thread. It’s not solely an issue of AGW. If, in fact, there are many potential jobs available in alternative and renewable energy development, then removing fuel taxes, which would stimulate demand for petroleum products, would dampen the push for alternative/renewable energy sources, thus suppressing job development. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/34 "2009-01-12T03:45:20Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > [CN argues that it’s the lynchpin problem](http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/pain_ahead/index.htm?cnn=yes), and I can’t see any reason to disagree. > > So what do we do about it? Obama thinks more public works will help. Conservatives think that a tax cut for businesses would produce more in jobs than it costs in lost revenue. > > Whaddya think? Whatever you believe is the right solution, how likely do you think it’d be implemented? Are we doomed to just “wait this out”? I assume by “we” you mean the U.S. federal government. Before asking what we should do about the job situation, you should first ask whether we should do anything about it. IMHO, the answer to that question is no–the U.S. federal government should limit its activities as much as possible to those that directly protect its citizens from enemies (like other countries and terrorists, not the “enemy of joblessness” or whatever). ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/35 "2009-01-12T08:41:19Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > If, in fact, there are many potential jobs available in alternative and renewable energy development, then removing fuel taxes, which would stimulate demand for petroleum products, would dampen the push for alternative/renewable energy sources, thus suppressing job development. Unfortunately there are relatively few jobs in research compared with the vast numbers of people getting from A to B. And the latter group have an immediate need whereas the former holds the _possibility_ of a solution - and likely a more expensive solution at that if petrol needs to be taxed. To get us out of this hole we need to get people earning money. High taxes on petrol put a very large damper on the mobility of the workforce. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/36 "2009-01-12T12:21:13Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I assume by “we” you mean the U.S. federal government. Before asking what we should do about the job situation, you should first ask whether we should do anything about it. IMHO, the answer to that question is no–the U.S. federal government should limit its activities as much as possible to those that directly protect its citizens from enemies (like other countries and terrorists, not the “enemy of joblessness” or whatever). Actually, you should first ask whether we should have a federal government at all. Go Articles of Confederation! And now that I think about it, actually, even before that, you should ask whether governments are a good idea for any purpose. Viva Proudhon! Of course, even before that, we need to know about the fundamentals of human nature to know which kinds of social hierarchy will work. And before that you’re going to need to establish how we “know” any of this, given the possibility that we’re all dreaming or have hallucinated all of our seemingly empirical knowledge (I realize you don’t need to do this, **RR** , as A=A, but the rest of us might need more). Indeed, before that, you’ll need to show that you other bastards even exist! Damn! It’s assumptions all the way down! Or, maybe, there’s a difference between an assumption and a carefully considered, widely shared conclusion. And maybe we could discuss problems without reestablishing, each time, more basic conclusions underlying the discussion. Just a thought. I’m happy to discuss some Descartes though. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/37 "2009-01-12T13:25:58Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Unfortunately there are relatively few jobs in research compared with the vast numbers of people getting from A to B. And the latter group have an immediate need whereas the former holds the _possibility_ of a solution - and likely a more expensive solution at that if petrol needs to be taxed. To get us out of this hole we need to get people earning money. High taxes on petrol put a very large damper on the mobility of the workforce. I agree that the people of the workforce have an immediate need, and the research group holds only the_possibility_ of a solution. Having said that, however, I still think substantially lowering fuel taxes is just as bad an idea now as it was when it was proposed in the U.S. in July or August of 2008. Lowering prices (and therefore stimulating demand) on a non-renewable resource that already has an incredibly high demand is only going to exacerbate our problems. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/38 "2009-01-12T14:49:14Z")
Richard Parker, I humbly submit that there is a difference between the question “should the US federal government do X?” and the question “Are we all just brains in a vat?”, and that it is possible to conclude that it is appropriate to consider the first without having to consider the second. Any assertion to the contrary is pure orneriness for its own sake. The US federal government is a government of limited powers, which necessarily raises the first question.\* There is nothing about the exercise that necessarily raises the second question anÿ more strongly than does the decision whether to get out of bed in the morning. \*The looseness of those limits is much younger than the limits themselves and is based on judicial interpretation, which can change over time. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/39 "2009-01-12T15:44:08Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > Repairing dams alone would probably take quite a bite, and we desperately need to do this. There are an estimated [two million dams](http://whyfiles.org/169dam_remove/index.html) in the US and 25% of them exceed fifty years in age. Good point. And bridges, as you say—has everyone forgotten that 2007 bridge collapse in Minnesota already? Some 25% of all bridges are either [“structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.”](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22793811/) Eep. Plenty of work to be done there. And to those who complain that infrastructure improvements need planning to ramp up … so? Engineers, architects, surveyors, project managers, office secretaries, etc. etc. don’t need work, too? ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661/40 "2009-01-12T15:48:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But if it makes economic sense to “ship the jobs offshore”, why would we want to de-incentivize that? I don’t want the government deciding which jobs should be done in this country and which things we should just import. That’s a decision for the private sector. No one is taking that away from the private sector. What Obama stressed during his campaign was offering a tax credit to those employers whose business is the United States and hires Americans. It makes perfect sense. If a company finds that its more profitable to have its operations overseas, then why should the federal government bend-over-backwards and help (i.e. offer additional breaks) them once tax-time rolls around? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-we-do-about-the-job-situation/480661.md?page=3)