Where Are the Jobs, Dammit!?

[luckytxn 2,263]

so you're saying obama's stimulation package is too small.

It seems to me that he said that we spent Trillions of dollars to get a couple million employed. The same couple of million that will be out of a job when the money is gone. So I see the unemployment figures rising as the initial money is gone. I am guessing with their history of how to fix this problem is that want to spend a lot of money again to try to get a fraction of a percentage point down in the unemployment figures and need to do it badly before the elections.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It seems to me that he said that we spent Trillions of dollars to get a couple million employed.

Spend trillions of dollars? The entire stimulus package was worth just under $800BN which is short of a trillion let alone trillions. Add to that the fact that some 40% of the stimulus package was nothing but tax cuts which according to our friends on the right isn't even spending and you're left with just under half a trillion dollars worth of stimulus spending. Quite obviously, that's not enough to plug a 3 trillion dollar hole that was left in the economy as a result of the financial crisis. It's common sense but of course, common sense went out the window over there on the right a long time ago.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Spend trillions of dollars? The entire stimulus package was worth just under $800BN

If he didn't spend those trillions on jobs, what exactly did he spend all that borrowed money on?

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/us_jobs/index.asp

For the United States to return to full employment—finding work for the

currently unemployed and accommodating new entrants into the labor force this decade—the US economy will need to create 21 million jobs by 2020, according to MGI's analysis.

To understand how this might happen, MGI launched a research project

that combines extensive sector analysis, interviews with human resource executives, a proprietary survey of 2,000 business leaders, and

our own scenario analysis and modeling.

The research analyzes the causes of slow job creation in the period before the recession and during the recovery and the implications of these forces for future job growth. The research projects how the US labor force will evolve over the next ten years and creates different scenarios for job growth based on extensive analysis of sector trends. MGI's central finding is that a return to full employment will occur in only the most optimistic job growth scenario. This will require not only a robust economic recovery, but also a concerted effort to address other factors that impede employment, including growing gaps in skill and education.

The report offers a range of illustrative solutions based on lessons from US states and other countries that MGI hopes will add to the national conversation on jobs. Findings include:

Recoveries are increasingly becoming "jobless" due to firm restructuring, skill and geographic mismatches between workers and jobs, and sharp decline in new start-ups.

The US needs to create 21 million new jobs by 2020 to regain full employment – and only achieves this in our most optimistic job growth scenario.

The US workforce will continue to grow until 2020, but under current trends, many workers will not have the right skills for the available jobs. Technology is changing the nature of work: jobs are being disaggregated into tasks, work is becoming virtual, and firms are relying on flexible labor (temporary, contract workers). These trends offer new opportunities for creating jobs in the United States, a trend that some companies do not fully appreciate.

Progress on four dimensions will be essential for reviving the US job creation machine: develop the US workforces' skill to better match what employers are looking for; expand US workers' share of global economic growth by attracting foreign investment and spurring exports; revive the nation's spark by supporting emerging industries, ensuring more of them scale up in the United States, and reviving new business start-ups; and speed up regulatory decision-making that blocks business expansion and new investment.

The report is part of a series of MGI perspectives on the theme of US growth and renewal.

Read the executive summary (PDF - 1.39 MB)

Read the full report (PDF - 2.02 MB)

[lostinblue 1,989]

Now for the game changer.....Our Schools Fail to Educate at Least Thirty Percent of our Students

No Child Left Behind” is a joke. Most of the urban and rural students, primarily from families below the poverty level, are not getting even a rudimentary education. In fact, according to a recent study released by the America’s Promised Alliance (an organization chaired by Colin and Alma Powell), the U.S. has a 30% rate of students failing to graduate high school. But the really upsetting data is that in urban settings typically 50-70% of the students fail to graduate! (www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html) This is more than an embarrassment. This is an epidemic of failure that costs America billions of dollars in lost productivity and high crime rates.

What needs to be done is quite clear. Strong superintendents like Michelle Ree in Washington, D.C., Joel Klein in New York City, and Arne Duncan in Chicago, to name a few, have made significant progress with some combination of the following: take power away from the unions and ineffective school boards, require longer school days and longer school years, eliminate tenure for teachers and offer merit pay to the best teachers and fire those who can’t teach effectively, certify teachers without degrees in education but who demonstrate the ability to teach effectively (which also increases the percentage of minority teachers for schools dominated by minority students), fire principals whose schools are ineffective, fund charter schools, and offer school choice. So the path to success is known. But it is blocked by a recalcitrant bureaucracy and a stubborn teachers union that prefers the status quo. That’s why it takes exceptional leadership to effect real change.

So while there is hope that the efforts of some of these educational reformers and the few politicians who actually seem to care might gradually bring real change to urban education and to U.S. educational policy across the land, what do you, as parents and concerned individuals do in the meantime? The rest of this article will be devoted to describing some amazing heroics by individuals and organizations that refuse to accept the hopeless fate of these children…our children…for we are all one very large family

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Spend trillions of dollars? The entire stimulus package was worth just under $800BN which is short of a trillion let alone trillions. Add to that the fact that some 40% of the stimulus package was nothing but tax cuts which according to our friends on the right isn't even spending and you're left with just under half a trillion dollars worth of stimulus spending. Quite obviously, that's not enough to plug a 3 trillion dollar hole that was left in the economy as a result of the financial crisis. It's common sense but of course, common sense went out the window over there on the right a long time ago.

Typical liberal rant. When the liberal approach fails, it is because we need more of the liberal approach. 40% was tax cuts that were already in place, meaning they were a postponement of planned tax increases, not "tax cuts" and could not possibly have done anything to stimulate the economy. They were claimed as part of the "package" in order to make it appear Obama was doing something. So 40% of the stimulus package was nothing, really. The remaining 60% was...nothing really. A lot of it went to states who used it for such stimulating things as paying for work which was already done years ago (debt)or to bolster their unemployment funds. Great ideas, all.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Typical liberal rant. When the liberal approach fails, it is because we need more of the liberal approach. 40% was tax cuts that were already in place, meaning they were a postponement of planned tax increases, not "tax cuts" and could not possibly have done anything to stimulate the economy. They were claimed as part of the "package" in order to make it appear Obama was doing something. So 40% of the stimulus package was nothing, really. The remaining 60% was...nothing really. A lot of it went to states who used it for such stimulating things as paying for work which was already done years ago (debt)or to bolster their unemployment funds. Great ideas, all.

It did bring broadband to seven homes in Montana at a cost of $350,000 per home.

[mawilson 2,133]

If he didn't spend those trillions on jobs, what exactly did he spend all that borrowed money on?

The usual ####### - defense, Medicare, keeping retirees fat and happy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If he didn't spend those trillions on jobs, what exactly did he spend all that borrowed money on?

Pick up a copy of the federal budget, why don't you?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Typical liberal rant. When the liberal approach fails, it is because we need more of the liberal approach. 40% was tax cuts that were already in place, meaning they were a postponement of planned tax increases, not "tax cuts" and could not possibly have done anything to stimulate the economy. They were claimed as part of the "package" in order to make it appear Obama was doing something. So 40% of the stimulus package was nothing, really. The remaining 60% was...nothing really. A lot of it went to states who used it for such stimulating things as paying for work which was already done years ago (debt)or to bolster their unemployment funds. Great ideas, all.

Typical bullshite in absence of even a single practical example of reduced government spending during a recession having produced a singe job or spurred any fraction of a percent worth of economic growth. There's not one success to be pointed to going down that road. Not one. There are many that have resulted in even more joblessness and less economic growth and even greater deficits. But not a single one that has produced anything desirable.

[luckytxn 2,263]

If he didn't spend those trillions on jobs, what exactly did he spend all that borrowed money on?

He spent trillions and gave it to corporations that gave to his and other Socialists campaigns. Payback is a beotch to us taxpayers. He did pass along a lot to states to enrich their campaign fundraisers. Now as the few jobs that the admin has said were created because of the huge influx of cash are going away we will see the unemployment figures go higher. The one thing we can be sure of is that the morons will see this as an opportunity to spend more of our future tax dollars to their campaign funders and ensure the influx of cash to their own campaigns. Many will eventually leave office and go on to sit on the corporation boards at a huge salary to do nothing as a thanks for allowing them to gorge at the trough.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He spent trillions and gave it to corporations that gave to his and other Socialists campaigns. Payback is a beotch to us taxpayers. He did pass along a lot to states to enrich their campaign fundraisers. Now as the few jobs that the admin has said were created because of the huge influx of cash are going away we will see the unemployment figures go higher. The one thing we can be sure of is that the morons will see this as an opportunity to spend more of our future tax dollars to their campaign funders and ensure the influx of cash to their own campaigns. Many will eventually leave office and go on to sit on the corporation boards at a huge salary to do nothing as a thanks for allowing them to gorge at the trough.

The reality being this:

Can you point to the trillions he gave to corporations so they can pay him back?

[scandal 951]

Can you point to the trillions he gave to corporations so they can pay him back?

Of course not.

But mythology is a powerful hypnotic. Perhaps if you snap your fingers?

[luckytxn 2,263]

Guess when they spend money some think it means that the money is burned or just thrown into a landfill. When money is spent it goes to corporations. How that money is channeled and to which corporation is where the power comes in. Some probably think that they see a list and will pick only corporations that haven't added to their campaign coffers. Reality is they will usually focus on the corporations that have enriched them in the past or will in the future in some way. Almost every politician when they leave office will sit on boards or start a company that will get sub contract and have their past due help enrich them. Trillions have been spent just in deficit spending alone. Record deficit spending has occurred under this moron Socialist. It will be easy to see where he ends up and what corporations he will attach himself to when he leaves office.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Get rid of that red slice and that green slice, and you just might balance that puppy.