Comments on: Obama’s family-friendly agenda will hurt job growth http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Beth http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1853 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:24:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1853 I remember hearing this rhetoric when Clinton signed the Family Leave Act. As I recall not only did companies not fold up, but the economy did quite well. These were the same people who made fun of Clinton for a promise to balance the budget. I agree with some of the comments already made, ie the Neocons have had their turn and it has put us close to the economy of 1930. Let’s give Obama a chance.

]]>
By: Anubis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1834 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:11:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1834 Giving tax breaks to corporations that move production overseas defies reason. Not funding education while exercising no spine whatsoever when securing trade deals regarding automobiles and other U.S. manufactured goods invokes my worst suspicions. So far the government has only supported the interests of capital while doing nothing for the working (middle) class or the poor. Capital injections have done nothing to free up credit as this does not address the issue of demand. It should also be noted that our unemployment numbers do not reflect those who have exhausted their benefits or the underemployed. We could determine that through the IRS but do not. I suspect that is why our numbers always look better than the Europeans as they are more thorough at determining jobless rates.

Fiat currencies are worthless paper. Our society has predicated economic growth on the issuance of more worthless paper (unregulated securities, increased borrowing and printing of money along with deceptive account balance practices for determining trade deficits). One has only to read the “Wealth of Nations” to conclude that Adam Smith’s dire warnings regarding these three issues were correct. He also warned of allowing one’s nation’s manufacturing base to erode. We have heeded none of his warnings or for that matter those of President Washington as well. Are we really a capitalist society at all? I suspect not.

I have no credentials Ms. Roth, however it seems to me you are just a disciple of a particular school of thought and base your judgments on misinformation that all too many of us accept as fact. The interests of capital did nothing to lift the nation out of the Great Depression and very little to bring in revenue for the subsequent war effort. Do you not conclude that we are at the precipice of a similar economic catastrophe? Also, did the massive spending for the war in conjunction with rationing (conserving) of resources, high wages and wage and price controls have anything to do with the funding of the war or the creation of the middle class? I believe so.

]]>
By: Randy http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1799 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:57:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1799 So this woman knows more than Lawrence Summers or Tim Geittner. Meh.

]]>
By: Don http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1795 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:38:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1795 There is nothing wrong with the underlying goal. Most of the public expects the President-elect to pursue employment-enhancement programs. That is part of the reason Obama was elected. The question is the distribution of resources. Do the markets allocate capital less efficiently than policy makers and strategists?

Our experience with the Clinton admistration shows, it is possible to talk up a market to enormous heights. You can make people optimistic about the dot-com industry – and then ruin their lives when the sector collapses. Was it a good thing to talk up the dot-com industry? Some people think so.

I have operating product prototypes. I wouldn’t mind getting start-up funding. But we can snuff out these ideas quickly by taking capital from available sources and pouring everything at near-death companies. It’s a bit like cashing out the children’s educational savings to keep a great-grandparent’s hospital equipment running. This is what happens when people don’t have faith. Folks have a hard time believing that other industries will emerge. Anyways, we all have to live and go under by the decisions we make. So one way or another this problem is self correcting.

]]>
By: ellen http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1789 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:44:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1789 Former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor under WHOM? Reagan? Bush I? Bush II?

]]>
By: Gabriel http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1770 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:56:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1770 If the President-Elect really wants to promote employment and job growth, all he need do is announce that:

A) He will not sign any bill increasing taxes, and

B) That he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

]]>
By: john http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1739 Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:43:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1739 Sadly Americans continue looking to blame a lone journalist or present/previous presidential administrations for their woes. This is an amalgamation of problems that took over half a century to culminate in a inevitable financial collapse. Administration after administration has never been held accountable because ideologues believe “their candidates” hold the “solution”. Until Americans realize this present candidates will continue doing NOTHING and America will be doomed to continue being bitterly divided come election time. In short, this current economic situation is going to become even more grim because Americans are too divided to successfully pressure congress to do its job right. (As is evident via reading some of these ridiculous posts). Realize what is and isn’t economically feasible; be a harsh realist like this journalist — Remember party affiliation and Utopian ideals have no place when one is counting money.

]]>
By: Diana Furchtgott-Roth http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1737 Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:38:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1737 Jack’s international unemployment rates are not quite correct. In 2007, the latest year available, the unemployment rate for the US was 4.6%; Canada, 5.3%; France, 8.6%, Germany, 8.7%; Italy, 6.2%, Sweden, 6.1%, and the UK, 5.4%. The data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/F oreignLabor/flsjec.txt.

All unemployment rates will be higher in 2008 due to the global recession but the rates of the major European economies will likely continue to be higher than those of the United States. The high cost of benefits discourages hiring, particularly of low skill workers, who fail to get entry-level jobs and move up the career ladder. Further, it is difficult to fire workers in Europe, so employers are more reluctant to hire new workers: if there is a downturn in demand they risk getting stuck with a worker they don’t need. In addition, the higher levels of unemployment benefits in Europe mean that workers can afford to stay out of work longer, and can be more selective about their next job.

The United States ranks favorably on international comparisons of labor flexibility compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This labor flexibility contributes the dynamic nature of the American workforce and its relatively low unemployment rate. Reducing labor flexibility, as President-elect Obama proposes, won’t help employers hire workers–which is what we all want to see happen.

Diana

]]>
By: John http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1726 Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:33:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1726 If the President-elect really wants to help the economy, he should enact the free-tax act, stop taxing businesss’,which would bring jobs back to America,and push out the unions which help drive up the cost of doing business. Thats just for starters.
I know many will argue about the unions, but look at the industries that are having trouble. The common thread would be the unions. Examples; Auto, constuction, truckers, production ….

]]>
By: www.2hipmusic.com http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/21/obamas-family-friendly-agenda-will-hurt-job-growth/#comment-1715 Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:19:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=639#comment-1715 Just because it is new doesn’t mean it can’t work. Family leave is even longer in France and other European countries, and they don’t have high unemployment. American is the only modern nation that has the least days of time off, vacation or sick or family leave, than any other modern country. It’s time to move this nation forward and not be stuck in industrial times thinking.

]]>