How To Improve The Economy: CREATE NEW JOBS

[Yavin4]

Which begs the question, "How do you create new jobs?". By developing new technologies. Whenever we create new technologies, we create entire new industries which create new companies and those companies create new jobs.

Now, that begs another question, "How do you create new technologies?". Through direct and indirect government investments in Research and Development of new technologies. How did we get the internet? It was a military project. (See Internet's wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet). That project lead to the development of an entire industry which created middle class paying jobs for millions of Americans

The government needs to fund a series of new technology projects in IT, energy, and the environment. This funding can be through direct and indirect subsidies to businesses, universities, and even individuals. Yes, the majority of these projects will be failures. However, if we discover a new energy source, then our entire economy would shift for the better, much like the development of the automobile transformed our economy in the last century.


New technology creates new middle class paying jobs.

[tabatha]

1. Soros wants to invest in clean energy.

That would create jobs.

[obliviously]

2. He has the money

Who is stopping him?

[Yavin4]

4. The Difference Between Private and Public Investment In New Tech

is that private investment needs an immediate high return. Going back to the internet example, here was a government project that got started in the 1960s but didn't bear macro economic fruit until the late 90s. No private investor has that kind of patience. That's why government needs to do this.

[Oregone]

3. Increase production with public capital to replace the withdrawl of private capital

Fund the investment by taxing the deficient investor class.

Increase demand/production will lead to an increase in jobs

[Ozymanithrax]

5. New technologies do not lead direclty to new jobs...

It can take years to move from the research lab to the factory.

I agree that the government should fund research. The space program led to huge advances, most of which had nothing to do in their finished products with getting into space.

What I would like to see:

(1) A "Moon landing" type research program to replace oil in ten years time.
(2) A research program to place a colony on Mars in ten years.
(3) A research program to redesign cities to make them both smaller and denser that could reopen the suburbs for use as arable land or as parks.

[Yavin4]

6. "New technologies do not lead direclty to new jobs " -- Yes It Does

The invention of the automobile in the 20th lead to an entire new industry, and it created millions of middle class paying for decades in this country and around the world.

Other new technologies like the telephone, the radio, TV, Motion Pictures, the personal computer, the internet, etc. All of these new ways of commnicating information has lead to millions upon millions of new jobs.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. It took more than a century for the automobile industry to develop.

The first automobile was built in 1769 by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot. It was a steam carriage.
Robert Andersons built the first electric car around 1832.
Karl Friedrich Benz built the first gasoline powered automobile in 1885 or 1886.

The Ford MOdel T was built in 1908. That was the first automobile made for a mass market and only after it's introduction did the automobile industry develop into a real force. That was about 139 years.

We do things much faster now, but it still takes years between a development and bringing that new technology to the market. Most tech now comes as incremental imporovements to existing products. It takes anywhere from 2 to 5 years to bring this stuff on line. Something that revolutionizes the way we do thing, if you could have such a thing, would not be quick to come on line.

If you want jobs, you change the focus of existing industry. Have the US government declare that it will only buy things made 100% inside the US by US workers. That would require the remaining auto industries to stop purchasing parts overseas from cheap suppliers. They would have to be made here. Almost everything you buy is made somewhere else. It would require we build industries to make everything form paper clips to computers to be built here and use Americans to build them. The uniforms worn by the military and most police forces are made in China. If a company wants to do bussines with the US, they must be 100% American made. That would create jobs fast.

[exboyfil]

10. Good idea but you will be starting a trade war with

our two largest Treasury debt holders (China and Japan). Need to address how that will be handled first.

Next you will need to address some scary facts:
1. We no longer have an industrial base to gear up to make these off shored products. In many cases we probably don't even have the know how to do it.
2. We will see a huge spike in inflation and shortages.
3. These other countries will stop buying what we make (or at least engineer and develop in this country). We still sell lots of engineered products overseas (large equipment, aircraft, and industrial machines). We had a $16B trade surplus in capital goods last year. We also sell lots of agriculture overseas ($19B trade surplus).

Last year exports were at $1.8T and imports at $2.5T. The $1.8T represents 13% of GDP. We need to figure out how to close the $700B gap without starting a trade war. $268B is with China, $74B with Japan, $78B with Canada, $65B with Mexico, $48B with Saudi Arabia, $20B with Iraq, and $96B with European Union.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/business/global/14trade.html

[exboyfil]

7. Hoping for a Deus Ex Machina from technology

is a questionable approach in my opinion. Being an engineer (and having daughters scientifically inclined) I love the idea of spending dollars on research. What seems to happen, even with nifty new inventions now days, is that the actual manufacturing is pushed to low cost countries. We are creating bunches of new jobs - they just happen to be in China etc. Because of modern technology and open borders trading, the speed in which this is happening is ever increasing. In fact most new inventions are planned with offshoring in mind (for example the IPOD).

A large percentage of our population will never be able to participate in the high tech features of the economy (ie being knowledge workers). I see this in my daughters school in which children essentially waste a very high priced education because they are unwilling to sacrifice today for tomorrow (or are incapable of participating as knowledge workers). In fact it is so bad that I am very worried about what the future holds. These kids have no concept of what they are going to be doing in the future. In the past it was not as big a deal because they could go down the street and get a job at the auto plant or the steel mill. These high productivity jobs are not being created. These individuals can't go down the street and assemble computers or even low energy light bulbs. Those jobs are being done by individuals in China.

[Yavin4]

9. My Rebuttal

I am under no illusion that a massive govt investment in new technologies will lead immediately to new industries and new jobs. Again, using my example of the internet, it took approx 35+ years to form an industry from a govt project. However, these projects would create new R&D jobs in the meantime which would be an incentive for young people to take classes in science, math, and engineering.

As for losing the jobs to low cost overseas labor markets, the new technology jobs would require advanced skills which those countries would not have. I've been to Bangalore, and I can tell you that the population over there is not technologically advanced enough to handle major technology shifts.

[exboyfil]

11. Cite a recent example

Unless trade/industrial policy is changed manufacturing is going to happen overseas.

As for motivating students even relatively high paying knowledge worker jobs fail to motivate students. I am not entirely sure the percentages are much different than when I was in school in the 70s (we had lots of folks marking time even then). The big difference between then and now is that we have a whole bunch of very motivated students from overseas that put downward pressure on knowledge workers salaries, and we have an open doors trade policy that eliminates whole categories of non-knowledge worker manual labor type jobs.

[Yavin4]

15. Competition from Overseas Mfg. Is A Real Factor

And, you're correct in that managers today only know how to do one thing, lower costs. With that said, it's also a myth that low cost labor markets have a large contingent of educated workers that can take on jobs that require higher skilled labor. Our advantage is that we have a much larger number of well educated workers who can quickly adapt to new tech jobs.

Let me give you an example, last year, I went to Bangalore India for a month. Bangalore is like a college town. There are several schools there and several students on the streets. In the month that I was there, I only saw one group of kids with a laptop computer. One. Contrast that to today whereby I am taking classes at NYU and practically all of the students have laptop computers.

I can give you more stories, but suffice to say, nations like India and China have an abundance of low skilled laborers who can do low skilled jobs. They do not have the same number of highly skilled laborers that would be needed for high technology jobs.

[exboyfil]

27. I hope you are right

but we do a significant amount of outsourcing to India analysts at my company. It is a hit or miss operation, but as an example my mentor is spending a significant amount of time with one of these individuals (he comes to the States quarterly for two weeks). He is essentially being taught to do the same job which I do. It is slow going and frustrating to my mentor, but the Indian is learning.

The work I do is simulation of the hydraulics of mobile heavy equipment. I am trying to position myself to take over for my mentor in the next 3-5 years when he retires. Hopefully the change will come with a promotion (which will mostly likely be my last). I expect my job in the future will be fronting individuals such as this Indian and trying to leverage them to do work cheaper for my employer. If I stay just an analyst then someone else will do this, and I eventually will be replaced.

I would not say that my work is low skill. I do work more advanced than what is taught to Masters students at nationally recognized engineering universities.

[w4rma]

12. The only thing that leads to new jobs is to quit exporting them. (nt)

[csziggy]

dupe

[csziggy]

13. Obama has already increased funding for scientific research

They're calling Obama the 'science guy'
By Janet Raloff
Web edition : Thursday, April 30th, 2009
font_down font_up Text Size

Today,John Holdren gave one of his first big public addresses since becoming the president’s science adviser. And while Holdren didn’t reveal any state secrets this morning (no surprise), he did confirm what most people attending the Forum on Science and Technology Policy hoped to hear: that Barack Obama is indeed one of the most enthusiastic science-ophiles to enter the White House since Jimmy Carter.

House Science and Technology Committee chairman, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), another speaker at the forum, also described the president as anything but bashful regarding his passion for research and its fruits. Shortly after Obama’s inauguration, Gordon reported, the president phoned to inform him “I’m a science guy.”

And Holdren bolstered that claim by recounting what Obama has done during his first 100 days in office. Such as put a big pot of money in the Stimulus package for research; commit to bringing health costs down even as the delivery of care improves; and elevate political support for technology and innovation.

More: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43386/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Theyre_calling_Obama_the_science_guy

Obama pledges 3 percent of GDP for research
BLOG: Highlights of what the president announced to the National Academy of Sciences
By Janet Raloff
Web edition : Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

President Obama addressed the National Academy of Sciences and other dignitaries this morning with a list of new pledges for initiatives to boost science and engineering research. Below: a highlight of those mentioned in his 9 a.m. EDT talk:

The United States and world are wracked by a series of economic, political and resource problems. “At such a difficult moment,” Obama acknowledged, “there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. The support for research is somehow a luxury at moments that are defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment and our quality of life than it has ever been before.”

That’s one reason the president gave for why the United States “can’t allow our nation to fall behind . Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happened. Federal funding in the physical sciences as a portion of our gross domestic product has fallen by nearly half over the past quarter-century, he said. “And we have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.

“We know that our country is better than this,” he said. And to rekindle scientific endeavors, the president pledged that his administration would substantially advocate for bigger investments in research — and would nag Congress to find the funding for such programs.

More: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43271/title/Obama_pledges_3_percent_of_GDP_for_research

Obama Proposes Massive Increase in Science Funding

By Michael D. Shear
Somewhat overshadowed by the swine flu crisis today was President Obama's call for dramatically increasing the amount spent on basic science research.

The president said in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences that the United States should increase the amount of government and private money spent on scientific research to three percent of the nation's economic output.

"We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race, through policies that invest in basic and applied research, create new incentives for private innovation, promote breakthroughs in energy and medicine, and improve education in math and science," he said. "This represents the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in American history."

Obama did not, however, say how long that would take, and he did not specifically address how the federal government would make that happen.

He did outline several increases in funding for science, including money for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy and a commitment to double the budgets of three key science agencies over the next 10 years.

More: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/27/obama_proposes_massive_increas.html

[Yavin4]

17. It's Not About Increasing This or That

It's about making the funding of Research and Development of new technology the cornerstone of your entire economic agenda. The stimulus should have included far more money for R&D tech.

If we don't develop new technologies which will improve our lives and transform our economy, then there's no hope for this economy.

[bob4460]

14. Creating jobs in 4 easy steps

1 Rebuild our CRUMBLING roads and infrastructure
2 Lots of wind and solar power projects
3 rural broad band for everywhere and everyone
4 And I think this is the most important TARIFFS and backing out of free trade agreements,because most other countries have free or almost free healthcare and that makes the playing field uneven
I mean we are creating money out of nothing so why not make something with said money!!
How to pay for health care. End the 3 unending wars we are in Iraq Afghanistan and drugs

[Romulox]

16. OP makes little sense; it would make more sense to protect existing jobs, if the gov't is chosing

winners and losers. We've been told that industrial job losses stem from causes outside the control of our politicians. :hi:

[Yavin4]

18. At This Point, There's No Way To Bring Back Lost Jobs

There are too many political and economic entanglements between nations to make that work. For example, the Chinese own a huge portion of our debt. Pulling jobs out of that nation would set off series of negative and political effects.

We cannot go back. We can only move forward towards making new products with new technologies that will transform our lives for the better.

[Romulox]

19. But there IS a way to create millions of NEW jobs (with taxpayer $$$), water-to-wine style?

Your response doesn't support the premise at all. The Chinese that hold our debt can make solar panels, too...

[Yavin4]

21. We're Communicating Over The Internet, A Taxpayer Project

The internet is a prime example of how govt sponsored tech projects lead to the development of an entire new industry. Isn't this the "wine from water"?

As for the Chinese making solar panels, let them. What I am proposing is far larger than just solar panels, which is old tech by the way. Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House in 1977.

What I am suggesting is making R&D technology development the cornerstone of our entire economy instead of consumerism. Yes, the vast majority of these projects will bust. However, if one such project suceeds, something on the scale of the internet, it can transform our economy for the better.

[Romulox]

23. If the internet was a good example, where are all the IT jobs?

Oh yes. Outsourced to India. :hi:

[Yavin4]

24. All Outsourced to India?

Including all e-commerce? Web Development? Web design? Programming? Database Apps? Everything outsourced? Not close. There are still millions of internet related jobs right here in the U.S. Also, the internet is still relatively new, and it's not close to being utilized to its fullest potential.

[Romulox]

25. By all means, insert a word of your own choice into my argument, and then quibble with it!

I think your thesis needs some work. :shrug:

[Yavin4]

26. You Posted: "If the internet was a good example, where are all the IT jobs?"

Then you wrote, "outsourced to India". You asked the question, "where are all the IT jobs?", and I responded. So, where did I insert my word of choice?

[TheKentuckian]

20. Nothing and I mean nothing will bear much fruit as long as we remain commited to free trade

Anything new we create will have a short shelf life in America and then be exported for actual production in low wage/low regulation countries.

In the short term (5-20 years) we can put quite a lot of people to work by updating our decrepit infrastructure. Sewers, energy collection and distribution, water purification, highspeed rail, maybe a space elevator, and repairing our roads and bridges will tie up a significant chunk of the workforce for a number of years. The thing is doing a lot of these things is kind of pouring money down a hole without being tied to pretty significant changes in direction in wider policy.

We could also make a serious investment in retraining our workforce to fit the needs we have now by getting people scholarship like aid to the unemployed that would allow them to reeducate with a stipend that would allow them to get through the process in exchange for a set number of years of public sector employment at below market rates.

[Yavin4]

22. Low Wage Countries Do Not Have Enough Skilled Laborers

Yes, they have an over abudance of laborers that can do mundane, routine jobs, but they do not have an abundance of highly skilled laborers like we have in the U.S. In addition, they cannot re-train their workforce, like we can, to adapt to the new jobs.

Infrastructure projects are okay, but they're not going to transform our economy for the better. They don't provide us with new skills that make our economy competitive with the world.