That question is heard around the blogosphere, as well as in the main stream media, all the time now.What is really meant by that question is "who can create enough jobs to get us out of this recession by hiring people?", which obviously means, in one sense, that employers are job creators.
But more than that, the question addresses who and/or what causes employers to hire, or not hire, employees.
And of course that also implies a business need to have employees, together with the capital to do so.
But doesn't the answer to our question also depend on the type of economy it applies to?
Can we say that it is the exact same answer for Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, China, Britain, as well as the USA?
Is it the same in every state, county, and city?
Recalling what the Wall Street Journal said over a year ago, and harking back
to what some university professors have said, if they are all correct, the answer to the question today is not the same as it was some years back.I say that because it means that our current plutonomy is not the same as our democratic economy of old.
That is because, if we now have a plutonomy rather than a democratic economy driven substantially by the middle class and poor American consumers, that difference changes who the job creators are.
I hear politicians declaring that small businesses are the job creators, which is true in the old economy where they commanded the lions share of about 80% of jobs, give or take a few percentage points from time to time.
But in a plutonomy the super wealthy command the wealth of purchasing power, giving them command of the forces that work on employers, those forces that cause the need for employees.
The reality becomes at once obvious when one considers the many different forms of government that exist, or have existed, over time:
Androcracy, Aristocracy, Autocracy, Communist state, Confederation, Consociationalism, Corporatocracy, Corporatism, Demarchy, Democracy, Despotism, Empire, Ethnocracy, Fascist state, Federation, Feudalism, Garrison state, Gerontocracy, Green state, Hierocracy, Isocracy, Interregnum, Kakistocracy, Kratocracy, Kleptocracy, Kritarchy, Kritocracy, Kyriarchy, Logocracy, Matriarchy, Mediocracy, Meritocracy, Minarchism, Monarchy, Nanny state, Nation-state, Nomocracy, Noocracy, Ochlocracy, [Oilagarchy], Oligarchy, Panarchism, Pantisocracy, Parliamentary state, Patriarchy, Provisional government, Plantocracy, Plutocracy, Police state, Polyarchy, Presidential, Puppet state, Republic, Socialist state, Sociocracy, Squirearchy, Stratocracy, Sultanism, Superpower, Supranational union, Synarchy, Technocracy, Thalassocracy, Theocracy, Timocracy, Tribe, Tyranny, Unitary state, [Wartocracy], Welfare state(Forms of Government). The creation of jobs in an Autocracy does not take place in the same manner as it does in a Communist state, for example.
The forces to be reckoned with basically boil down to a condition of prosperity that drives business expansion, or at least sustains business activity to the point of healthy employment numbers.
Who are these people who are responsible for millions of Americans suffering so badly from lack of employment, yes, suffering as a result of the deliberate actions of these "job creators"?
Jobs = work. Most of the work today is done by machines. We don't have to "create" jobs - we have to find ways to get equal access to resources and technology for all humans on earth.
ReplyDeleteThere is noticeable contrast in job creation dynamics over the past decade or so:
ReplyDelete"The contrast is stark indeed. In Germany, unemployment has risen relentlessly since 1991 and has now reached 4 1/2 million or 11.7 percent of the labor force. In the United States, the unemployment rate has stabilized close to 5 percent--a 25-year low--with inflation remaining remarkably well contained. The contrasts are even sharper when one looks at employment trends. In the United States, total employment has increased by 9 percent since 1991. In Germany, it has fallen a staggering 6 percent." Link
That happened during the Clinton Administration, which ended with him leaving a budget surplus at the end of the second term.
That changed dramatically during the Bush II administration that followed, where some 8 or so million jobs were lost, a huge budget deficit was left at the end of his administration, not to mention the "economic crisis".
This contrast has been explained: Link
Randy,
ReplyDeleteThe reason that happened and is still happening, was explained by James Madison, a founding father, a president, a cabinet member, and member of congress of long ago.
More recently it is explained by the evolution of the US economy into a plutonomy.
Some of the "who" have been listed by Mother Jones. Link
ReplyDelete