The only way to understand why employment is dead in the water is to stand in the shoes of a potential employer or entrepreneur. Remarkably, this perspective is unknown to economists and progressive politicians because they have never been an employer (and no, hiring a grad student to grade papers or an illegal nanny to watch your kids does not make you an employer.)
I have described this vast divide between small business employers, entrepreneurs and the self-employed and those working in government or Corporate America as one of the least explored social/economic divisions in the nation.
Those who have spent their careers in government or academia have little idea what it takes to hire more people. Number one is a business with strong demand for one’s products or services. In a developed world with too much of everything except energy, that is no small challenge: the world is awash in over-capacity in every field except niche industries such as deepwater oil rigs.
Second, you need a process that generates so much value (specifically surplus value) that you will generate immediate profits by hiring more people.
Two-thirds of those who have found employment under President Obama are immigrants, both legal and illegal, according to an analysis that suggests immigration has soaked up a large portion of what little job growth there has been over the past…
“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.” Gore Vidal
In August, 403 mass layoff events were reported in the
manufacturing sector, resulting in 46,540 initial claims.
Employers took 1,546 mass layoff actions involving 150,192
workers. Events decreased by 63 over the month, while associated
initial claims increased by 6,489.
The “American Power Act” proposed by Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Joseph Lieberman
would establish a broad-based U.S. cap-and-trade system. Using an input-output model
we estimate the distributional cost of the cap-and-trade portions of the bill to households
by income, age group, U.S. region and family type, as well as the value of various
industry subsidies granted by the bill. In a typical year (2020), households would face a
gross annual burden of $125.9 billion per year or $1,042 per household, with costs
disproportionately borne by low-income households. On a net basis, the large quantity of
allowances distributed freely to companies leads households in the top income quintile to
benefit financially, redistributing to these households roughly $12.3 billion per year from
the bottom 80 percent of earners. Overall, we estimate the bill would reduce U.S.
employment by roughly 522,000 jobs in 2015, rising to over 5.1 million jobs by 2050.
Finally, we explore two theoretical issues: (1) we offer microeconomic evidence that
shareholders rather than households are most likely to benefit from the bill’s free
allowances to electricity and natural gas utilities; and (2) we show how the bill’s
exclusion of petroleum refiners from quarterly auctions is likely to increase rather than
decrease allowance price volatility, directly contradicting the intent of the legislation.