"If a company is sick sometimes the best thing for it is to cut jobs, lay people off," Mitt Romney would say about his company, Bain Capital's leverage take over of businesses if you got him out of the spot light and speaking candidly. Similarly, if you asked him what would be healthy for a country that has an economy and economic boom built up on irrational speculation, whether on real estate, .COMs or Tulips that naturally busts, he would have to admit that during the bust of such an economic cycle, there naturally and healthily, has to be job losses and rising unemployment.
But here is the irrefutable truth. We could have little to zero unemployment if our captains of industry wanted it. All they would have to do (research David Siegel and his "dream home" and high rise in Las Vegas) is to relinquish the gains they achieved during the economic boom and put that money to work back in the economy and structure their workforce to be inclusive instead of exclusive.
People think that full employment must be based on specific types of jobs and if those jobs aren't around there is unemployment--whether its oil jobs (the claim of conservatives), keystone pipeline jobs (also the claim of conservatives), whale blubber jobs, bird guano jobs, wagon train jobs, steam engine jobs, house carriage jobs, candle making jobs, crucifix making jobs, Mastadon hunting jobs, etc, etc, etc. Jobs are not and never have been the issue. What is an issue is whether it is the collective will of a people to have full employment.
There is a group/culture of people that have traditionally had greater employment rates, regardless of the times than other cultures and groups. Why? Some would whine and claim that this is due to negative forces, which would be false. The reason for their high employment rate is their belief, attitude and culture of education, ingenuity and collective will that makes the difference.
We have high unemployment because America's industry collectively wants it this way. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the government except in one instance. The Captains of Industry simply do not want to allow access to health care to all Americans, not because it is an unachievable goal, but because they wrongly think that the economic pie cannot be so divided without diminishing their standard of living and pleasure from that same pie. But this is only a small part of the problem.
The predominating reason is simply that is what they want, because like Mitt Romney they believe that when a company or country is sick, lay offs and unemployment is the best medicine.
Comment 1: John Doe- So, if unemployment is high because America's industry "wants" it that way, but there are cultures with high employment rates because of their beliefs and attitudes, how do we change the culture of the industry? Isn't it right for layoffs to occur if the marginal benefit of those employees is less than the marginal cost? Doesn't that allow for the greatest growth in industry when firms are maximizing returns and then reinvesting?
Comment 2: Loren M. Lambert - Yes, John Doe, exactly, in those industries that will not recover because demand will irretrievably be lost (changing times--no jobs left in crucifix making). But, in industries that can recover, job attenuation has and does work. Also, most people, unfortunately want to hang on to power, wealth, etc even when taking that energy, surplus and money and putting it in new industries would attain higher employment. David Siegal chose to lay off employees before giving up building his multimillion dollar "dream home" and multimillion dollar high-rise in Vegas.
Comment 3: John Doe 2 - Also, an extremely basic principle of economics is that with a minimum wage, there will always be unemployment.
Comment 4: Loren M. Lambert - John Doe 2, something is not, "an extremely basic principle of economics," just because you say it is. That is a theory that although I understand the rationale and arguments supporting it, I do not think it is accurate. I more subscribe to the belief that minimum wage requirements are circumvented by top driven inflation in which the corporate owners can raise their wages or raise prices for necessary commodities. Moreover, again I suspect that a corporate culture of more modest wages could achieve livable wages, high employment rates and sufficiently generous high end salaries to give all a life style commiserate with their status.
Loren M. Lambert © October 30, 2012
