Fixing YOUR economy vs fixing THE Economy

blackjack50 · Feb 5, 2016

If you want to fix that fact that you don't have many well paying job options in your area, you need to vote local. You need to pressure your local government to start putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-50k a year. Not more McDonald's and grocery stores. You need the distributing centers for those places. You need lumber mills or call centers. Semi factories. You want to talk about income inequality, but how many people actually use their voting power to fix these things? LOCALLY.

joG · Feb 5, 2016

stonewall50 said:
If you want to fix that fact that you don't have many well paying job options in your area, you need to vote local. You need to pressure your local government to start putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-50k a year. Not more McDonald's and grocery stores. You need the distributing centers for those places. You need lumber mills or call centers. Semi factories. You want to talk about income inequality, but how many people actually use their voting power to fix these things? LOCALLY.

I don't want lumber mills and semi factories next door!

:no:

Winchester · Feb 5, 2016

stonewall50 said:
If you want to fix that fact that you don't have many well paying job options in your area, you need to vote local. You need to pressure your local government to start putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-50k a year. Not more McDonald's and grocery stores. You need the distributing centers for those places. You need lumber mills or call centers. Semi factories. You want to talk about income inequality, but how many people actually use their voting power to fix these things? LOCALLY.

If only local governments were capable of putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-$50K.

Critter7r · Feb 5, 2016

stonewall50 said:
If you want to fix that fact that you don't have many well paying job options in your area, you need to vote local. You need to pressure your local government to start putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-50k a year. Not more McDonald's and grocery stores. You need the distributing centers for those places. You need lumber mills or call centers. Semi factories. You want to talk about income inequality, but how many people actually use their voting power to fix these things? LOCALLY.

While local gov't can influence the relocation of, say, a McDonald's distribution center to their area, it's really more a mechanism of McDonald's Distribution looking for a new place to call home than it is of the ability of local gov't to "put in jobs that pay $30-50k a year." The mayor of Flint can't just snap her fingers and magically cause $50k jobs to appear out of thin air. Ultimately, local gov't doesn't have the final say in whether or not an entity relocates to their area.

JohnfrmClevelan · Feb 5, 2016

stonewall50 said:
If you want to fix that fact that you don't have many well paying job options in your area, you need to vote local. You need to pressure your local government to start putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-50k a year. Not more McDonald's and grocery stores. You need the distributing centers for those places. You need lumber mills or call centers. Semi factories. You want to talk about income inequality, but how many people actually use their voting power to fix these things? LOCALLY.

Yeah, these guys are right, local governments can't do much to bring the jobs. The only thing they can do is try to poach jobs from some other locality with tax incentives, which are unfair.

What you really need to do is vote for federal candidates that are for increasing deficit spending. If we can rid Washington of the deficit hawks, we would be in much better shape.

RetiredUSN · Feb 5, 2016

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Yeah, these guys are right, local governments can't do much to bring the jobs. The only thing they can do is try to poach jobs from some other locality with tax incentives, which are unfair.

What you really need to do is vote for federal candidates that are for increasing deficit spending. If we can rid Washington of the deficit hawks, we would be in much better shape.

I wonder how many good things we could do with the 6% of the annual federal budget that we are pissing away paying off the debt.

JohnfrmClevelan · Feb 5, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
I wonder how many good things we could do with the 6% of the annual federal budget that we are pissing away paying off the debt.

It costs nothing for the government to create dollars, so the interest costs them nothing as well. Interest payments do not limit what the government is able to create and spend. Heck, bond issuance isn't even necessary for a sovereign government to issue and spend its own currency.

When we needed trillions to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq, those dollars didn't come out of our pockets, nor did they come out of normal government spending. That spending could very easily be a ton of infrastructure projects, or more government jobs, or whatever the economy calls for. Nobody questions our government's ability to crank out some dollars and spend them when it comes to waging war, but everybody thinks we're broke when it comes to spending on health care or highways.

blackjack50 · Feb 5, 2016

joG said:
I don't want lumber mills and semi factories next door! :no:

God forbid there be jobs that low skill workers could actually get and make a decent wage right?

blackjack50 · Feb 5, 2016

Winchester said:
If only local governments were capable of putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-$50K.

Why would you want local government jobs? They are a net LOSS for the local government. They don't CREATE money in an area. They COST money. That means more taxes. Not less.

blackjack50 · Feb 5, 2016

Critter7r said:
While local gov't can influence the relocation of, say, a McDonald's distribution center to their area, it's really more a mechanism of McDonald's Distribution looking for a new place to call home than it is of the ability of local gov't to "put in jobs that pay $30-50k a year." The mayor of Flint can't just snap her fingers and magically cause $50k jobs to appear out of thin air. Ultimately, local gov't doesn't have the final say in whether or not an entity relocates to their area.

Agreed, but the very beginning is my point: INFLUENCE. That local government can make phone calls and create an environment friendly to business, that is one thing. But a lot of times they DON'T do that. They don't have to have the final say to create an environment that will attract the "best" jobs for the area.

ocean515 · Feb 5, 2016

stonewall50 said:
If you want to fix that fact that you don't have many well paying job options in your area, you need to vote local. You need to pressure your local government to start putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-50k a year. Not more McDonald's and grocery stores. You need the distributing centers for those places. You need lumber mills or call centers. Semi factories. You want to talk about income inequality, but how many people actually use their voting power to fix these things? LOCALLY.

Give a company a reason to be there, and there will be a better chance of it doing so. Sadly, the trend is the opposite, possibly on a statewide basis (depending on the state), and certainly on a national basis.

blackjack50 · Feb 5, 2016

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Yeah, these guys are right, local governments can't do much to bring the jobs. The only thing they can do is try to poach jobs from some other locality with tax incentives, which are unfair.

What you really need to do is vote for federal candidates that are for increasing deficit spending. If we can rid Washington of the deficit hawks, we would be in much better shape.

1) It isn't poaching if a place is looking to build. And it is hardly UN fair for a local government to operate within the rules and try to protect the constituency and their job market. You want better jobs in your area? They come from somewhere.

2) Tax incentives are not the only reason. Location location location. You on an interstate? Rail line? Do you have a consumer market? Good internet in your area? There are literally hundreds of job types that could be marketed, and your location determines them. The question is: does your local understand that? And what are they spending their time on?

blackjack50 · Feb 5, 2016

ocean515 said:
Give a company a reason to be there, and there will be a better chance of it doing so. Sadly, the trend is the opposite, possibly on a statewide basis (depending on the state), and certainly on a national basis.

I agree. Very much so. Competition in capitalism isn't limited to the business side. It is state and local side too. And now? In a global marketplace?

iguanaman · Feb 5, 2016

Winchester said:
If only local governments were capable of putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-$50K.

I live in a heavily Republican area and the Govt. is certainly capable of getting Public sector jobs like that. Our Fire Dept is paying more than that and now they are asking for another increase in their millage rate to 3.75%! And this is an area that had ZERO home fires last year and any brush fires are left to county fire fighters.

ocean515 · Feb 5, 2016

stonewall50 said:
I agree. Very much so. Competition in capitalism isn't limited to the business side. It is state and local side too. And now? In a global marketplace?

It is my contention the global market place has been developed by design. As a result, policy is such that the United States has become the servicer of other countries products. It is very difficult to maintain a healthy well compensated work force as a result. Until public policy pushes away this global objective, the trend will continue, and the unrealized economic potential of the United States will remain severely hamstrung.

Critter7r · Feb 5, 2016

stonewall50 said:
Agreed, but the very beginning is my point: INFLUENCE. That local government can make phone calls and create an environment friendly to business, that is one thing. But a lot of times they DON'T do that. They don't have to have the final say to create an environment that will attract the "best" jobs for the area.

Agreed. But .... sometimes no matter what the local gov't does (think Flint) there are simply not many companies that are considering moving to, or starting up, in Flint even if it is business friendly there. So their influence, while notable, is limited.

Winchester · Feb 5, 2016

stonewall50 said:
Why would you want local government jobs? They are a net LOSS for the local government. They don't CREATE money in an area. They COST money. That means more taxes. Not less.

You're the one who said "You need to pressure your local government to start putting in jobs for locals that pay $30-50k a year", not me. I was basically calling BS on local governments having any real impact on creating good jobs locally in any significant manner.

joG · Feb 6, 2016

stonewall50 said:
God forbid there be jobs that low skill workers could actually get and make a decent wage right?

Terrible idea! Make the capitalists bleed!

274ina · Feb 6, 2016

Untill you end "free trade" , no jobs will happen. Period. Its all international trade agreements. Local government is useless.

MTAtech · Feb 6, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
I wonder how many good things we could do with the 6% of the annual federal budget that we are pissing away paying off the debt.

Since about 75% of the debt is owed other Americans, the interest payments of the government is income to these people and institutions, which they consume in the economy.

fmw · Feb 9, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
I wonder how many good things we could do with the 6% of the annual federal budget that we are pissing away paying off the debt.

Somebody told you we are paying off the debt? That hasn't happened since 1859.

fmw · Feb 9, 2016

JohnfrmClevelan said:
It costs nothing for the government to create dollars, so the interest costs them nothing as well. Interest payments do not limit what the government is able to create and spend. Heck, bond issuance isn't even necessary for a sovereign government to issue and spend its own currency.

When we needed trillions to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq, those dollars didn't come out of our pockets, nor did they come out of normal government spending. That spending could very easily be a ton of infrastructure projects, or more government jobs, or whatever the economy calls for. Nobody questions our government's ability to crank out some dollars and spend them when it comes to waging war, but everybody thinks we're broke when it comes to spending on health care or highways.

Not so. Most of us think we are broke no matter where the government spends its money. Glad to know it grows on trees, though. My mother was obviously wrong about that.

Critter7r · Feb 9, 2016

fmw said:
Not so. Most of us think we are broke no matter where the government spends its money. Glad to know it grows on trees, though. My mother was obviously wrong about that.

No, she was correct about it when it comes to your money and her money, but she was wrong when it comes to the government's money. Congress is one spending bill away from as much money as they feel like spending. And they don't have to earn or collect a penny of it. They can literally create it out of nothing.

JohnfrmClevelan · Feb 9, 2016

fmw said:
Not so. Most of us think we are broke no matter where the government spends its money. Glad to know it grows on trees, though. My mother was obviously wrong about that.

Unless your mother understands reserve banking and government finance, why would you look to her as an authority on this subject?

JohnfrmClevelan · Feb 9, 2016

fmw said:
Somebody told you we are paying off the debt? That hasn't happened since 1859.

Right. And here we are, still on top.