Nobody owes you a job
Jobs, whether computer jobs or any jobs.

Since when does the government or any company or business OWE you a job?

As I write, the economy is booming by most measures. We had
8% growth in the 3rd quarter of 2003 and 4% growth in the 4th
quarter of 2003. That's the highest amount of growth in two
straight quarters for something like 25 years.

The Democrats, who are desperate to regain power in the
White House, and their lapdogs the mainstream media outlets,
are whining about how this is a "jobless recovery."

First of all, that's hardly true. The unemployment rate is going down.
It's now at 5.6%, which is lower than the average rate during the 90s
boom and lower than it's been for most of the past 50 years. In 1974
if the unemployment rate had been only 5.6% we would have held
parades in the street.

When unemployment reached 5.6% while Clinton was president, CNN
hailed it as a great achievement. To listen to the mainstream
liberal media now, you'd think it was worse than the Great
Depression (when unemployment reached 33%).

Alan Greenspan says that employment will increase soon:

(I deleted the link since it's no longer working.)

So people are returning to work, but certainly it's not as quick as
people who are out of work would like. It never is. Besides, as
explained in a previous entry in this blog, employment is a "lagging"
economic indicator.

The economy was going into recession in late 2000 but most people didn't
notice until early in 2001 because it took time before people were
laid off. At the beginning of a recovery (which we are certainly in
now), it takes time for them to be hired back.

So the Democrats are as usual taking advantage of people's feelings
of insecurity and attempting to frighten them into thinking that
they must vote for John Kerry or stay or be thrown out of work.

The most that can be said in their favor is that not as many
jobs are being created as would normally be expected given the
phenomenal amount of growth we've experienced since last
July.

But where does this concept that the President is personally
responsible for whether or not you have a job come from?

I can't pinpoint the origins. Obviously it's before my time, since
it's why Herbert Hoover lost the 1932 election to Franklin Roosevelt.
The economy was in the middle of the Great Depression. Hoover
was keeping the government out of it as much as possible, so
people out of work blamed him, and elected FDR on his promise to
restore the economy.

I've heard the argument that Hoover's policy of
letting the natural business cycle run its course without
government intervention was working and that we were gradually
coming out of the depression -- just not far or soon enough to keep
him in office. Of course, FDR intervened
immediately after taking office, and that's why the depression
essentially lasted until 1942 and our mobilization for World
War II.

True or not, I don't know. I'm not an economist and haven't
analyzed the statistics.

I do know that millions of people who lived through that period
believe that FDR is a saint for establishing the welfare state.

I suppose the logic is that if drastic government intervention
into the economy worked to alleviate the Great Depression,
the government should now be able to somehow wave a magic
wand and "create jobs for people."

The trouble I see is, jobs have to serve a real economic function.
That is, jobs exist because businesses have a need for certain
tasks to be done, whether flipping burgers or CEO.

Businesses exist to allow people to satisfy their needs and desires.
The overall volume of our needs and desires fluctuate beyond the
control of anybody, including government.

Sometimes they change due to demographics. In the late 40s to
early 60s the demand for diapers and baby food exploded with
the birth of the Baby Boom generation. As we've aged, we've
forced the increase of existing infrastructures (many new
schools were built and expanded in the 50s and 60s) and
drastically expanded many existing markets, from comic
books in the 60s to nutritional supplements in the 90s.

New information, right or wrong, can change industries. Due to
America's obsession with avoiding dietary fat, the market
for pork is way down. Due to the (dangerous) Atkins diet fad,
the demand for eggs (a once cheap source of protein) is up.

So what do you want President Bush to do? Call up the CEOs of
all major US corporations and tell them to hire you or else?
Or else what? The government has no authority to force any
business to hire anybody. Nor should they. When businesses
realize they need you to perform a certain function for them,
they'll post it in all the usual places or search their
their resume files etc.

What President Bush HAS done -- for which you should be
grateful and unfortunately the Democrats, who continue to
fight the "class war" a lot harder than the war on
terrorism, encourage you to disparage as only for "the
rich" although that's manifestly not true -- is put more
money back into our pockets through his two tax cuts.

First of all, the tax rate for the lowest income earners
was reduced from 15% to 10%. That's a 33% tax cut for
the working POOR!

The wealthy do save more money in total thanks to the tax
cuts, simply because even 1/2% of $200,000 is more money
than 33% of $10,000. But it's proportionately FAR more
money back into the pockets of the working poor than to
wealthy. That's just simple mathematics.

(This is an aside, but liberal Democrats want to keep
you ignorant of mathematics. I know an education major
in college who takes great pride in being a Democratic
liberal -- and he thinks today's children don't need
to learn math because they have calculators. Now do
you want him teaching YOUR children? He claims that
all his friends majoring in education also hate math too
and believe the same as he does that it's unnecessary
for kids today. Now do you understand why so many parents
home school their children?)

Whether you care about the exact numbers of the tax cuts
or not, what is important to you and what you should
be greatful to President Bush is that if you work, you
have more money to spend and save.

If you spend it, that creates more demand for the products
and services you buy, whether pizza or movies or clothes,
helping to keep and create jobs at the businesses you
patronize. If enough people with tax cut money in their
hands go shopping, whether at Wal-Mart or Lord and Taylors,
that enables those stores to hire more clerks and cashiers.

Those people then have more money to spend. Maybe some of
them will spend it with your employer, allowing your
boss to give you a higher raise or to hire more workers.

If you save it in a bank account or CD, then more money is
available for car loans, home loans and local small
business loans. If you buy stock, more money is available
to help start new companies offering new products and
services, whether a new fast food or a drug to cure cancer.

Those companies will need to hire employers to accomplish
their tasks.

And so it goes -- as long as people have needs and wants,
the money goes around, creating jobs -- and business
and investment opportunities.

Thanks to President George W. Bush, a lot more money is now
in the hands of me and you and the working poor AND -- yes! --
rich people.

Because rich people spend even more money -- building big
houses (and thus employing carpenters, bricklayers and
contractors), buying BMWs (and thus employing the people
who make them and other luxury model cars), eating out (and
thus employing more cooks and waiters and waitresses and,
believe or not, even eating at home with Domino's, thus
employing more pizza makers and delivery drivers.

Who then spend their money on rent, groceries, beer, movies,
CDs, etc -- and so it keeps going around.

But an even benefit to ALL of us comes from rich people
being given a tax cut. When they invest their money,
they start or help start new businesses. That creates
new jobs directly.

The effectiveness of tax cuts is cumulative. The economy
didn't jump into high gear the day after the president
signed the tax cut bill. But the more paychecks Americans
receive, the more money they have to spend and save,
creating more businesses and more jobs etc.

So candidate John Kerry's plans to revoke all of the
president's tax cuts or the portions applying to the
"wealthy" (really, for the productive) - I've heard
that at various times in this campaign he has proposed
both plans -- would hurt the economy and therefore reduce jobs.

I don't have the exact quote, but last week President
Bush said something to the effect of, Kerry had
yet to show how raising taxes would create new jobs --
except at the IRS.

This is getting too long. I'll start another article
to address outsourcing and computer jobs in
particular.

best to all,
Rick Stooker, author
Secrets of Changing to a Computer Career
- posted by RickStooker @ 7:52 AM