With Rube Goldberg 'Progressives' Like This, Who Needs Deficit Hawks?

By way Atrios, I stumble across a list of ways to combat unemployment put together by progressive wonks--and it explains why the so-called left is so politically impotent (I've removed the elaborative paragraphs):

1) Offer bonuses for long-term unemployed persons who find work.
2) Offer bolstered work-search help for the long-term unemployed.
3) Expand retraining programs and increase outreach.
4) Expand relocation allowances.
5) Encourage self-employment.
6) Expand work-sharing programs, and include incentives for employers to hire the long-term unemployed.
7) Provide generous tax incentives for employers to hire the long-term unemployed.

You'll note that none of these things directly create jobs--that is, stimulate demand.

We don't need some goddamn Rube Goldberg contraption that provides grants, which are awarded to an institution which then retrains people for jobs that don't exist.

Just pay people to do stuff. First, give money to states so they stop firing workers. Not only does this stall job losses, but these workers will spend money, providing jobs to other people (money has velocity--it doesn't stay put). Second, government cuts are also killing private contractors, especially at the state and local levels. Consider Marblehead, MA, where the town turned down ballot items that would have provide tens of millions of dollars to private companies. The federal government should help them--over two years ago, I argued that money should be distributed to states and municipalities on a per capita basis. It's still a good idea. As long as the state and local cuts essentially balance out increased federal spending, we really haven't had a stimulus.

There's infrastructure that needs repairing--pay people to fix it. That's a good way to put people to work.

More like this

Health-infrastructure, information technology, and science research spending are clearly related to the success of our economy. They represent investments into intellectual property and human capital that increase productivity and create long-term growth. For this reason, I don't object to the…
tags: book review, white-collar unemployment, job hunting, Bait and Switch, Barbara Ehrenreich While I was flying back to NYC last weekend, I read (yet another) book about job hunting. This book detailed the obvious; that searching for a white-collar job is not as easy as you might think, as you'll…
About the decrease in U3 unemployment (the 'strict' measure) from 9.2% to 9.1% (which, of course, beats the alternative increase): well, that's the good news. The bad news is that the employment rate actually dropped 58.2% to 58.1%. Among men, we hit another all-time historical low. So how do…
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert M. Kimmitt tries to explain Why Job Churn Is Good: More than 55 million Americans, or four out of every 10 workers, left their jobs in 2005. And this is good news, because there were over 57 million new hires that same year. Those workers spent an average of…

I have also been saying this for a long time. I'm told by what Krugman calls Very Serious People that I don't know what I'm talking about. I just wish I had written down all the things I predicted that have happened. (Of course I would throw away the things I predicted that didn't happen, right?)

The problem is how to prevent the giving of money to states from encouraging irresponsibility, especially in doing stuff with the money that doesn't put people to work.

But there must be a way.

The problem is how to prevent the giving of money to states from encouraging irresponsibility, especially in doing stuff with the money that doesn't put people to work.

Er, isn't that the point of earmarked funds?

By Left_Wing_Fox (not verified) on 19 Jun 2010 #permalink