Quote:
|
Do we suck at manufacturing or are the unions driving manufacturing out of the country because we can get cheaper labor elsewhere?
|
Unions were needed back when they initially started. They gave you good things like "weekends off" And healthcare. And a living wage.
But in the past 50 years, independent capitalist businessmen that made those deals with the Unions made bad deals in some cases, didn't they?
It was supposed to work well, as long as those businessmen could continue to make quality, desireable product that would sell and pay for the deals they made with their employees.
Don't discount the failure of businessmen - our auto industry in general comes to mind - to continue to make a decent product. They didn't. They went broke as their fellow Americans bought better made, more desireable products from non-American sources. That's capitalism at work.
Quote:
|
Also the way to create jobs is not thru public funding of unnecessary projects with no long term benefit.
|
The government funding jobs is exactly what got us out of economic hardship before. Historically, it's been proven to work. Doing nothing has been proven not to work. Most economists say the economic stimulus wasn't enough, hence why we are still languishing at 9.6% unemployment.
"Unnecessary projects with no long term benefit?" - you mean the current government funding of multiple infrastructure repair projects? That doesn't fit your definition. What are you talking about specifically? That the jobs are not permanent? That's the whole point.
We lost 700,000 jobs over the last year of the Bush administration - so how do you think that "hands off business" government policy is now magically supposed to create jobs, when it's just been proven not to work?
How does the policy of no government interference in business supposed to work to keep jobs at home? Don't you think some incentives need to actively be in place?
How is "extend a trillion in tax cuts for the rich, and deepen our budget deficit, so the private sector rich can create jobs" supposed to now magically create jobs, when that policy is what was already in place when 700,000 jobs were lost?