Not Just Jobs Needed Now

In advance of the president's jobs summit, economist Paul Krugman is finally calling for government job-creation.

"It's time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal's Works Progress Administration" writes Krugman. He says it "would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment."

That's probably not what the Obama administration has in mind. They and Congress seem set instead on relying on the private sector and re-asserting Democrats' fiscal conservative bona fides before next year's vote.

Still, the broader reality is, what's needed is more -- way more than the private sector is likely to give Obama, and more than poorly-paying government jobs.

After all, poorly-paying jobs are what got us into this mess. As we all know by now, between 2000 and 2007, while productivity grew, the typical working household saw its income decline; decline so far that the only way the average worker could pay for a car, a house or a college education for the kids was to go into debt. The deadly mix of needy Americans and shameless lenders brought the US economy to the brink and we rode over.

Setting the lowest possible bar for government action and relying on the private sector has brought us here, to a situation in which stimulus or no stimulus, banks aren't lending, mortgage reform isn't happening, and food stamp use is at a record high. Twenty thousand people join the food stamp rolls every day according to a recent report. The program now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children. That's 36 million Americans.

Local data reviewed by Krugman's own New York Times, reveals that the counties worst hit include the Bronx in New York, Philadelphia and some parts of Appalachia -- where half of all residents need help.

The important, rather buried fact in the numbers is that food stamp use isn't only up due to rising unemployment. Some 40 per cent of the families now on food stamps have "earned income." That figure was 25 percent just two years ago.

Not just unemployment, but low wages and shrinking working hours have brought Americans to the starvation point.

If the economy is stabilizing (as the Fed insists it is) it's stabilizing at a frightful place. The rate of job losses is slowing, but huge numbers of working Americans are paid so little they can't afford to eat and feed their families.

It's not just jobs the nation needs, it's jobs with justice, the sort government can create -- not by thinking petty -- but thinking big and raising a bar. The best thing that could happen at the president's jobs summit is for Obama to declare a massive government jobs program paying genuinely living wages, and for him to demand the same of all those CEOS in the room. Tax payers shouldn't be helping employers get away with paying workers starvation wages. We certainly shouldn't be thanking them for creating more low-paying, "better than nothing" jobs.

Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GRITlaura on Twitter.com.

Comments (22)

1. "In advance of the president's jobs summit, economist Paul Krugman is finally calling for government job-creation."

   Absurd lunacy.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 5:45pm

2. Ms. Flanders:

   "It's not just jobs the nation needs, it's jobs with justice, the sort government can create -- not by thinking petty -- but thinking big and raising a bar. The best thing that could happen at the president's jobs summit is for Obama to declare a massive government jobs program paying genuinely living wages, and for him to demand the same of all those CEOS in the room. Tax payers shouldn't be helping employers get away with paying workers starvation wages. We certainly shouldn't be thanking them for creating more low-paying, "better than nothing" jobs."

   I think most reasonably informed Americans would zestfully agree with this statement. Unfortunately, a recent Mike Whitney post at Uncle Alex's Counterpunch.org probably is on the mark as to what is happening in America.

   Namely, The Shock Doctrine has Landed --see Naomi Klein's book for more detail, readers.

   Here's MikeWhitney at CP:

   counterpunch.org/whitney11272009.html

   Excerpt (final devastating paragraph):

   "Summers' assignment is to bring the broader economy to its knees; to crush big labor by keeping unemployment high, to force state and local and governments to privatize more public assets and services, and to generate as much human misery as possible. In short, Summers is laying the groundwork for structural adjustment within the US, a policy which reflects his ongoing commitment to multinational corporations and neoliberalism. It's the shock doctrine redux. These people are monsters. "

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:54pm

3. "It's not just jobs the nation needs, it's jobs with justice"

   Leftist speak for forcing a "socialistic" equal income distribution enconomic take over! Laura does her best to champion dis-incentive anti-capitalistic marxism as the way to grow jobs. Doesn't pass the smell test as usual, never has, and never will.

   Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 7:12pm

4. Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:54pm

   No, Kool,..most American DO NOT agree that the govt needs a "massive job creation program with living wages"...and you will see as I do,the polls bear this out. All of them. Most Americans do not want govt to be the employer of the people.

   The program you demand is nothing but a redistribution of wealth from those who earn and produce to those who can't, won't, don't, or refuses, and there are programs for those from free schhol lunch to free everything...remember, the wages the govt jobs are paid come from taxes of someone else...or in the lefts case today, the printing press.

   The last thing the majority of Americans would want to see is another welfare type program from govt that DOES NOTHING to aid a community that needs jobs. We already have that with latest govt joke, the govt payback for votes called the "Stimulus Package"....

   And as a black socialist, surely you are aware you are as far away from main stream America as one can be,....

   of this, rest assured, most Americans would agree.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 7:23pm

5. Here's a genuine question for anyone out there:

   Imagine both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ended right now. How many people - military, contractors etc. - would lose their jobs? How big of an impact on unemployment #s would that have and is it an issue?

   no snarkiness implied.... just don't know and want to hear some thoughts.

   Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/01/2009 @ 8:31pm

6. End both wars & use the money to rebuild infrastructure coast to coast ... far more jobs created in highly useful endeavor/genuine investment than lost in MIC.

   Posted by sloper at 12/01/2009 @ 8:47pm

7. FLANDERS: After all, poorly-paying jobs are what got us into this mess.....

   Ms. Flanders is clearly the least knowledgeable of "this mess" at The Nation's blog. The entire article sounds like a political/ideological rant without any foundational understanding of the state of our economy: "this mess".

   How did "poorly-paying jobs" provide a consumption boom, record federal tax revenues (and spending) and record household net worth?

   Those who borrowed (say using home equity from fast-appreciating real estate) to consume or perhaps to speculate on additional real estate, were surely not in "poorly-paying jobs".....it's much more likely they were in bigger & more expensive housing than they should have bought! Why? Criminal loosening of loan standards ENABLED THEM.

   Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 9:01pm

8. If that idiot Krugman wants something that "would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment," it is already to go - make it a condition of getting unemployment.

   Posted by pyeatte at 12/01/2009 @ 10:14pm

9. How did "poorly-paying jobs" provide a consumption boom, record federal tax revenues (and spending) and record household net worth?

   Answer: They didn't. It's called credit. In case you didn't notice or hadn't heard there was a thing called a housing bubble (financed with easy credit, not real wages) that was blown up and the credit bubble burst and now all that consumption has vaporised along with all those tax revenues and the household net worth has fallen through the floor along with all the 401ks and IRAs.

   Credit (slavery) does not, has not, nor can it ever replace a real job with a real living wage. Credit is nothing more than borrowing against the future. It's never presented as such but it's really nothing but a hole that gets deeper as more is borrowed.

   Well, the bills are due with more to come and now that all the jobs with real wages, not slave wages, have been sent overseas and credit has disappeared there's no way to pay. There's no extra after the basic necessities are paid for, which are getting more expensive every day. Many are even having a tough time paying for those. Thank you Ronald Reagan with your voodoo economics et al. I'm sure Osama and Timothy couldn't have dreamed of doing more harm to the US than the tinkle down economics crew.

   Posted by RUKiddinMeMan at 12/01/2009 @ 10:29pm

10. Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/01/2009 @

    None

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 10:38pm

11. This passage says it all. It shows that the democratic party has shifted to the right to become the old republican party. Big business before the people of the country.....but of course let "the people"pay for the budget deficit run up by the corporate wars and wallstreet bailouts still taking place. Obama isn't as belligerent as W was, but it appears he takes his marching orders from the same masters W did.

    "That's probably not what the Obama administration has in mind. They and Congress seem set instead on relying on the private sector and re-asserting Democrats' fiscal conservative bona fides before next year's vote. "

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 06:20am

12. t's the shock doctrine redux. These people are monsters. "

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:54pm

    Yes, and Obama is enabling them to the nth degree. Coke/Pepsi? Sorry Frosty, but you nailed it.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 06:22am

13. o snarkiness implied.... just don't know and want to hear some thoughts.

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/01/2009 @ 8:31pm

    You ought to read up on Dwight D. Eisenhower. Keep in mind he was field commander for the allied forces in WWII. Here's one of his famous quotes. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

    Does this answer your question?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 06:26am

14. None

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 10:38pm

    just to clarify, then: A military at war (x2) would/should be the same size as a military not at war? And weapons makers, Xe, Haliburton, etc. wouldn't slim down?

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/02/2009 @ 10:15am

15. Does this answer your question?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 06:26am

    I like what Eisenhower had to say (publicly, yet) about the dangers of militarism. I have on other threads quoted a passage by Gen. Smedley Butler who had similar but more pointed criticisms.

    The opinions of these soldiers count. I'm just a farm-boy who has never known war so it is easy (maybe even prudent) to ignore my anti-war sentiments. But who can discount these men?

    But as for my original question, what I was after was an estimate on the number of new unemployed Americans that would result from a shutdown of the two wars. Is it millions? Thousands? Or as YourJomamma thinks, "none"?

    Is this a consideration for a president who desperately needs those employment stats to improve? What is the impact on the economy of gearing down the M-I complex? Or in other words, yeah, war is costly, but is peace more costly?

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/02/2009 @ 10:37am

16. Is this a consideration for a president who desperately needs those employment stats to improve? What is the impact on the economy of gearing down the M-I complex? Or in other words, yeah, war is costly, but is peace more costly?

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/02/2009 @ 10:37am

    For me it's more of a philosophical question. The military is there to defend the United States. Last time I checked, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't part of the union. Obama referenced 9/11 last night as the reason for escalating in Afghanistan/Pakistan. If we really want to go after who's responsible for 9/11 we should escalate in Saudi Arabia. Having said that, the military isn't there to provide jobs or work, only national defense. So using it as an ends for employment is counter productive to a modern society.

    Now, say we reduce money we are spending on military conquests and move that into spending on infrastructure such as high speed rail systems, new bridges etc. That would employ a lot of folks. We could spend some of that money retraining folks who lost their jobs due to offshoring and downsizing. See, I think our government should take care of it's people, not worry about millionaires and billionaires in Europe, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and the list goes on and on. Call me a protectionist, but you can rest assured that those countries I just mentioned protect their own interests and not ours.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 11:04am

17. Why are all the lefties here worried about jobs all of a sudden?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:53pm

18. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 06:26am: In the case of WWII, it did provide employment for a nation trying to come out of the depression. About 6 million men were in arms while the women had to go to work in the factories to support the war. People were fed! After the war there was a continent and a country called Japan to be rebuilt. Besides, our freedom was at stake.

    Posted by pyeatte at 12/02/2009 @ 3:14pm

19. Why are all the lefties here worried about jobs all of a sudden?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:53pm

    Hath not a Lefty eyes? Hath not a Lefty hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Righty is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/02/2009 @ 3:16pm

20. #

    Why are all the lefties here worried about jobs all of a sudden?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:53pm

    Haven't you noticed the unemployment figures lately? The more unemployed people there are, the less purchasing is done which in turn means less tax revenue for states to operate. It also means less federal tax dollars to fund all of these grand wars you right wingers are so fond of. See, unemployment hurts you guys too. You don't get to blow up as much stuff overseas as you'd like to.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 3:17pm

21. Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/02/2009 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    apologies to Willie the shake are in order.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/02/2009 @ 3:26pm

22. It also means less federal tax dollars to fund all of these grand wars you right wingers are so fond of.

    fewer.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/02/2009 @ 3:31pm