No, says University of Massachusetts economist Nancy Folbre in this N.Y. Times opinion piece. She says that there "are three possible reasons":
First, unemployment is concentrated among the less educated, blacks and Hispanics who lack political or economic clout. Second, high unemployment is not hurting overall business profits, which have soared to historic heights. In the 1930s, joblessness reduced the demand for consumer goods, idling many businesses as well as workers, creating economic incentives to support public job-creation efforts. Today, our largest corporations and richest investors are well positioned to take advantage of growing demand in emerging markets far from our shores, whether in the form of increased exports or new investment opportunities. * * * Third, the jobless individuals, public employees and small-business owners who could, in theory, form a strong political coalition to support more active job creation are constantly subjected to a barrage of arguments that we should do nothing but cut government spending and hope for the best.
As an attorney dealing with foreclosures and bankruptcy I see too much unemployment. Service industry is hiring some, but manufacturing is not. Companies are hoarding money and banks are not lending to anyone but the best (and Bank profits are better than EVER - separate topic). Small businesses have always provided employment but they have no credit facility open to them so they cannot expand.
Also, "policy makers" are so far removed from the batlle zones that they don't understand. It's almost like a military engagement where Congress gets information 3rd or 4th hand. How many talk to soldiers? How many in Congress hold "town meeting specifically about employment and have experts there to listen, advise and help?
Richard Isacoff
rii@isacofflaw.com
Posted by: Richard Isacoff | Tuesday, July 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM