Do We Need Another Jobs Bill?

Most everyone agrees that the unemployment problem is bad (unemployment at 17%, black men at 25% and youth at 30%.) The problem is affordability. There is plenty of work to do; it is just too expensive to pay for the work to be done.

However, since the $800 billion stimulus package was passed, employment has deteriorated. Now, the President wants a new “Jobs Bill” using temporary tax credits of $13 billion to create jobs. The president wants this bill passed immediately, so I thought its time to take a look at the bill from all three points of view.

From the Keynesian (more government) point of view, they say the original stimulus bill was aimed at increasing GDP and from that growth, creating jobs. The problem was that the stimulus package was not big enough to fill drop off in consumer spending. Therefore, we need an even bigger stimulus bill this time. Unfortunately, that would be difficult to get through Congress at this time.

Paul Krugman, in an article in the NY Times, argues that government must help. It can’t just do nothing. He suggest that for a few hundred billion dollars, we could get things going by:

1. Transferring monies to state governments so they can continue to maintain and/or create new jobs,
2. Hiring people to work for the government directly like they did in the 1930’s with programs like the Workers Progress Administration (WPA),
3. Giving companies temporary tax credits (for example, pay employers share of payroll taxes up to $5,000 for each new hire.)

The Supply-Side (less government) economists have a different point of view. Brian Wesbury, Chief Economist at First Trust in Chicago, argues that the labor market is improving and will continue to improve in the year ahead. That unemployment is simply a lagging indicator. His argument is based on the following reasons:

1. Civilian employment, based on the household survey, shows that 785,000 jobs were created in December (second month of job creation.)
2. Hours worked increased over the past three months and increased hours are an early indicator of future employment.
3. Unemployment has fallen from a peak of 10.1% to 9.7%, and
4. Employment has expanded into more industries recently.

Therefore, I conclude from his argument that permanent tax reductions would help make companies more globally competitive, but more stimulus money at this time would only fuel inflation.


The third point of view, the Capitalist view, sees the unemployment problem differently, according to Henry Hazlitt, Austrian economist:

1. The goal should be maximizing production, not employment. With full production comes full employment. By separating production and employment, you make employment the goal. That’s what they did in the 1930’s with the WPA. Projects were selected by how unproductive they were or how much labor they required.
2. We need to help the unemployed get into other growing industries,
3. We need to eliminate as many barriers to employment as possible. Here are a few of Liewellyn Rockwell’s suggestions:
A. Get rid of the minimum wage,
B. Payroll taxes rob employers of resources,
C. Laws that threaten firms if they fire an employee,
D. Unemployment subsidies that pay people not to work.

Over the next few weeks as the debate begins in the House and Senate over the type of jobs bill we need and the amount of money (we need to borrow) to pay of the jobs bill, you may need to adjust your plans accordingly.