[southernmissouri2007]

A question for Democrats only how do Democrats plan to creating Jobs in the Private Sector to help Big or Large Corporations create Jobs ? From reading thr Democratic Party wesite they only seem to want to help Small Businesses create Jobs and create Public Sector Jobs or Government Jobs by rebuilding or building Infrastructure. Does Keynesian Economics say anything about Infrastructure Spending can anyone quote from Keynes ? Democrats say Demand creates Jobs how do Democrats plan to putting money in people's hands to spend ?

Putting Americans to work rebuilding roads, bridges, rails, and ports, strengthening our economy and our infrastructure across all 50 states.

http://www.democrats.org/issues/economy ... b_creation

John Maynard Keynes
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Book III
The Propensity to Consume
Chapter 10. The Marginal Propensity to Consume and the Multiplier

V

It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached. Furthermore, if our assumption is correct that the marginal propensity to consume falls off steadily as we approach full employment, it follows that it will become more and more troublesome to secure a further given increase of employment by further increasing investment.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... y/ch10.htm

Public Works Administration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Public Works Administration (PWA), part of the New Deal of 1933, was a large-scale public works construction agency in the United States headed by Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes. It was created by the National Industrial Recovery Act in June 1933 in response to the Great Depression. It built large-scale public works such as dams, bridges, hospitals and schools. Its goals were to spend $3.3 billion in the first year, and $6 billion in all, to provide employment, stabilize purchasing power, and help revive the economy. Most of the spending came in two waves in 1933-35, and again in 1938. Originally called the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, it was renamed the Public Works Administration in 1939 and shut down in 1943.[1]

The PWA spent over $6 billion in contracts to private construction forms that did the actual work. It created an infrastructure that generated national and local pride in the 1930s and remains vital seven decades later. The PWA was much less controversial than its rival agency with a confusingly similar name, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), headed by Harry Hopkins, which focused on smaller projects and hired unemployed unskilled workers.[2]

Projects

The PWA headquarters in Washington planned projects, which were built by private construction companies hiring workers on the open market. Unlike the WPA, it did not hire the unemployed directly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Wor ... nistration

[Jeliza-Rose]

First of all, the Dems have a better track record at encouraging low unemployment.
The Repubs really don't like low unemployment because it gives labor a stronger negotiating stance...
less competition for a job = higher wages/benefits
This is why they always push to fire public sector employees ... it just adds to the private sector labor pool, which lowers wages.

Here are the unemployment rates back to Eisenhower.

Eisenhower (R) | start: 2.9% | end: 6.6% | difference: +3.7 points
Kennedy - Johnson (D) | start: 6.4% | end: 3.4% | difference: -3.0 points
Nixon - Ford (R) | start: 3.4% | end: 7.5% | difference: +4.1 points
Carter (D) | start: 7.5% | end: 7.5% | difference: 0.0 points
Reagan - Bush (R) | start: 7.5% | end: 7.3% | difference: -0.2 points
Clinton (D) | start: 7.3% | end: 4.2% | difference: -3.1 points
Bush (R) | start: 4.2% | end: 7.8% | difference: +3.6 points
Obama (D) | start: 7.8% | so far: 8.3% | difference +0.5 points

Reagan started out with 7.4 unemployment and three years later it was up to 8.0


Bush started out with 4.2 unemployment and three years later it was up to 5.7


Obama started out with 8.3 unemployment and three years later it is still 8.3


So if you want lower unemployment, history tells you to vote Democratic.

[Nunt]

So if you want lower unemployment, history tells you to vote Democratic.

This of course ignores every causal explanation for unemployment.

[Rilzik]

Are Small Businesses Really Big Job Creators?
http://www.entrepreneur.com/blog/220616

It's a song we've heard all through the downturn: Small businesses create most of the jobs, so they should be the focus of federal assistance.

But is it true?

New data says -- not in general. Businesses with between $10,000 and $10 million of revenue account for just 17 percent of business income, according to a recent Treasury Department report.

The report cites that one reason why the smallest businesses aren't hiring is they don’t have employees. Most small businesses are one-person operations. Only 23 percent have employees. And since small businesses tend to have fewer economies of scale to take advantage of than bigger companies, they're often less productive. So, bigger companies tend to hire more workers to fill their wider production needs.

Although small businesses overall don't necessarily create the bulk of jobs, one particular type of small business that's a big job driver is startups. Of course, the majority of startups will perish. But the survivors can be major engines of job creation. Think of Apple, Twitter and Zynga. Every big company was a startup once, and, when they take off, they add a lot of jobs along the way.

So if most small companies aren't going to hire, what type of businesses can we look to for job growth? Middle-market companies. Companies between $10 million and $1 billion in sales create 34 percent of all the jobs -- a tiny slice of the U.S. economy that consists of just 200,000 companies, according to a new study from the Ohio State University Fisher College of Business and GE Capital.

Unlike big or small businesses, the study suggests that medium-size businesses aren't typically concentrated in one geographic region, industry or one ownership structure. So they tend to have more flexibility in tough economic conditions than their larger and smaller counterparts.

The Fisher College study found that from 2007 to 2010, these mid-market companies added 2.2 million jobs, while big businesses cut 3.7 million jobs. Why haven't we heard about this more? It seems the small pool of mid-market companies don't have the kind of lobbying force of either small business or big business.

But it's fascinating to contemplate that these mid-sized companies keep adding jobs without help from the Small Business Administration or the favors and big government contracts so often showered upon major corporations.

What type of businesses will add jobs in the coming year? Leave a comment and give us your take.

Corrections & Amplifications: An earlier version of this article misstated the findings of a recent Treasury Department report on small-business owners. Businesses with between $10,000 and $10 million in annual revenue account for 17 percent of business income.