Michigan loses government jobs, hampering economic recovery

**antongast** · January-23-12, 01:18 PM

I'm just saying.

**Zozo** · January-23-12, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

I'm just saying.

You didn't say anything.

**Novine** · January-23-12, 02:49 PM

The same is true of the national economy. Conservatives complain about the job numbers and unemployment rate when those would be much improved if there weren't the job losses in the public sector. You give them exactly the downsizing of government jobs that they have demanded for years and then they complain that there's too many people unemployed. It appears that "starving the beast" does have some negative effects.

**gameguy56** · January-23-12, 02:55 PM

Doesn't Michigan have a surplus?

**Jimaz** · January-23-12, 02:56 PM

This is happening in states other than Michigan too—simultaneously. The coordinated effort has been traced by following the money through ALEC back to our glorious Koch overlords.

**Danny** · January-23-12, 02:58 PM

Thank-you Snyder, the Nerd for destroying our Great State of Michigan.

**guito13** · January-23-12, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Thank-you Snyder, the Nerd for destroying our Great State of Michigan.

What do you propose he do then? Keep up with the spending and therefore keep growing the debt that we have as a state?

Bottom line is that we need to spend less and pay off ANY debt we have as a state. Once we truly have a surplus after all debt is gone then we can look at adding programs/resources/employees.

**antongast** · January-23-12, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by guito13

What do you propose he do then? Keep up with the spending and therefore keep growing the debt that we have as a state?

Yes, if it will help us recover faster. There's plenty of time to worry about spending once the economy is back on track.

Also I would propose that, if he considers the budget to be a higher priority than jobs, he should stop handing out public funds to private corporations in the name of "job creation." Otherwise he'd be, you know, a hypocrite.

**guito13** · January-23-12, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

Yes, if it will help us recover faster. There's plenty of time to worry about spending once the economy is back on track.

Also I would propose that, if he considers the budget to be a higher priority than jobs, he should stop handing out public funds to private corporations in the name of "job creation." Otherwise he'd be, you know, a hypocrite.

I guess I could put all my bills on my Visa until i get a better job too. Common fiscal sense tells me that is not the best idea.

I never said I agreed with his actions in other areas, I just replied to the OP's point. I would argue that the investment in a private industry that will create 50 jobs [[at 50K taxpayer investment per new job) may have a positive ROI but I would have some more numbers to verify that. If we can show that additional government employees will net a positive ROI for the state then I am all for it.

**fryar** · January-23-12, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by guito13

I guess I could put all my bills on my Visa until i get a better job too. Common fiscal sense tells me that is not the best idea.

I never said I agreed with his actions in other areas, I just replied to the OP's point. I would argue that the investment in a private industry that will create 50 jobs [[at 50K taxpayer investment per new job) may have a positive ROI but I would have some more numbers to verify that. If we can show that additional government employees will net a positive ROI for the state then I am all for it.

As you point out, the idea is far more legitimate if it is comparable to student loans than it is to credit card debt - Keynesian, even, so it's seemingly quite out of style.

Those foolish college graduates, they are so soon parted with their money...

**coracle** · January-23-12, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Thank-you Snyder, the Nerd for destroying our Great State of Michigan.

Just shows how good he is at the job. Some folks have been working on it for decades and he's only been at it for a year.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-23-12, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by gameguy56

Doesn't Michigan have a surplus?

The State does but most public employees work at the 83 counties, or hundreds of school districts, cities, or villages. It is these agencies that have been hurt most by the downturn because more of thier budget is tied to the value of property. In case you have not noticed. Houses are cheap around here.

**coracle** · January-23-12, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by gameguy56

Doesn't Michigan have a surplus?

After Snyder's state of the State address I remember recoiling at the most stupid criticism imaginable from one of our Senators - "He [[Snyder) didn't tell us what we are going to spend the surplus on".

**Wesley Mouch** · January-23-12, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

The State does but most public employees work at the 83 counties, or hundreds of school districts, cities, or villages. It is these agencies that have been hurt most by the downturn because more of thier budget is tied to the value of property. In case you have not noticed. Houses are cheap around here.

Isn't that good? I thought 'affordable housing' was among the goals of progressives. Courtesy of the conservatives, you have it.

But seriously folks, government jobs are not productive. And they shouldn't be. They are solely infrastructure. And that's great. We need infrastructure. But it should be as small and efficient as possible.

That said, I'd rather pay unemployment than pay for workers that aren't truly needed. And where they're needed, they should receive just a little less than the private sector, with good guarantees for guaranteed employment, and a reasonable public pension. Maybe a little better than the pensions we afford everyone else -- oops, except we don't.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-23-12, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by coracle

After Snyder's state of the State address I remember recoiling at the most stupid criticism imaginable from one of our Senators - "He [[Snyder) didn't tell us what we are going to spend the surplus on".

A rare honest politician.

**antongast** · January-23-12, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

But seriously folks, government jobs are not productive.

What are you talking about? A job is a job. Employed people get haircuts, eat at restaurants, buy cars, have their roofs fixed, and all that money circulates in the local economy and helps keep other people employed. If that's a valid rationale for subsidizing private-sector "job creation," it should be a valid rationale for not laying off government workers.

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

That said, I'd rather pay unemployment than pay for workers that aren't truly needed.

Who says they aren't needed? DPL just closed the Monteith and Mark Twain branches, so there is no library branch anywhere east of Chene or south of Warren. Those branches were used by people in the community and provided a tangible public benefit to the lower east side of Detroit. Why couldn't Snyder have sent some money to DPL to keep those branches open instead of sending it to Hyundai? Or take DDOT, there aren't as many drivers or as many mechanics as there need to be to serve a city this size. Or DPD and DFD being chronically short-staffed. Multiply these problems by every city in Michigan; they're all hurting right now, and part of it is because the state keeps cutting revenue sharing because they don't think government creates value. It's bullshit, and it's hurting the economy.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-23-12, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

What are you talking about? A job is a job. Employed people get haircuts, eat at restaurants, buy cars, have their roofs fixed, and all that money circulates in the local economy and helps keep other people employed. If that's a valid rationale for subsidizing private-sector "job creation," it should be a valid rationale for not laying off government workers.

Somewhere, the wealth the makes that money worth something sprouts. Hint: Not Government. Circulating money -- the velocity if you will -- has some value. But not if there's not a source of wealth, its just 'rearranging deck chairs'.

**antongast** · January-23-12, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Somewhere, the wealth the makes that money worth something sprouts. Hint: Not Government. Circulating money -- the velocity if you will -- has some value. But not if there's not a source of wealth, its just 'rearranging deck chairs'.

Our problem right now isn't insufficient wealth, it's too many people unemployed and insufficient demand for goods and services. America's wealthier than it's ever been.

**guito13** · January-24-12, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by antongast

Our problem right now isn't insufficient wealth, it's too many people unemployed and insufficient demand for goods and services. America's wealthier than it's ever been.

Really? Take a look at the national debt and explain your statement, with facts please.

**antongast** · January-24-12, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by guito13

Really? Take a look at the national debt and explain your statement, with facts please.

Here you go:

America is an extremely rich country, and getting richer all the time. The national debt is a matter of policy [[our elected leaders have reached the consensus for various reasons that certain government expenditures should be financed through borrowing rather than higher taxes), not of America being poor. Lots of people in America are poor, and getting poorer, but that's also a matter of policy [[our elected leaders have reached the consensus that inequality isn't a serious problem, and that it's acceptable for nearly all new wealth to accrue to the very rich). Anybody who says "we can't afford X" is actually saying "I don't think we should prioritize X."

**Wesley Mouch** · January-24-12, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by antongast

Our problem right now isn't insufficient wealth, it's too many people unemployed and insufficient demand for goods and services. America's wealthier than it's ever been.

So why is it that government jobs are being so highly regarded as the solution. Up in arms about losses of government workers. Should be more outrage about loss of private sector jobs. If a 'job is a job' [[which is absurd, but regardless), then why the focus on public sector?

**guito13** · January-24-12, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by antongast

Here you go:

America is an extremely rich country, and getting richer all the time. The national debt is a matter of policy [[our elected leaders have reached the consensus for various reasons that certain government expenditures should be financed through borrowing rather than higher taxes), not of America being poor. Lots of people in America are poor, and getting poorer, but that's also a matter of policy [[our elected leaders have reached the consensus that inequality isn't a serious problem, and that it's acceptable for nearly all new wealth to accrue to the very rich). Anybody who says "we can't afford X" is actually saying "I don't think we should prioritize X."

Interesting graph. I would like to see the methodology used to create it. Does it take inflation into account and such...

**Wesley Mouch** · January-24-12, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by antongast

Here you go:
America is an extremely rich country, and getting richer all the time. The national debt is a matter of policy [[our elected leaders have reached the consensus for various reasons that certain government expenditures should be financed through borrowing rather than higher taxes), not of America being poor. Lots of people in America are poor, and getting poorer, but that's also a matter of policy [[our elected leaders have reached the consensus that inequality isn't a serious problem, and that it's acceptable for nearly all new wealth to accrue to the very rich). Anybody who says "we can't afford X" is actually saying "I don't think we should prioritize X."

This is quite true.

But its not solely a decision by our elected leaders. I believe that our social leaders as well have devalued personal responsibility, and we far too often blame others rather than simply solving our problems with the tools available. Instead, we rely on the power of government to redistribute wealth, rather than increase it. That said, I do believe we have an issue with distribution of wealth. Just a debate about how to solve it.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-24-12, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by guito13

Interesting graph. I would like to see the methodology used to create it. Does it take inflation into account and such...

The graph says '$2010 USD'. That suggests it takes inflation into account.

We sometimes forget that we are going an amazing number of things right, when you step back and look at it. Not all is doom and gloom.

Suggested reading on our attitude to our country: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...mIwNGQwNDBiZmI

**antongast** · January-24-12, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

So why is it that government jobs are being so highly regarded as the solution. Up in arms about losses of government workers. Should be more outrage about loss of private sector jobs. If a 'job is a job' [[which is absurd, but regardless), then why the focus on public sector?

Did you read the article? There is no focus on the public sector. The public sector is being cut to oblivion, and it's offsetting slow job growth in the private sector and prolonging the recession. If anything, policymakers seem completely confused as to why unemployment is so persistent, because they don't think government jobs count as real jobs.