What did you expect, a job?
Ross Wasserstrom
Issue date: 11/13/09 Section: Opinion
The federal government agreed to pay out approximately $785 billion in stimulus money at the beginning of this year to boost consumer spending and curb job losses. As the economy collapsed around us, a natural consequence has been a steady increase in the number of un- or under-employed Americans; about five million since August 2008, to be precise.
I can sympathize with those who now find themselves out of work; belt-tightening, saving, and pounding the pavement for a new way to bring home the bacon. I cannot escape, or understand, clamors from folks on the news and on the street, however, to the effect of "where are the jobs?!"
With all that money being splashed around, people can expect that some of it should end up in their pockets. As taxpayers, we expect to get our money's worth in government spending. Particularly since the August-September-October quarter of 2009 showed strong growth from some of the biggest companies (including most who accepted bailout money); there is a deafening cry, however, that these companies have not begun rehiring average "main street" Americans. I cannot count how many times I heard or the phrase "jobless economic recovery" over the weekend.
This roar of jobless dissatisfaction makes me feel very uncomfortable simply because the "jobs" of yester-year contributed immensely to the financial crisis in the first place. Overpaid union workers have long been the Achilles heel of streamlined airline and auto manufacturers, and single-employer small towns have always known that a downturn in the larger economy could spell doom for "main street." After all, what's bad for the goose is bad for the gander, and recessions flow downhill.
I think, however, that there is a larger lesson at play here: "corporate greed" led to failures of companies like Lehmann Brothers, but demanding a job manufacturing a product that is not necessary or profitable is equally greedy, not to mention that it shows a reckless disregard for the economy at large and a disrespect for one's place in the system.
I can sympathize with those who now find themselves out of work; belt-tightening, saving, and pounding the pavement for a new way to bring home the bacon. I cannot escape, or understand, clamors from folks on the news and on the street, however, to the effect of "where are the jobs?!"
With all that money being splashed around, people can expect that some of it should end up in their pockets. As taxpayers, we expect to get our money's worth in government spending. Particularly since the August-September-October quarter of 2009 showed strong growth from some of the biggest companies (including most who accepted bailout money); there is a deafening cry, however, that these companies have not begun rehiring average "main street" Americans. I cannot count how many times I heard or the phrase "jobless economic recovery" over the weekend.
This roar of jobless dissatisfaction makes me feel very uncomfortable simply because the "jobs" of yester-year contributed immensely to the financial crisis in the first place. Overpaid union workers have long been the Achilles heel of streamlined airline and auto manufacturers, and single-employer small towns have always known that a downturn in the larger economy could spell doom for "main street." After all, what's bad for the goose is bad for the gander, and recessions flow downhill.
I think, however, that there is a larger lesson at play here: "corporate greed" led to failures of companies like Lehmann Brothers, but demanding a job manufacturing a product that is not necessary or profitable is equally greedy, not to mention that it shows a reckless disregard for the economy at large and a disrespect for one's place in the system.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
learn english
posted 11/16/09 @ 8:16 AM EST
"about five million... to be precise."
learn english.
Hithere
posted 11/18/09 @ 11:32 PM EST
Wow you're clever.
Post a Comment