View Full Version : Oklahoma City Job Creation Recommendations



Jzyehoshua
06-28-2011, 08:38 AM
My biggest concern is that the Convention Center and some of these other projects are hi-tech, high-expense projects that won't necessarily create jobs effectively per dollar spent. There's a wonderful report by the University of Massachusetts, "The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities (http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf)", that breaks down the exact amounts of jobs and total wages/benefits created per $1 billion of spending by different government sectors (military, healthcare, education, etc.).

Page 6 has a great chart revealing that Education, Mass Transit, and Healthcare are most effective for job creation, in that order. As noted on pg. 10:

You see, the Stimulus just threw money around, to the states, to people, to various causes, without spending wisely. Much of it consisted of tax cuts for personal consumption (about a third), the least effective form of spending according to that 2007 report I mentioned. If we want to truly create jobs effectively per dollar spent, we should model after FDR, creating work programs that pay people to dig ditches, repair roads and schools, or clean up community areas and buildings. Census work might be another low-cost example. These are all labor-intensive, and spend little on extraneous expenses, and thus will create jobs effectively.

I would recommend that we thus look to create numerous labor-intensive jobs as mentioned above, and that we also look to create jobs in government sectors that are effective for job creation as mentioned in the IPS report, Education, Mass Transit, and Healthcare, in that order.

I would also recommend that we explore the legality of tax breaks for companies that hire Oklahoma workers, perhaps in proportion to company earnings. This would allow companies which do more hiring to cope with the higher payroll costs, and incentivize companies to hire many workers as opposed to few.

At a macro level, we need to look as a nation at a suitable setting for our minimum wage, as well as the result of variance in national minimum wages relating to global trade. You see, hiking the minimum wage to $7.25 from $5.15 in 2007 with the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 sounds like a good idea, but what do you do about the companies who are thinking, "we can't bear these higher payroll costs, we need to make changes"?

You see, the smaller companies are most adversely affected, and will go first, unable to afford the higher payroll expense, and less able to outsource or change their workforce location - as well as just having less information access about how to cope. So the higher minimum wage destroys small business. But it also results in companies outsourcing jobs to other countries, hiring illegal immigrants, using more automation as opposed to workers, and shifting to part-time or temporary employees to avoid paying overtime and benefits (Lester Thurow in Ray F. Marshall's book, "Back To Shared Prosperity", pages 261-264)

Furthermore, we instituted free trade agreements starting in 1985 that allow companies to move factories overseas and then ship the goods back to the U.S. at reduced cost. Our policy of free trade as instituted just in the past 3 decades has resulted in a mass exodus of vital manufacturing jobs, and everything now being 'Made in China'. The reason? Communist countries like China and Russia do not care about their people, and use low minimum wages to siphon jobs from us, as well as the tax revenue and prosperity they bring. Which do you think is cheaper, to pay 36 workers 25 cents an hour in China, or one U.S. worker $7.25 an hour? The shipping cost simply won't change that sort of discrepancy.

What we need to do is implement a new policy, a stop to trade with countries whose minimum wages are below a $4.00/hour equivalent, and whose previous year's imports exceeded $10 billion (so that we don't focus on third-world countries we have little trade with, and to reduce bureaucracy). This would affect only 20 countries, and reduce our trade deficit from $638 billion a year to $28 billion. It would not affect whatsoever many of our Democratic allies (Canada, the U.K., Israel, Taiwan, Japan, France, Spain, Australia, etc.) who have minimum wages well above $4.00 an hour.

We should also reduce our own minimum wage back to $5.15 an hour, if not $5.00 an hour, which I suspect would rejuvenate small business. We should also enact restrictions on Wal-Mart and stores that practice Predatory Pricing (dropping prices when moving into an area to destroy competing small businesses) or other anti-competitive practices. This will result in more competition, more businesses, and more jobs.

OU Adonis
06-28-2011, 09:16 AM
Lowering min wage to $5 an hour? Wow

BoulderSooner
06-28-2011, 09:19 AM
do you happen to speak to the city council often?

Jzyehoshua
06-28-2011, 09:26 AM
do you happen to speak to the city council often?

Yes, I have spoken at both of the last two City Council meetings. I enjoy discussing my views on public policy and job creation, it's a highlight of my week, most definitely. However, I've learned that my presentation isn't as good by watching video of the meetings recently. This is due in part to my public speaking capabilities having deteriorated somewhat due to my speaking infrequently, a fault I intend to remedy, and am now working to improve. I write very well, but realize now I need to improve my mannerisms, eye contact (I lost my glasses after coming to OKC), and tone of voice for verbal communication.

At any rate, I do enjoy the City Council meetings, and love to share my ideas and thoughts (hence why I'm here - I love to learn, and see what others think). I hope to better present my points from now on.

Jzyehoshua
06-28-2011, 09:34 AM
Lowering min wage to $5 an hour? Wow

Yes - it sounds bad originally, because low-paid workers can now get paid even less. However, think of the implications:


There will be more jobs. Businesses can now hire more workers given the lower wages. Jobs will be less likely to go overseas or to illegal immigrants since American workers are more affordable. Small businesses can crop up to hire more workers.
Employees will be able to work full-time/more hours, to get overtime and benefits. Companies were avoiding this scenario before due to the higher wages, and using part-time or temporary/seasonal labor.
This will probably not affect many of the skilled workers, who get paid over $7.25 an hour. It will only affect those already making the minimum wage.


Yes, a lower minimum wage means less pay for more work, but it means more jobs and more hours and more benefits.

If this is the difference between us having a 9% unemployment rate and a 5% unemployment rate, and means that those working minimum wage now get to work full-time with benefits and have an easier time finding work, to me it is WELL worth it.

Jersey Boss
06-28-2011, 02:17 PM
Yes - it sounds bad originally, because low-paid workers can now get paid even less. However, think of the implications:


There will be more jobs. Businesses can now hire more workers given the lower wages. Jobs will be less likely to go overseas or to illegal immigrants since American workers are more affordable. Small businesses can crop up to hire more workers.
Employees will be able to work full-time/more hours, to get overtime and benefits. Companies were avoiding this scenario before due to the higher wages, and using part-time or temporary/seasonal labor.
This will probably not affect many of the skilled workers, who get paid over $7.25 an hour. It will only affect those already making the minimum wage.


Yes, a lower minimum wage means less pay for more work, but it means more jobs and more hours and more benefits.

If this is the difference between us having a 9% unemployment rate and a 5% unemployment rate, and means that those working minimum wage now get to work full-time with benefits and have an easier time finding work, to me it is WELL worth it.

What about the added cost of these workers then being able to qualify for food stamps and other services. Why should the society at large have to finance the workers of private companies due to the owners greed and refusal to think of long term benefits of paying a living wage to their work force. Compare COSTCO to SAM'S and while both are competitve with each other, COSTCO has fewer turnover and stronger worker loyalty.

USG'60
06-28-2011, 02:18 PM
JZ, it is obvious that you are informed, concerned and articulate and I wish to god that this was a good place to bounce around ideas but I am afraid you will ultimately be very disappointed. I am shocked that you have not yet been attacked with snide one liners and personal insults since that is always what happens when someone genuinely wants to discuss issues. But even if we all behaved better than usual on this thread if would be difficult to have a very meaniful discusion because there are so many separate issues here. On the surface I agree with some of what you have stated and disagree with other parts.

Just to see how it goes I will begin by addressing the min. wage aspect. Personally I don't believe there should be minimum wages at all. This shocks most people and it generally takes a lot of explaining, far more than I am willing to type out. Suffice it to say, having mimimum wages is like removing the lower wrungs of a latter and expecting little people to climb it. A functioning ladder has wrungs from top to bottom, if we expect everyone to be able to assend and desend as circumstances change for them. More shocking is my objection to most laws against child labor. I know I won't have the time or inclination to defend the attacks that will come for my having said that but at age 69 and having worked to earn money since age 7, I am not just blowing smoke. Regardless of the level (local, state or fed) gov't should not be in a position to decide who wins and who loses in business. Gate keeping should be done by those who have put money into a business, not a legislator who is subject to lobbiests with special interests and money to donate to campaign funds, nor bureaucrats, who are sometimes not very bright and seldom very caring. All of these things will bring down the cost of business and government and helps asure that all dollars spent are actually creating value rather than disappearing into the pockets of those than were not helpful in the creating of wealth.

Now watch what happens and see if you would like to continue with this. Have at me folks, or YOU, JZ. (Hope you don't mind me calling you that for shorthand?)

Jzyehoshua
07-07-2011, 07:23 PM
What about the added cost of these workers then being able to qualify for food stamps and other services. Why should the society at large have to finance the workers of private companies due to the owners greed and refusal to think of long term benefits of paying a living wage to their work force. Compare COSTCO to SAM'S and while both are competitve with each other, COSTCO has fewer turnover and stronger worker loyalty.

Right now, we are already paying for millions of people to be on unemployment, Social Security, disability, and food stamps. If anything, this should reduce what we are paying and give many of the otherwise homeless jobs so they are less dependent on government aid, not more. It's the difference between them having no jobs, and having low-paying jobs, so at least they'll have some source of income besides government, which logically should reduce government dependency.

metro
07-08-2011, 11:09 PM
I thought your uncle Obama had all the answers

redrunner
07-09-2011, 01:16 PM
I thought your uncle Obama had all the answers

what the? who is this clown?