NYT Article - A call for a Marshall Plan for Jobs

[dbarberic]

Sounds like it is straight from EJ's mouth:

Op-Ed Columnist
Good Jobs Are Where the Money Is

By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 19, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/2tdlhy
NYT

I’d start with a broad program to rebuild the American infrastructure. This would have the dual benefit of putting large numbers of people to work and answering a crying need. The infrastructure is in sorry shape. New Orleans comes to mind, and the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

The country that gave us the Marshall Plan to rebuild postwar Europe ought to be able, 60 years later, to reconstitute its own sagging infrastructure.

There are also untold numbers of jobs and myriad societal benefits to be reaped from a sustained, good-faith effort to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Think Manhattan Project.

The possibilities are limitless. We could create an entire generation of new jobs and build a bigger and fairer economy for the 21st century. If only we were serious.

[Guest]

Re: NYT Article - A call for a Marshall Plan for Jobs

In a recent report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world needs to spend $20 trillion to meeting surging global energy demand. This capital investment alone may represent one of the greatest investment opportunities the world has ever witnessed. I vote for Schlumberger!

http://www.slb.com/

[GRG55]

Re: NYT Article - A call for a Marshall Plan for Jobs

Sounds like it is straight from EJ's mouth:

Op-Ed Columnist
Good Jobs Are Where the Money Is

By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 19, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/2tdlhy
NYT

At 5% unemployment, well below the historical average, why has "creating jobs" become such a headline?

Also, the report on the Minneapolis bridge collapse concluded that it was a design flaw that caused it (undersized gussets), not poor maintenance or age.

[Rajiv]

Re: NYT Article - A call for a Marshall Plan for Jobs

At 5% unemployment, well below the historical average, why has "creating jobs" become such a headline?
.

That is because 5% is not the true unemployment rate - see Numbers Games

RATHER THAN developing a more broadly encompassing measure of unemployment, the BLS actually has narrowed the definition of those counted as officially unemployed over the years. It is interesting to note first how the BLS defines employment. Individuals are classified as employed if

they did any work at all as paid employees during the reference week [working as little as an hour qualifies]; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.

By including those who worked as little as an hour during the reference week, the number of employed individuals is already inflated. On top of that, the definition of "unemployed" has changed over the years to include fewer and fewer individuals. Several changes were made in 1967 and 1994 that winnowed the number of those officially out of work-most notably by excluding discouraged workers, who have stopped looking for work-from the labor force.

See also this critique from 1986