As I have been teaching a college class each semester for almost five years now, from time to time I hear from former students, all of whom have graduated to seek employment in a difficult economy.
Some found work fairly quickly, others took a while and others are still looking – just like other job-seekers who aren’t recent graduates.
I just heard from one who found work in another state but was laid off in less than a year, and has spent more than a year since looking without success. She said she had been thinking about applying to graduate school but was waiting for the best time to do it, then realized there was really no such thing as a best time. She asked me for a letter of recommendation to go with her applications.
I’ll be writing that letter and hope the best for her. But I’m thinking about her and others back here in Arizona who are without jobs and are trying different paths to get them.
Last week the Tribune published a story from Capitol Media Services’ Howard Fischer quoting a state economic official saying that Arizona will see a net gain of 60,900 jobs in 2013, a 2.5 percent increase from 2012. Not bad, but our economy locally and nationally underwent more than just a job loss, because as jobs come back many are in different areas than the ones that existed before.
Which is why people like my former student are thinking about going back to school.
So what kinds of jobs will they be? Fischer’s story quotes the state director of economic analysis as saying many will be in health care as baby boomers age and the tourism field will do better as people have more money to spend on vacationing. And construction, once what many outside Arizona probably thought of as this state’s premier industry, is coming back, but, the director, Aruna Murthy, told Fischer, by the end of next year we’ll only have half the construction jobs we did in 2006.
This past week politicians have been making last-minute pitches for votes, many of them talking about how many jobs they will create if elected. When it isn’t election time, of course, they become limited-government types who say government can’t – and shouldn’t – create jobs. But we’re supposed to have forgotten that. Many of us must have, otherwise they wouldn’t try saying that stuff and hope to get away with it.
Governments don’t create private-sector jobs, although they can create rules and regulations that make jobs easier or harder to come about on their own.
We all remember throughout the 1990s being told that the 21st century is going to be different. It would be an age of technology as the 20th century was an age of industry. And yet we didn’t prepare as well for it as we should have. Maybe we didn’t think that conditions would change and needs would become so immediate only eight or nine years into the new century.
The technocrats were ready, of course, producing all kinds of high-tech devices we have snapped up at most any price and use. No doubt: As a society we love technology. We just don’t want to learn it.
Even if we do, retraining can be expensive, of course, and one forgoes income while getting that training. But regardless of who is elected Tuesday, from the White House to city halls, there’s been a shift coming for quite a while, one that we would have loved to have been more gradual, but greed and lack of a reasonable regulatory environment led to a financial collapse that accelerated that shift.
We’ve seen devastating effects on the middle class the last few years, and not enough attention has been paid to restoring it. The arguments are too philosophical because, well, the people doing most of the arguing want a seat in Congress or the Legislature first and to do something about these things second. Doing something involves saying unpopular things, and these last few weeks aren’t the time for politicians to say anything unpopular.
Next week the litany of finger-pointing commercials will be mercifully over and we will feel great relief. But that relief won’t last long, not if you think about how that now that our leaders have left our TV screens, that enjoyable silence you’ll be enjoying means they are instead settling into their comfortable new jobs. At that point they would rather that we not pay too much attention to them – and whether they actually are doing anything – until the next election.
Read Mark J. Scarp’s opinions here on Sundays. Watch his video commentaries at eastvalleytribune.com. Reach him at mscarp1@cox.net.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:42 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Republicans like to claim they are the party that will create jobs.
Here is the record of the current Republican dominated Congress.
Sep 12__S.3457____Veterans Jobs Corps Act, S.Amdt.2789 --- NO
Jul 17__S.3364____Bring Jobs Home Act --- NO
Jul 11__S.2237____Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act --- NO
Jun 29__S.2237____Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act --- NO
Jun 5___S.3240____Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012 --- NO
Dec 15__H.R.3630__Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 --- NO
Nov 30__S.1917____A bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for middle class families and businesses --- NO
Nov 3___H.R.674___3% Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act --- NO
Nov 1___S.1769____Rebuild America Jobs Act --- NO
Oct 6___S.1660____American Jobs Act of 2011 --- NO
Sep 24__S.3816____Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act --- NO
Aug 5___H.R.5297__Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 --- NO
Jun 23__H.R.4213__American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 --- NO
The DO NOTHING GOP always VOTED "NO" on any bill to create JOBS!!!...
mnjcpa posted at 10:01 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
So what AZWillie? Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. You're just another out of touch liberal that somehow thinks another regulation gets passed and magically jobs appear.
IceCat posted at 10:12 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Governments don’t create private-sector jobs
Mark, why don't you check with Boeing to see how many jobs are directly linked to federal dollars.
So yes, the government does create jobs opportunities in the private sector.
Cerulean posted at 10:29 am on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
mnjcpa is just an out of touch -?- that thinks cutting corporate tax magically creates jobs. So what?
Governments can and do create private sector jobs. To say otherwise is ludicrous.
Governments create health provider jobs, military support jobs, highway construction jobs, etcetera.
mnjcpa posted at 12:50 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Cerulean- living in Russia must be your idea of a dream society.
downtownresident posted at 2:51 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
mnjcpa,
You just can't believe that government dollars don't create private sector jobs.
Please tell me you really aren't that delusional.
mnjcpa posted at 4:10 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Comrade downtownresident - all you have to do is look at the results of the last four years to see how well government jobs work. 23 million people out of work? What a success story.
chuckles3 posted at 4:23 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Ignorance on display here again. "government dollars" creating jobs?
You mean the 16 trillion were are in debt on top of my money and your money they take every year?
Yes, the Government is much better at creating jobs than the private sector. Just look at how much they spent on stimulus to leave us at higher unemployment than when the empty chair was elected. Money we borrowed well spent. Debt well invested.
Pragmatic posted at 6:14 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
Intel adding 1000 production jobs, the story read last week, not your old time machinist for sure a different skill set required and speaks to the re educated work force.
But lets look at the 2.5 increase in new jobs mentioned, why no mention of the change in population or the change in the number seeking work? Is 2.5% meaningful? Is 60,900 good, bad or ugly? We need to be informing the Pols of we expect and what we will accept, and demand compliance.
Kevin7143 posted at 9:23 pm on Sun, Nov 4, 2012.
What have you been smoking Arizona Willy? Each and every H.R you posted was passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law. H.R. 3630 and H.R. 674 were both sponsored by Republicans. As for the two sponsored by Democrats: Both were enacted when the Dems controlled the House and Senate.
As for voting no on job creation, unlike the Senate the House has to vote. There are currently 15 House jobs bills pigeonholed by the Senate Majority Leader. Think they'll ever be brought to a vote? Where is your outrage?
k33j88 posted at 4:25 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2012.
Will the last unemployed private sector employee please shut off the light? The feds have arrived to see that all your needs are met----how would you like your "green eggs" with your ham? Pass the govnt cheese please. Also, turn in your guns if you want to feed your family.
REG in AZ posted at 10:04 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2012.
The Subterfuge v The Reality: Republicans claim Obama is taking $700B out of Medicare v actually it is $700B out of Medicare expenses; Romney says he will restore $700B to Medicare v the reality is Romney wants to repeal Obamacare which would restore $700B to Medicare expenses for Special Interests; Republicans claim Obama will have a trillion dollars added in taxes v actually Obama plans to raise taxes only for those earning over $250k and in the mean time Romney wants to cut taxes and drastically cut regulations, greatly benefiting the few and resulting in his numbers not adding up; Republicans say repealing Obamacare is a positive v the reality that it is already providing benefit for many, most don’t want it repealed, the Republicans served their own interests in refusing bipartisan cooperation for healthcare reform and now they want to leave the people dependent on those who fought it and don’t want it, to come up with something of value; the Republicans totally fault “big government”, government spending and the deficit as the evil v the reality that while those things are good to get under control they didn’t cause our problems and concentrating there is a distraction from what did cause our problems - that consistently being aggressive exploitation by the few, allowed by permissive politicians seeking the support of “the money” and just costing the majority greatly.
Count d money posted at 11:12 am on Tue, Nov 6, 2012.
If you create a job, was it necessary?
Or are you just taking from one citizen and giving it to another based on a misguided guilt and misplaced desires for wealth redistribution.
"Creating" a job means: 1) taking money from the citizenry in the form of a tax ( over 1000 different taxes to choose from)... 2) taking 40-50% of those dollars off the top to pay for government bureaucracy and waste...3) checking with your political fundraisers to see who deserves federal money to create jobs that are not productive or stable in the long run.
So the question is not: "can the Government create private-sector jobs?'
Instead the question should be: "Should the Government create private-sector jobs, by raping the private sector to create those jobs?'
Cerulean posted at 9:18 am on Wed, Nov 7, 2012.
"We’ve seen devastating effects on the middle class the last few years, and not enough attention has been paid to restoring it."
Lets be real about this Mark, the middle class has been in decline for a very long time.
American wages have not kept up with inflation for 30 years or more.
Cerulean posted at 9:26 am on Wed, Nov 7, 2012.
Count d money asks a good question but creates a false illusion ("by raping the private sector to create those jobs?'") to suggest that those who earn $250,000. or more should not pay the same tax that they did during the Clinton administration. Republicans knew when they put a time limit on the tax reduction that it was unsustainable. That is why we are revisiting the issue now.
mnjcpa posted at 12:14 pm on Wed, Nov 7, 2012.
You really don't get it Cerulean but congratulations are in order for putting Santa Claus back in office. You really believe that soaking the rich will solve our financial situation. It's the depreciated dollar from overprinting money that's hurt the middle class, not soaking the private sector.
I've got an idea. Why don’t we just pull a France and institute 75%+ tax rates on the wealthy? Economics professor Antony Davies uses data to assess whether taxing the US rich could possibly make up the difference to $1T annual deficits. He shows that the richest 5 percent of Americans ALREADY pay a tax rate almost 3 times higher than the average tax rate of the remaining 95 percent so it’s hard to argue that the richest aren’t paying their fair share. Aside from that, for the richest Americans to shoulder the deficit, we would have to raise their effective tax rate to 88 percent. At 88 percent a family earning $300,000 each year has only $36,000 AFTER taxes – less than the average American earns.
It doesn't matter anyway - America's toast. China has been positioning itself for 5 years with gold reserves to be the new world's currency. Santa Claus won't be coming back when that cookie jar is removed. And when the world shifts from the dollar as the world's currency, you have no idea what you're in store for.
VofReason posted at 12:09 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.
Several here have rightly pointed out that the government indeed necessitates support that creates jobs. Someone (ie taxpayers) has to pay for the work and products. Follow that vein. So is the thought that we just need to make the Government larger and that everyone will then have a job? As someone else put here, how has that been working?