By Dick Miller
WE.CONNECT.DOTS: – When it comes to economic development and jobs, voters may get more of a splash of reality in this presidential campaign than has happened in three decades.
Before you get giddy, it will not be – and may never be – the complete truth.
If politicians were required to make only honest, accurate utterances, we would understand the following:
Unemployment is only one factor in a dismal recovery from the Great Recession. People who work at jobs because they have to, not because these positions were part of their career ladder. How about people leaving the work force in frustration and are not counted anymore? Toss in job holders who for security or other reasons refuse to retire and free up another post for someone younger.
Truth is there are not enough jobs available now or in the foreseeable future to impact these groups. As automation increasingly becomes the way we do business and conversely our population grows, nothing short of massive public works projects will provide opportunities for work.
At the least, every office seeker since President Reagan implies your chances of landing a good job improves by voting for him (or her). To extend the myth even further, one of the best ways for government to create more jobs is to continue to lower taxes on the wealthy. Known as the “trickle down” theory, studies do not exist that this concept works. That doesn’t stop candidates from saying so.
Eventually our time will be known as the “Age of Robotics,” where the goal is to do more work with less labor. Expressed in another way, success will be measured on reducing the need to create more jobs today than existed yesterday.
Generally, we continue to accomplish this goal. Every year we increase productivity using less labor.
First, we had the agricultural age, where farms were developed to provide sufficient product to feed a growing populace. Our concentration then turned to manufacturing capabilities as we entered the industrial age. Fighting world wars and other conflicts required huge mills to forge, stamp and cut parts to make guns, tanks, boats, etc.
Following Korea, focused changed again. Heavy metal parts performing singular tasks needed to be replaced by smaller, lighter objects powered by computers to do multiple deeds.
From there it was just a short leap to a concept that called for less human involvement.
Two presidential candidates are responsible for exposing voters to the real truth.
The rationalization of Donald Trump is easier to explain. His campaign platform remains mostly generalities. Rather than provide details how he would achieve any objectives, Trump says “Trust me. I will negotiate a solution.”
Bernie Sanders has a different approach in refraining to promise specifics. He calls his campaign a movement that will accomplish little on the first Tuesday in November. Sanders says his election would be the “beginning” of a movement that is likely to require future elections to bring about change of any magnitude.
Sanders doesn’t hesitate to say he cannot bring about the changes needed alone.
Western Pennsylvanians, especially those living between Pittsburgh and Erie, need ask their candidates where these promised jobs will appear.
Manufacturing jobs are gone. Factories are being re-established elsewhere to take advantage of better infrastructure, educational opportunities and life styles.
Jobs like bank teller continue to be eliminated and will not return here or anywhere else. The CEOs of the two largest financial institutions in Pennsylvania tout their progress on automation and reduction in personnel costs.
The focus in health care is to produce more with less. Costs come under control through cuts in labor.
Bottom Line: Government could be a major contributor to the workforce, but in a fashion that is unpopular to all sides. When private sector employment fails to meet demand, government must sponsor major public works projects. Republicans must redial their resistance to income re-distribution because public works would emphasize labor over hand-outs.
Conversely, Democrats must back off on unionization of government work forces. There are questions even now about who is in charge of certain segments (school districts?) of our government – elected officeholders or unions.
Perhaps we could eliminate the right to strike or bargain over economic issues for public sector unions?
