Skip to main content

Why we can't have a new stimulus plan

Double dip recessions are rare things. Even a slowdown immediately after a recession is unusual. But job creation coming out of this one is painfully slow. While there are lots of reasons, here is a key one.
Historically, housing got creamed in a recession. Interest rates rose going in, choking off housing activity. Then interest rates were cut, housing gradually recovered and helped employment. A lot.
Think of how many skilled trades are involved in building a house. Plumbers. Electricians. Carpenters. Cabinet installers. Roofers. Landscapers. Wallboard hangers. Carpet layers. Tile layers. Bricklayers. Concrete finishers.
Then there are the manufacturers and suppliers of pipe, kitchen and bath faucets, lighting fixtures, roofing shingles, lumber, toilets, sinks carpet, concrete, bricks,conduit, circuit boxes, windows, doors, insulation, air conditioners, water heaters and so on.
Well, in this recession there is no housing rebound, so the millions of local trade workers and manufacturing jobs that one would expect simply aren't getting created.
With that in mind, I could almost support a stimulus plan. "but". The first stimulus plan was a disaster. Over half the money went to Congress' pet projects, not to investments that might actually help move the economy.
A plan should be judged by two factors: first, does it improve the U.S. long-run productivity? Ports, rails, airports, roads and energy grid spending falls into this category. But not spending to support raises for people who already have jobs or to bail out broke states. Second, it should create a lot of jobs immediately. It is better to create two $20 per hour jobs than one $40. And it is still better to create four $10 per hour jobs than 1 $20. People need to be put to work.
Congress clearly failed those tests last time, with bogus "prevailing wage" rules and old pork spending so awful that even their friends wouldn't support it before. I don't see how we can trust them to do a better job a second time around.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: What Matters Now by Gary Hamel

Interview of Eric Schmidt by Gary Hamel at the MLab dinner tonight. Google's Marissa Mayer and Hal Varian also joined the open dialog about Google's culture and management style, from chaos to arrogance. The video just went up on YouTube. It's quite entertaining. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Cover of The Future of ManagementMy list of must-read business writers continues to expand.Gary Hamel, however, author of What Matters Now, with the very long subtitle of How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation, has been on the list for quite some time.Continuing his thesis on the need for a new approach to management introduced in his prior book The Future of Management, Hamel calls for a complete rethinking of how enterprises are run.

Fundamental to his recommendation is that the practice of management is ossified in a command and control system that is now generations old and needs to be replaced with something that reflects an educat…

Book Review- Stretch by Scott Sonenshein

Have you ever watched, or been involved in, a business failure, where, despite the best efforts of hardworking people, the business doesn’t survive? Scott Sonenshein lived through it, as he describes in the Introduction to his engrossing book Stretch.  (In some books, the reader can skip the intro- not this one; the introduction is a must-read part of the book.) He was hired by start-up Vividence in Silicon Valley at the very apex of the tech boom.  Despite prestige VC backers, top-tier hires and $50 million, Vividence didn’t make it. As his career continued, that experience led to an interest in why some well-funded operations don’t succeed, while other, more resource constrained, do. Peter Senge wrote about reinforcing cycles as part of his book The Fifth Discipline, which I consider one of the finest business books ever penned. In it, Senge describes the downward cycle that some companies fall into, and why it is so difficult to reverse. Sonenshein explores those cycles from diffe…

Tax Inversions

A savvy businessman once told me “it’s important to know what problem you are trying to solve”.
Let’s ignore for the moment whether or not Treasury or the IRS had the power to change the rules on so-called tax inversions without Congressional action. (The power they said they didn’t have only a few months ago.)
Rather, let’s focus on what problem we are trying to solve. That is, why is the greatest country on earth chasing companies away? Shouldn’t the U.S. be the place that companies want to locate their headquarters?
Imagine this: the U.S. legal structure and tax regime was so attractive that Mercedes, Toyota, Astra Zeneca, Samsung, Total, Singapore Air, Banco Santander, Petrobras, Fujitsu, Nokia, SAP, Audi, Tata Group, Lenovo, Pirelli, Deutsche Bank, Honda, LG, Hyundai, Roche, Credit Suisse, Four Seasons, Siemens, Phillips, Bridgestone, Anglo-America, DeBeers, Volkswagen, Canon,  L’OrĂ©al, Swatch, Armani, LVMH, Toshiba, H&M, Mahindra, Aldi, Kubota, Onex, Ducati, Pemex, Saudi-Ara…