Job Growth Under Obama

[NOTTHOR]

I've done some deep thinking about what industries will receive the greatest growth under an Obama presidency and the Chicago/Cook County style politics that will ensue, and here is my list of jobs that will prosper in times of Hope for Change:

1) Institutional looter - welfare will be expanded and food, clothing, shelter, gasoline, cable television and healthcare will be redefined inalienable rights that will be freely given in exchange for votes.
2) Union slug - the open voting rules will eliminate virtually every job that can be sent overseas and all service jobs that can't be sent overseas will be unionized. Postal workers will be looked up to as some of the hardest working Americans.
3) Professional student - Prosperity will always be just around the corner and millions of what will soon be referred to as "the Lost Generation" will choose to "wait out the recession" in grad school.
4) Community organizer - When the "mandatory public service initiative" is instituted, there will be millions of "community organizers" and "community activists" who are foregoing a year of productivity in the classroom or as workers. The looters will initially cheer this policy, but will then wonder why there is less to loot.
5) Regulatory/Tax Attorneys - The businesses that continue to sell goods and services in the US will be hit with an even greater amount of red tape, leading to a short term boom for certain attorneys.

[socal]

Whom would benefit under McCain?

delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/john-mccains-ne.html




PS - do you have anything to back up your post... or are you just pouting?

[herkyp]

SoCal,

I have a serious question for you. Why exactly do you want obama to win so bad? And please don't respond with "He's not W". I'm just curious why you are so pro-obama.

[NOTTHOR]

The link you provided is a terrible scenario, and if you read what I wrote last night immediately after McCain said it, you'd see that I'm very troubled by it, here's what I said:

"Wow, McCain's plan for the Treasury to buy up mortgages and then allow people to renegotiate them is the most socialistic thing I've ever heard. Hey John, I've got some stocks that are underwater, please buy those back from me at the price I paid for them and I will then pay you what they are worth today."

The entitlement mindset fiscal liberalism of both candidates is very troubling. It's almost as if they are trying to "out big government" each other.

Sorry I don't have some well-thought out blog like Daily Kos or Huf Post to support my theory on who will prosper under Obama. I have the ability to form independent thoughts based on analysis of policy proposals. I'll let you hypothesize who would prosper under McCain to see if you can exercise critical thinking on your own.

Here are additional underlying assumptions that support my conclusions:

1) Institutional looting will grow because welfare crowds out work, especially at the lower end of the wage scale. Rational persons will prefer not to work if they get benefits from not working that exceed benefits for working. Have liberals assumed away the crowding out effect of government actions in their model?
2) Union slugs - The open union voting agenda will make it so that the union goons will know who voted "NO" in union elections. The goons will then pressure everyone who voted "NO" into joining. Unions have a long history of using underhanded tactics to getting people to join. When employers are burdened with onerous collective bargaining requirements that dictate who can and cannot be fired and under what circumstances job cuts may take place, employers have much less of an incentive to either operate or take on new employees. Does the liberal model assume that the labor market functions better when employer flexibility regarding wages and hiring/firing decisions is removed? See, e.g. Michigan for a prime example of how unions have put Americans out of work.
3) Professional student - Every time the economy gets bad, people flock to graduate school. The 20 year olds who think that the use of force and coercion are the ways to get higher salaries and better benefits will be very surprised when they can't find jobs and will sit on the sidelines in PhD programs in philosophy and the like. Tax hikes on those who create jobs, rigid employment rules and tariffs aren't the pavers of the road to prosperity, and the slowdown in entry level hiring will lead to more graduate students.
4) Senator Obama has spoken strongly about his public service initiative, which looks to me like it will be mandatory. Community organizer will likely be the easiest way to get the hours necessary for this initiative, as indoctrinating the next generation of Cleptocrat looters will be a helluva lot easier than raking leaves, and I assume people generally will take the path of least resistance. Call me crazy, but with the US allegedly lagging the world in terms of test scores and science/math backgrounds, American kids deserve a good paddlin' and more time in the classroom.
5) Obama has essentially said "We have tried freedom and it has failed, so now we're going to use force of law to achieve market results we want." I think he is erroneous when he says this, as there are no free markets in the United States, but that is beside the point. Whenever new laws are enacted, regulatory lawyers make a killing. Tax lawyers will also make a killing, as it is generally accepted that higher tax rates enhance the incentives for wealthy individuals and businesses to seek tax counsel to reduce tax liability. Or have you assumed those rational behaviors away, too?

[socal]

Oct 8, 2008 12:56:12 GMT -6 NOTTHOR said:

The link you provided is a terrible scenario, and if you read what I wrote last night immediately after McCain said it, you'd see that I'm very troubled by it, here's what I said:

That's the problem with some of your posts.

Unless you say so, people don't know if you're just f'ing around - or if you're being moderately serious at any given moment.

While your explanations are now longer, they still completely ignore the realities of today.

1) What is the sum of the welfare distributed by the government? From what I can find, the amount proposed by Bush for the entire Department of Labor is less than $11 Billion for all of next year. If I'm not mistaken, that is a pittance to the welfare distributed to our new government insurance carrier USAAIG... and roughly 1 month of our expenditures in Iraq. So how again does your looting worry hold water vs. the current reality???

2) Good. We need the frigging union goons back. With the ungodly deregulation & complete lack of oversight during the Bush years, it would create some balance. For reference, google "Mine Accident".

3) So you're suggesting businesses will forego the chance to increase their business by not hiring needed employees - because a fraction of that new profit will be taxed? Piss poor capitalist if you ask me. Perhaps next time the candidates/administration they lobby for won't try to completely abolish / ignore every rule put in place to protect themselves from themselves (which in turn brings down everyone).

4) Uh, whatever... Kids will continue to have differences of opinions based on their individual circumstances. Yes, some will likely choose the route of community organizer - but some will choose to join the military... and some more will decide to join Big Brothers/Big Sisters.
Regardless of their choice & your cynical thoughts on what choice you think teens will make --- asking people to do something tangibly good for their country (or more generally, the common good)... instead of themselves, is something people like you seem to have forgotten.

5) You may interpret Obama's plans as that, but "Obama essentially saying something" isn't equal to Obama saying something.
As he will not be in office until January 20th, hypothesizing his actions for an economy that even God would have trouble predicting, is folly.
Finally, I'm not sure what your point is with #5. Are you worried about tax attorneys getting more money than they already do from wealthy individuals? Other than your continued rant against regulations, I'm missing your point.

[socal]

Oct 8, 2008 12:32:22 GMT -6 herkyp said:

SoCal,
I have a serious question for you. Why exactly do you want obama to win so bad? And please don't respond with "He's not W". I'm just curious why you are so pro-obama.

I've been pro-Obama for so long now, you're "essentially" asking me why I breathe. But I'll try my best to explain my primary reasons.

Caveat --- With everything I say, the realities could be wildly different than I anticipate. But I pride myself as being a good judge of character, and everything I've read/seen on him leads me to these opinions.


1) He will treat the citizenry as adults. Whether through speaking, actions, or his proposed policies - He won't blindly politicize things to promote his ideology. (You told me not to invoke "W", but it will be necessary to make some points) --- No "W" like politicization of things that shouldn't be (US Attorneys/DOJ, NASA, Press, etc).
And if you've ever listened to his major speeches, it's speaking to you frankly and honestly.

2) He will end the war in Iraq.

3) On January 20th, he will instantly raise international views of the United States. While some would like to change the McCain moniker to "America Only" --- that's hardly the case. I feel he will elevate his resume to "Global Community Organizer".

3b) Because he is a black man. On January 20th, he will instantly raise the hopes and visions of - not just millions in this country, but the entire world.

4) Policies. It may sound mundane at this point, but his policies aren't "More of the Same" Dubya policies with a different shade/flavor of crap applied to the top. I think that once people lose the "not from my side = evil" sunglasses, and actually look at his policies... while not their ideal plan, at minimum - they are better than current (in a country of over 300 million people, nothing will ever make everyone happy, but a net +1 or +2 is always better than 0 or -1).

5-9) A reality check. He isn't hyper-partisan. He won't only listen to people with a similar mindset. He won't only focus on the wants of his base. (Heck, he's pissed me off a few times - but once I find out the reasoning, it was the best course of action for the given circumstances.)

While I don't recall your political leanings via your posts, assuming you are opposite mine... you haven't lived through the past 8 years from my side of the spectrum. Early on in the "W" years, I knew he was incompetent. From his open mike campaign moment (NYT reporter is an A-hole / big time) --- to his fumbling actions when our electronic spy plane crashed off the coast of China (remember that?) --- I knew he was incompetent.

Then 9/11 happened... and as a nation, we quickly devolved from a country that at least appeared to have values the world admired - to one that threw wild drunken haymakers--- and almost became a 1930's Germany: Think about the consequences for the Dixie Chicks for making a comment that is almost laughable by today's standards... They had their CD's burnt & were black listed. For inaccurately saying: "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." (He's actually from Connecticut)

Anyone that said anything against the administration or march to war would have been systematically disemboweled if it was legal. Up until reality re-entered the atmosphere, the word "Liberal" was almost an epithet. The country of France was made a pariah for disagreeing with our decision to forego diplomacy.

Unfortunately, some were trained to be obedient dogs during this time, and still think these actions/words are effective.
www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

10) Joe Biden was my 2nd choice in the primaries --- and will be one helluva lot more competent than Palin. (Mark my words, once she gets back to Alaska - the fuse that was lit a long time ago in Alaska politics will shortly explode. She's bad news).

11) This: www.rollingstone.com/news/coverst....eal_john_mccain

[NOTTHOR]

1) Well, if the DoL were the only provider of welfare, you'd be on to something. Add in food stamps, HUD, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and you've got the majority of non-defense/non-debt service expenditures of the federal government today. AIG got a loan and is paying a hefty sum of interest and gave up most of its shareholder equity to get that loan. Pretty good business deal by the Fed. Now if Fannie Mae stays under government control and then makes loans at 800 bps above LIBOR and gets an 80% equity stake in the house that they covered the mortgage on, even after the mortgage is paid off, we'd call the government a predatory lender or a loanshark, but when it happens to AIG, it's corporate welfare. It's a great business deal that a lender of last resort can make, it will likely inure substantial benefits to the taxpayers and I'd like to see that model expanded to cover all loans backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government backed student loans.

2) With automakers paying up to $140k to each ex-union slug to quit, do you really think bringing back unions will bring back balance? Companies that are on the ropes or close to the ropes now that can leave the country will if that is what it will take to get away from unions. Sam's revenge when the SEIU or whatever it is tries to unionize Wal-Mart will be great. They'll just chain the fucking doors, and there won't be anywhere else to shop in a lot of towns, Wal-Mart ran the less competitive stores out of business. When people in rural America then have to drive 50 miles to buy groceries because the unions ran the local Wal-Mart out of business, you'll see the efficiency gains that unions bring.

If you think OSHA or mine oversight is dysfunctional, that is separate and distinct from unions. Frankly, I don't think someone from Washington DC needs to go look into every mine across the country every day and charge the taxpayer for it. It's a local issue, not a federal issue.

3) Not only did I mention taxation as a reason employers would cut payrolls, I also mentioned rigidity in the labor market and tariffs. But as for taxation, I firmly believe that decision making is done based on an analysis of marginal profits (how much will adding one employee add to the bottom line). To the extent that marginal profit expectations decrease, hiring decreases. Do you disagree? Do you think when a business owner takes home 50 cents on the dollar per dollar of profit he is more or less incentivized to hire than when he takes home 60 cents on the dollar? Additionally, rigid labor restrictions make people much less willing to hire employees. Please look at unemployment in France for a prime example of how rules making it virtually impossible to fire employees diminish demand for labor.

4) You, like Senator Obama, carefully use the word "choose" or voluntary. Early iterations of the plan made the plan sound mandatory, there was talk that this particular plan would hinge federal school funding on the school's ability to coerce students to "volunteer." Mandatory volunteerism isn't volunteerism. It's servitude and is proscribed by the Constitution. "People like" me haven't forgotten doing things for the common good, I've given tens of thousands dollars of free legal work to pro bono causes and I donate money to charities. Volunteering and doing things for the public good is something that non-sociopaths find intrinsic value in doing. The fact that the left thinks we need coercion or government force to engage in positive societal undertakings speaks volumes about their unspoken core beliefs.

5) I ask you, what is Obama's stance on "deregulation"? He has railed against it. Deregulation is an expansion of freedom from government. God forbid anyone have freedom from government. I take him at his word when he says he will end "deregulation" and firmly believe that a filibuster-proof legislature behind him, he is telling the truth. My point with number 5 is not any rant against regulation, oh no, I'm a regulatory attorney, in the short run, I will get more work from the new regulatory schemes that Obama would enact, my point is to offer career advice. When you think about the intended beneficiaries of the regulation, you probably think it's you or the taxpayer or the poor, but in the end, it will just be the Attorney's Full Employment Act of 2009 and the upper middle class will continue to outpace the middle class in terms of earning power. Every time there is a financial crisis, there is an underlying crisis in confidence. You can enact any regulation you want, but as long as the Fed sits there and puffs up a monetary bubble every 10 years or so, it will burst and there will be a crisis in confidence. There is absolutely no regulation that can do away with the business cycle or the herd mentality that humans and the markets have. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley. Regulatory attorneys made a killing on it. But capital formation suffered as compliance costs skyrocketed and the stock market is really no safer today than it was in the days prior to the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley. To think that the cure for ending financial crises is just a regulation away is sheer lunacy.

Bince you've told us why you love Obama so much, is there anything in his plans or in the Democrat's national platform that is flawed in your eyes? As noted in other places, I loathe McCain's fiscal liberalism and the Republican Party's big government, in your business stance on social issues.

[socal]

Oct 8, 2008 19:09:22 GMT -6 NOTTHOR said:

Bince you've told us why you love Obama so much, is there anything in his plans or in the Democrat's national platform that is flawed in your eyes? As noted in other places, I loathe McCain's fiscal liberalism and the Republican Party's big government, in your business stance on social issues.

Yes actually. I worry that he will overstep with the non-partisanship... There are countless landmines laid throughout D.C. by those hyper-partisan bureaucrats hired simply for their hyper-partisanship.
And I worry he will give in to whining when the GOP congress feels they don't get exactly their way. (Remember the threatened "Nuclear option" the GOP threatened to deploy when they were in power)

Hopefully Dem gains in Congress will mostly negate my second worry - then we can work on ridding the Dem caucus of those without spines.

Again, I hope he doesn't closely adhere to his promise of non-partisanship. Because if true balance were started by his administration, the final balance would still be uneven, as those hyper-partisan hires are still in place... awaiting any chance to blow things up.

As far as the platforms themselves, the past month or so has made most of the domestic policy discussions from both sides moot --- at least until the economy recovers.

But he can still bring our troops home from Iraq / send them back to Afghanistan. He can still put some more government pocket change into planning & enacting infrastructure enhancements. (including alternative energies... only the government may have to learn to fund the research on a tight budget).

You must remember, my "success" standards have been diminished under the 8 years of Dumbassery in the WH. So in the end, any progressive legislation will be good. Be it getting two pieces of legislation through that comprised 4 of Bush's 11 vetoes passed (opening up new stem cell lines - and SCHIP) it's all good.

[herkyp]

SoCal,

First of all, good post. I thank you for keep the "W's" to a minimum. As far as my political opinions I'm a conservative. I really like the Libertarian party, but understand that it's throwing my vote away (sorry Hawkstock).

I'm not really pro-McCain, but I am anti-Obama. Let me give you my reasons so you don't think that I just hate all ideas on the left. BTW there are some Leftist ideas I agree with. Pro-Choice, Gay marriage(if gay people want to be unhappy, let them).

1. Semi-universal health care. Heath care is not a right. It may be expensive, however I don't really care. If there is one industry that is going to exploit me, let it be health care. My main fear it that with the spread of universal health care the quality of the care received will decline. I worry about the drug companys slowing down research due to the lower revenue they will be receiving. Also the number of bright young minds that will no longer become doctors since the big money is no longer there.

2. Taxing the rich and big companys. Let me start by saying I make a pretty good living. I'm a manager in retail (grocery) and I make some pretty good coin. I'm not ok with my taxes going up to pay for the people who don't pay taxes. I do understand that some people don't make very much money and it's hard to live on min. wage, trust me I know. But taking money from the rich and paying for the poor doesn't make the USA stronger. People need to be held accountable for their own decisions and actions. I understand that in some urban area it's hard to get a good education, However why not learn a trade or skill. The problem is that most people already receiving "assistance" from the goverment just flat out don't want to work. I see these people everyday. As far as taxing companys more, it just can't happen, not now. I've already been told by my bosses that with the declining sales I'm going to have to start cutting back my staff. Job growth won't just stop, it will go backwards. And TRUST ME ON THIS ONE, big companys don't pay taxes anyways. We pass them along to the consumer.

3. Energy policy. Not wanting to drill oil seems so stubborn to me. Oil prices are starting to drop, so now would be the best time to start a massive drill project while America can afford the prices of middle east oil. For the record I want all energy: More oil, wind, more dams, solar, nuclear, clean coal, etc. The more the better.

These are just a few points, I have more but I need to get to work.

Thanks for keeping the discussion civil. (I'll probably get called a fuck-tard by thunder now.)

[socal]

Oct 9, 2008 3:51:07 GMT -6 herkyp said:

1. Semi-universal health care. Heath care is not a right. It may be expensive, however I don't really care. If there is one industry that is going to exploit me, let it be health care. My main fear it that with the spread of universal health care the quality of the care received will decline. I worry about the drug companys slowing down research due to the lower revenue they will be receiving. Also the number of bright young minds that will no longer become doctors bince the big money is no longer there.

2. Taxing the rich and big companys. Let me start by saying I make a pretty good living. I'm a manager in retail (grocery) and I make some pretty good coin. I'm not ok with my taxes going up to pay for the people who don't pay taxes. I do understand that some people don't make very much money and it's hard to live on min. wage, trust me I know. But taking money from the rich and paying for the poor doesn't make the USA stronger. People need to be held accountable for their own decisions and actions. I understand that in some urban area it's hard to get a good education, However why not learn a trade or skill. The problem is that most people already receiving "assistance" from the goverment just flat out don't want to work. I see these people everyday. As far as taxing companys more, it just can't happen, not now. I've already been told by my bosses that with the declining sales I'm going to have to start cutting back my staff. Job growth won't just stop, it will go backwards. And TRUST ME ON THIS ONE, big companys don't pay taxes anyways. We pass them along to the consumer.

3. Energy policy. Not wanting to drill oil seems so stubborn to me. Oil prices are starting to drop, so now would be the best time to start a massive drill project while America can afford the prices of middle east oil. For the record I want all energy: More oil, wind, more dams, solar, nuclear, clean coal, etc. The more the better.

These are just a few points, I have more but I need to get to work.

Thanks for keeping the discussion civil. (I'll probably get called a fuck-tard by thunder now.)

1) That's where you're missing some pieces of the puzzle.
First, remember - Obama isn't nationalizing the healthcare via a "single payer/plan" system. How will exactly will medical care go down? Is the technology or pharmacology somehow going to not exist? Will the drug companies only be able to mark up their medication 1200% instead of the 10,000%... possibly. But that 1200% (or lower) is what consumers are charged in other countries for consuming drugs made in the same factories as the ones we pay 10,000% markups for.
Research to some extent will always happen or be funded. If absolutely nothing else, some rich person (or a family with a history of advocacy) will have a loved one get sick & die. Prompting large donations / fundraisers to promote research.
---All of this has allowed the human population to run rampant. Not to be crass, but the global population could use a subsidy of condoms.
(I'll elaborate later when I have more time)

2) As you say: "We pass them on to the consumer"... so what's the problem?
PS - unless you're paid unlike any retail / grocery manager I've ever known, you won't be effected by Obama's proposed tax increases. If however, they are paying over $250,000 now, I'll go back to that profession.

3) Some drilling IS being done. More drilling CAN be done. The problem is that they have leased all of the lands and AREN'T drilling on millions of acres of land. The problem is motivation.... Exactly what would be the motivation for the oil companies to stick a well on every acre they lease --- and thus bring more oil to market?
It would expand supply and decrease their nest egg. Similar to how there are fewer refineries than needed to process the oil.

On a side note, I still get a morose chuckle whenever I think about McCain wanting to do his photo op on the oil rig just before the hurricanes hit... then cancelled it. His talking points were going to be that the rigs are stable & don't pollute. However after the hurricanes, I believe it's a dozen or so rigs simply disappeared & over half a million gallons of oil were spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.

So "Drill Here/Drill Now" is BS. There is no human way possible to do anything close to "Now" in an oilfield that is new. Between the leasing, design & creation of the rig, drilling, and actual distribution infrastructure... it's not a "Now" by any standards besides maybe God's.

[thunderhawk]

Oct 8, 2008 12:32:22 GMT -6 herkyp said:

SoCal,

I have a serious question for you. Why exactly do you want obama to win so bad? And please don't respond with "He's not W". I'm just curious why you are so pro-obama.

Let me take a shot:

Because he's wicked smart and cool under pressure. Dude has ice in his veins.

I could give a shit about "issues" right now. Issues come and go and will be dealt with accordingly. Obama has demonstrated excellent judgment and intelligence, and that is why I voted for him. Plus, McCain has proven himself to be a filthy liar and erratic tool who's pick for VP was an instant disqualifier to anyone who actually does put country first. And I used to like the guy.

Oh, and regarding William Ayers: Obama met that guy on a board created by the Annenburgs, who were ambassadors under Reagan; and the surviving Annenburg widow is a big time McCain contributor. Obama served on that board with many Republicans in addition to Ayers. So McCain is palling around with the financiers of unrepentant domestic terrorists. Not to mention the fact that his VP pick is fucking a secessionist. Literally.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive

It's a no brainer. If you give a shit about the prosperity of this country, you'll vote for Obama, even if you can't personally stand him.

[socal]

Oct 14, 2008 9:54:25 GMT -6 thunderhawk said:

Oh, and regarding William Ayers: Obama met that guy on a board created by the Annenburgs, who were ambassadors under Reagan; and the surviving Annenburg widow is a big time McCain contributor. Obama served on that board with many Republicans in addition to Ayers. So McCain is palling around with the financiers of unrepentant domestic terrorists. Not to mention the fact that his VP pick is fucking a secessionist. Literally.

Not 100% accurate. Ayers wasn't actually ON the board. Many University / Museum Presidents etc. were, but not Ayers.

Ayers was a frequent guest / speaker at the board meetings which were open to the public, but he wasn't "on the board" in any official capacity.

But the appointment of Walter Annenburg as US ambassador to Great Britain by Reagan... and the widow Annenburg being a big McCain supporter/donor are 100% correct.