Good post by the Urbanophile, entitled Mike Pence vs. Mitch Daniels. Gov. Daniels’ had a goal, not necessarily attained, of raising Hoosier incomes. Pence’s economic plan apparently abandons that goal, focusing solely on the number of jobs.
Using hyperbole to make a point – a slave economy tends to provide abundant and secure employment. But, of course, there is more to a job than just having work to do. You work to live; you shouldn’t live to work.
In the blog post, I liked the comparison of designing the economic conditions of a state to designing a neighborhood:
While everyone knows price matters when shopping for a house, I suspect few people live in the cheapest house or apartment they could find. Rather, they are more likely to live in the nicest house they could afford, in the best neighborhood, with the best schools, the nicest amenities, etc. Cost is a factor, but it’s not the only factor.
If your economic plan is designed to cater to those employers that are extremely cost sensitive, who won’t move in unless property taxes are rock bottom, for example; you aren’t likely to attract the types of employers that are able or willing to pay their employees very much.
That’s just it, though. Conservatives, being the ultimate collectivists, honestly believe that the purpose of the individual human being is to enrich the already-powerful. So yes, according to the right, we should live to work.
I can’t think of one person, conservative or otherwise, who has beliefs in accordance with your staetment.
Just because they may be too intellectually dishonest to admit it to others or to themselves doesn’t mean it’s not the only fundamental precept logically consistent with the stances they take on public issues.
All jobs are not created equal. I would rather have 2 good paying jobs in Indiana than 3 minimum wage jobs. That being said, more jobs is a good thing. The more jobs we have, the more competition for employees, and the more employers will be forced to pay.
Speaking of supply and demand…. ever wonder what our economy would look like if the baby boomer generation hadn’t “over-consumed” and lived more within their means? Many more baby boomers would be retired, the housing recession would not have been significant (can’t blame just baby boomers for that one), and jobs would be more plentiful for Generations X, Y, Z and beyond, reducing unemployment (the biggest drag on the economy currently). I am not trying to blame an entire generation here, but there are some economic issues that have damaged our economy.
Paul C.,
You make some good intergenerational points. Different criticisms were in vouge in the early 1990s, when baby boomers were making criticisms against their parents for receiving vastly more in Social Security and Medicare benefits than they had paid in .
And I would not single out the baby boom generation for not living within their means. American exceptionalism and oblivious optimism make living within one’s means positively un-American. (Polls often demonstrate that slightly over 60% of Americans believe that they will get “rich.”)
The post-war boom and the generation that lived through it had some unique characteristics. They lived through the Great Depression, a time of abject poverty and gloom. They sacrificed in World War II. Then they lived through one of the greatest economic booms in history when the US was alone among economic powers and prospered greatly in the post-war period when its European competitors lay in economic ruin. England lost its empire. Germany, France, the low countries had lost their industrial base. Japan was a cinder.
I have read that this generation, our parents and grandparents, were raised in a time of poverty, yet worked and earned through a time of great prosperity. They had a mindset of scarcity yet produced a surfeit of everything. In fact, the greatest transfer of wealth in history is happening right now as the WWII generation passes its wealth to the babyboomers.
Now the babyboomers. They were raised in a time of great prosperity. They believe it to be their birthright, the world they grew up in. They have a mindset of surfeit in a time where scarcity again intrudes. And there are so damn many of them that they can inflict their wishes on the political machine, if not the economic engine. But they cannot live forever. By 2050, they will be have aged out of the census and the entitlement programs will fall back into balance.
Don’t blame the boomers (necessarily). Since the early 1970s, the economy has been in the doldrums more so than not. Plenty of “reasons” why. Generational entitlement wouldn’t even make the top ten.