I don't disagree with anything in this statement, but I have no idea how it is supposed to have any relationship with government intervention. Do you advocate government mandated wage increases for low-skill, high-value jobs or something?Production is driven in large part by the relationship between supply and demand. On that much we agree, but again, that doesn't somehow lead logically to "... so the government should do more stuff."
No, I don't support government mandated wage increases. What I DO support is shifting government policies such that there's hopefully so many potential jobs that there's something of a labor shortage even at low skill level positions, giving them some bargaining power.
One thing to realize is that the .1%ers aren't actually the 'job creators'. They'll only 'create' a job if there's sufficient demand for a product that they'll make a profit(or think they will) on hiring that labor. Even then a lot of them are idiots to the point that they'll starve their business of labor to the point that it's costing them business(many walmart stores).
Today it's really tough to open a small business in the USA. It's actually considered easier in numerous other countries, many of them European. So for me, step 1 would be to start removing all the various barriers set up to discourage competing with the established businesses. Keep them on their toes.
After that, in only the order I thought of them:
-Do we can to ensure said workers, even at the bottom of the scale, are worth something. Education isn't the end all they'd have us believe it to be, but it certainly doesn't hurt. As such, I think we need to fix our schools so that a high school diploma is worth something again. It shouldn't even cost more money - for the most part per pupil spending and educational outcome are pretty independent. There are probably some schools that truly need more funding, but there are also schools that are rebuilding their stadium for the third time in 20 years because they don't know what else to do with the money.
-Adjust policies to help encourage domestic manufacture. Just as an example, I've seen some recent studies that Chinese pollution is so bad right now that it's impacting our west coast. So maybe some policies, and this would require a lot of discussion, that penalizes Chinese goods somewhat to account for the negatives of that pollution over producing it domestically in a clean plant.
- Perhaps we can call this the 'anti-automation' initiative. Give a tax credit to businesses for the more people they hire full time at a 'living wage'.
- While we're at it, adjust legislation to remove incentives to hire only part time workers. What I mean like this is stuff like you having to provide healthcare to workers who work over 30 hours, but none if they only work 20. You end up with people working 2-3 jobs, rather than working at 1 place. It's inefficient. If you're not going to get rid of the requirement, then either require it at such a low hour level that the business might as well hire people full time, or have it scale or something.
- Oh yeah, and cut the business tax rate and/or start closing the international loopholes. It's getting embarrassing.
- Finally, the most socialist idea I have: Historically the US Military was the single largest source of skilled craftsmen. Today it's much more vertical, as in people are more likely to come out of the military and get a government job/contract position working with the military. As such, I think that a sort of 'job core' designed to give young adults skills while doing something useful for the USA wouldn't be a bad idea for those that college is not actually the best choice for(yet). It's getting to the point that a skilled welder, electrician, or maintainer can earn as much or more than many college graduates. With those skills they're also well set up to go into business for themselves, extending the middle class. Look at it as an investment for the future - the cost of employing and training them for 4-6 years can easily be paid through the increased income taxes they'll pay over the years, not to mention any avoided welfare payments...
In truth, based on your ideas about an easily guided demand economy and the government's role in it I think I can guess the direction you want to take this. So far you are throwing out the bumper stickers of modern Keynesian perpetual motion economics, but maybe I'm misunderstanding, or perhaps you've got a slightly different take.
Easily? HAHAHAHA! No, it's pretty much the opposite of 'easy'. If anything I think that the programs need to be set up to react more or less automatically to shifting economic indicators, because humans are always too slow and/or engage in counter-productive actions. For example - housing boom. I think the correct action would have been to work to pop the bubble early, not artificially prop up home prices afterwards.
