In the October 3 debate between President Barack Obama and GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, sparks ignited between their wordy promises and factual figures. The talk-off started with the topic of jobs and how they will be resuscitated back into the economy. Obama’s response for waking up the job industry was multifaceted, mentioning the right kind of training needed, tax cuts for the middle class and for most of the small businesses out there.
“Now, under—under my plan, 97 percent of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. Governor Romney says, well, those top 3 percent, they're the job creators, they'd be burdened,” explained
Potentially hazardous, since one
“We've got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country,” told
Speaking of Romney is it fair to mention that his job proposal plan is flawed too. One bullet point that raises eyebrows is his pledge to pull down the tax rate for corporations, from 35 to 25 percent. He declares that this would encourage job creation at home suggesting that higher taxes equal smaller wages for workers.
Though, the presidential wannabe may have forgotten a prime example, of what happened some time ago with pharmaceutical conglomerate Pfizer. They were able to get a tax break on the funds they transferred from overseas and after the fact, laid off 10 thousand people. Pfizer was not the pioneer in this camp of deceit as other companies did exactly the same, including Hewlett-Packard as reported on
In The New Geography of Jobs, a book authored by Enrico Moretti, he digs into the real initiative which needs to take place in order to revive the employment figures. Moretti talks about
For instance, university graduates can shift their job from one state to another, while those who never completed high school or started college at all, tends to be immobile. This is a problem, since jobs which match the under educated could be in California but they may live in Florida. The author says the government should give the unemployed a mobility voucher, which would help pay for them to relocate to the city with more job availability.
A hurdle for many job seekers is moving to a new city as the cost of living is usually pricier, hence the mobility credit would put less pressure on them. Where that money would come from for such a credit is another story, and perhaps a taxable one at that, leaving it up in the air as to who would be tax bashed because of it.
Moretti makes a good point in terms of education, as a more knowledgeable public would be far more suitable for positions in the tech and science fields. Surprisingly, that is one issue both candidates agree on, training unskilled workers, and offering ways to make higher education easily attainable.
Education, jobs, and taxes, they all are interlinked, still – only the legislative actions of the US government can assist in making these 3 categories more abundant and prosperous in due time. Perhaps the jobs won’t be back in an instant, but if we fix the education and tax sector there just may stand a chance for real expansion and less stagnation.