Tell It To Al

Great column exposing the irony of major business moguls regarding their ideas to lower unemployment.

The downside to straight journalism or ‘just the facts reporting’, is a lack of perspective or depth. I recently argued with a colleague who heard about the over the top salary the CEO of Blue Shield of Ca makes. My point, don’t blame the company, blame the board of directors that approved the salary and consider what they have to gain from inflating his salary.

The background or perspective is considered fat in most journalism. Consequently, most people do not get enough information to make a good decision.

Thanks for putting the f-a-t back in facts.

The Job Cremation article you wrote is an excellent example of a clear, common sense understanding of a challenging yet very important issue. Why leaders continue to believe that the foxes have the hen house in their best interest is baffling if not if not criminal.

Thank you for your insight.

Dear Al,

I read your column in the Contra Costa Times, California, and I agree with your analysis.

It seems the many average Americans, who’ve never sat on a presidential council, but have the “single well-conceived” idea to “stop shipping jobs overseas” are missing the well-conceived aspect – how to accomplish this simple idea.

Do we ban companies from importing goods or establishing factories abroad? Think this won’t have negative economic consequences? Speak global trade war.

Perhaps this idea isn’t so well-conceived after all.

What we can do, however, is to make American products more competitive around the world. Business friendly tax policies and regulations would accomplish that and thus narrow the incentive gap of cheaper labor abroad. Global companies will still fabricate near their consumption markets as transportation costs and logistics are, of course, part of the equation, but shipping goods back to America from as far away as China, for example, may prove less profitable.

Our present policies have driven jobs and profits abroad (some $2 Trillion kept abroad to avoid U.S. double taxation) and cause havoc even domestically (NLRB fighting Boeing’s expansion – this company may end up packing up operations in U.S. as well?).

Unfortunately, ideologues are convincing people that business is the enemy, an euphemism for biting the hand that feeds ya.

We need more jobs. A practical solution would be to enact a law requiring 5 percent of all products sold in the United States to be manufactured or assembled in the United States.

A law would ensure an “even playing field” among all companies. We regulate Wall Street and banking to ensure the American public is protected from the potential excesses of capitalism. It’s time to consider new, practical ideas that will keep a certain amount of “multilevel” jobs here in the United States to keep our people employed.

Ninety five percent (95%) of manufacturing can go anywhere, but 5 percent must stay here. Easy to monitor and audit. Bar code technology would make it simple to check compliance.

No business-oriented person likes the idea of government regulation. But there have been times in our country’s history when it became clear there was no other way. This might be one of those times. Our good people need work – and not just “elite” work for the highly educated. We need to provide solid work opportunities for all.

Mrs. Michelle Boden
Fountain Valley, CA

Build Short Term Urgency into the Long Term Goals
by
Sheenu Srinivasan*

The Chairman of President Obama’s Jobs & Competitiveness Council Jeff Immelt issued a “progress report” through an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on June 13, 2011 (“How We’re Meeting the Job Creation Challenge” by Immelt and Chenault). I am disappointed with the piece. I expected more original, inspiring, innovative and urgent approaches to the current jobs crisis from such an elite resourceful group with so much knowledge, experience and influence.

My comments on their suggested “fast action” steps aimed at creating “1 million jobs.”

Train workers for today’s open jobs: Surely this isn’t an original idea. The private sector does this routinely with apprentices, interns, and engineering graduates training them in-house. Can you imagine a Pratt & Whiney or General Dynamics waiting for this Council’s plan to take shape while they need an expert in, say, manufacturing compressor blades for an engine?

Streamline permitting: Again this is not a new idea. The private sector knows how to manage such bottlenecks. Perhaps small businesses may need some help but this doesn’t rank as a hurdle to a great leap forward.

Boost jobs in travel and tourism: The authors suggest “making it easier to visit the U.S.” Not too long ago Europeans could enter this country without a visa. At a time when the nation’s security forces are over-strained at ports of entry, this would not be a wise move, especially not with investments by the public sector. The same money should perhaps go to much needed improvements in infrastructure. That would create jobs.

Facilitate small-business loans: Easier access to capital should be the norm and not a special feature. Decentralizing the approval/loan guarantee functions by sharing the responsibility with state governments may be the answer.
A productive step is to offer incentives to business to dust off some of their entrepreneurial concepts and conduct proof of concept studies. In Connecticut alone there are over 300,000 small businesses. Even if a few thousand of those have new ideas that are proven, with an incentive from a coalition of federal, state governments and private industry, it might boost their enterprises.

Put construction workers back to work: The collapse of the housing bubble is responsible for an idle work force. But whatever happened to the “shovel ready” projects in each state? What about the much needed repair of roads and bridges? Unless we answer these questions the suggestion seems vague.

The president talked about energy saving ideas during his campaign and again soon after the election. Skills needed for this activity with existing technologies are medium to low with corresponding wages. However large scale introduction, for example, of solar technology, fuel cells etc. would save enormous expenses by eliminating distribution systems altogether. These are exciting times for such bold moves to take shape. From reports published this week alone, we learn that a ground breaking ceremony is scheduled (June 17, 2011) for the largest solar power facility in the world at near Palm Springs, CA. Upon completion, it will generate enough electricity to power more than 300,000 homes each year (See Business Wire, June 13, 2011).

Another equally encouraging report states that “two-thirds of New York city’s rooftops are suitable for solar panels generating enough energy to meet half the city’s demand for electricity at peak periods (See the on-line edition of India’s national newspaper – The Hindu, June 17, 2011). Such projects can surely engage some of the construction workers and put us on a path towards modernizing our energy systems.

To the authors idea of “bend the curve over the longer term”, I say that America doesn’t have the luxury to wait any longer. Too many have been waiting too long to get to work. To emphasize my concern, let me simply state what we need from Immelt et al. are ideas that can be implemented this month! __________________________________________________________________
* Dr. Srinivasan served as a member of Board of Directors of Connecticut Innovations, Inc. 2008-2011

Thank you!!! We everyday citizens, whom our politicians think are dumber than rocks, have always known that if you shut down factories and business interests and send them to foreigners, people here are going to be without jobs. How simple can it be? Not every person in the USA can be a financial advisor or a banker or a politician or a ceo of some foreign-operated company. In our area multi-million dollar homes are selling briskly to ceos of these companies. Why?? Their multi-million dollar bonuses while our work force have lost their homes, moved away, or asked for help for the first time in their lives. All this while our politicians (both parties) keep telling us that the “trickle down theory” will work if we,the tax payer, just keep giving money to these people. We are not dumb and voting seems to just add to the problem since politicians put their best foot forward while running and do just the opposite when elected. At least someone other than us “dumb citizens” has now put in writing what we’ve always known. Keep up the good work and maybe the truth will spread.