Something is wrong with this headline from David Morgan's Reuters article:

U.S. Labor Group Unveils Plan to Tackle Joblessness

You know how to really tackle joblessness? 1. Encourage people to work; 2) Let the marketplace create jobs.

Usually, Big Labor does plenty that works against those two things.

The head of the largest U.S. labor federation urged President Barack Obama on Tuesday to use the $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund to help cash-starved small businesses as a way to stem rising joblessness.

So – take money from taxpayers and hand it out to businesses? I have a better idea. Let people, including business owners, keep more of the money they earn instead of sending it to D.C. as taxes, and we'll use that money to create jobs. One-time payouts by the government do not create lasting jobs.

In a preview of labor's contribution to Obama's December jobs summit, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program could be lent directly to small- and medium-sized businesses at commercial rates.

"Lent". Like the money that was "lent" to pay off the autoworker unions via GM?

The AFL-CIO jobs plan also calls for extended unemployment benefits, food assistance and healthcare for the unemployed, more money for infrastructure projects and state and local governments, and job creation aimed at distressed communities.

Ah, yes. Pay people not to work using money from people who do work, and throw money at failing neighborhoods.

Rising unemployment poses a political danger to Obama as his fellow Democrats in Congress approach the 2010 election with voters increasingly dissatisfied with incumbents.

I'm surprised they don’t make it simpler and call for a "Jobs Corps", where people are "employed" in a government job that involves watching their own stuff, in which they simply issued a regular "paycheck", and thus those people are no longer "unemployed". Problem solved!

"If small businesses can get credit, they will create jobs. And we need jobs now," Trumka said in a speech to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank.

If small business can do more of what they want to do with their own resources, and keep more of their own resources to begin with, they will add jobs as the market creates them. But that would mean that the Big Labor leaders wouldn't have as much power, so we can’t have that.

California regulations are costing 493,000,000,000 dollars and 3,800,000 jobs, according to this interesting entry from Jan Norman that I found on her Orange County Register blog.

That’s an average of $134,122 per California business, $13,801 per household and $4,685 per resident each year.

Scary.

The study parallels a 2005 federal report on business regulations commissioned by the Office of Advocacy within the U.S. Small Business Administration.That report concluded that federal regulations cost $7,647 per employee for businesses with fewer than 20 employees.

This state report is based on data used by Forbes magazine’s annual ranking of state for business friendliness. It does not single out specific regulations that drive up costs.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have counters to this. But if you've ever tried to start or move a business to California - especially one that employs others, you'll be able to decide for yourself.

Among the California conclusions:

The total cost ($493 billion) is almost 5 times the state’s general fund budget and a third of the state’s gross product.

The 3.8 million jobs lost equals 1/10th of California’s population. California has about 14 million jobs, down 1 million from the peak in July 2007.

The total cost breakdown is $266.5 billion in direct costs of various regulations, $210.5 billion lost labor income and $16 billion in business taxes the state would get without the regulations

Beautiful.

One producer of construction aggregates in the state, Vulcan Materials, testified in an Assembly Jobs Committee hearing in June that it 'is not uncommon for the permitting process to involve millions of dollars and in some cases to take as long as 10 years to secure the necessary permits, many of which address duplicative regulatory aspects.'

You can read the entire report here. I don’t know if it takes into account local regulations, too.

The only jobs a government program or bill can create are - government jobs, funded by the taxpayers.  The porkulous bill only shifts money around - mostly indebting our children.  People generally want to earn money.  People generally want to spend money.  And a lot of people want to invest money as a way of earning.  Those are the things that drive an economy, and they happen naturally, without government prodding.  Slowdowns in this activity are also natural.  The government can't make it better.  It can only make it worse, via taxes and restrictions.  The more of our money that gets passed through Washington, D.C., the less we'll all have as government overhead "skims" a significant portion and rewards a lack of productivity.

Ellen Wulfhorst of Reuters reports that the recession is hitting men much harder than women in the workplace.  Call me cynical, but I doubt that we're going to see the same concern about this fact in the media and by politicians as we do over the "pay gap" between men and women.

It is worth nothing that one of the major reasons the average working woman is paid less than the average working man is also the reason why the recession is hitting men much harder than women: THEY TEND TO WORK DIFFERENT JOBS.

The economic crisis is hitting men much harder than women in the workplace, largely because male-dominated industries like construction and transportation are bearing the brunt of job losses, figures show.

Women, meanwhile, dominate sectors that are still growing, like government and healthcare, experts said.

Government certainly isn't going to shrink with President Obama and a the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Four-fifths of the 2.74 million people who lost their jobs between November 2007 and November 2008 were men, Sum said.

The biggest losses came in construction, where men comprise 87 percent of the work force, he said. Large losses also came in manufacturing and wholesale trade, where men make up more than two-thirds of the work force, he said.

I’m sure the feministas will be crying in the street.  It is worth noting, though, that since women tend to marry men who earn more than they do and tend to expect men to pay for dates, this is going to shrink the pool of men women are willing to date.

“Biden Says Obama Would Create 2 Million Jobs”

That’s the headline of Matt Reed’s Associated Press article on Yahoo News.  Of course, the truth is that it is business owners, not politicians, who create jobs.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Wednesday that Barack Obama's plan to rebuild the nation's crumbing roads and bridges would help reverse the loss of 240,000 jobs in Ohio during the Bush years.

The only reason the federal government should be involved in building and maintain roads and bridges is so that the military can move around effectively.  The rest of the roads should not be a federal concern.

He also criticized Republican candidate John McCain's idea for the federal government to spend $300 billion to buy distressed mortgages at full face value and renegotiate them at a reduced price.

"Think about that, that means every single bank in America gets off Scott-free and the taxpayers foot the bill," Biden said a campaign stop in Lancaster, about 30 miles southeast of Columbus.

And Obama’s socialist nationalism is better?

Biden said McCain and his vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, don't understand the plight of struggling Ohioans, and he decried the fact that the median income of a middle class family in the state has dropped $2,000 in the last eight years and that health care premiums have doubled nationally from eight years ago.

Neither of those should be the domain the federal government.  Hey, did anyone stop to think that some families have less income because one of the parents has cut back on working outside the home to take care of their own children?  Or because we have aging baby boomers who are retiring?

But what about their taxes, Joe?

"When the middle class is growing, everybody benefits.”

Except when the middle glass is growing because you have taken too much money away from the rich, making them middle class.

In Athens, Biden said a second economic stimulus package, which Democrats in Congress have called for, would help Ohioans afford the $3,500 that it will cost to heat the average home this winter.

Yes, we all know you are for redistributionist welfare.

He compared a tax rebate from the stimulus package to a check that Alaska residents receive each year from the state government, a stipend from the proceeds of the state's more than $30 billion oil-rich investment account.

Apples and oranges, Senator.

Surely we can beat these guys, can’t we?

I’ve heard this one again recently.  It is said as though there is something wrong with an executive, such as a CEO, getting millions of dollars in some form of compensation, while thousands of workers are being laid off from the company.  I don't think that belief is necessarily true.

It is understandable that the people getting laid off have some resentment, because that is human nature.

But unless the layoffs are a result of the company failing and thus going out of business, then an executive is entitled to whatever compensation he or she is contractually owed.  Taxpayers should not be paying that compensation.  As long as that compensation is through other legal means, I don’t see the problem.

There is nothing wrong with a thriving and successful company layoff people off, if doing so will help the company perform even better for investors and customers.  I say this with the caution that not all things that look good on paper actually turn out so well.  If the layoffs reduce morale among those who remain or otherwise negatively change the culture and interpersonal dynamics of the company’s workforce too strongly, the company as a whole could suffer.  But if the layoffs clean out dead weight and trim the fat, then that’s a good thing, and hopefully those laid off will find an even better job, even if they create it themselves.  Unless there is a contract that says otherwise, a company does not owe anyone a job.

Company owners should be able to set executive compensation, including salary, bonuses, stock options, or whatever, in a way that best suits them.  I don’t buy the idea that CEOs must be guaranteed eight or nine figures or the company will have trouble finding someone.  I’m sure there capable people with the right temperament who can be found for a minimum of seven figures, someone who can keep the company growing enough or at least strong enough to not be beaten out of the market by the competition.  As an investor, I would prefer that the compensation packages reward executives for the overall health of the company, and not for doing things that will hurt the company in the long run.  (For example, it is easy to boost a quarter’s profits by selling off fixed assets, but if you don’t have a way of making money anymore, that will be a problem!)  But that should be up to the owners of a company (shareholders), not a Senate committee.

So try to avoid a knee-jerk reaction when you hear about an executive getting millions of dollars while employees are being laid off.  It might not be a bad thing.

H. Rodham Clinton and B. Hussein Obama, according to this report by Steven R. Hurst of the Associated Press, are promising to be Santa Claus again, this time with jobs.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is proposing billions of dollars a year Wednesday to keep jobs from being shipped abroad as she appealed to blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, the next big primary contest where she hopes to trim rival Barack Obama's lead.

That is not the President’s job – to spend money “to keep jobs from being shipped abroad”.  You know what sends jobs abroad?  Companies find they can get more done for less trouble and expense elsewhere.  Why?  Federal interference is one reason.

But the former first lady showed no signs of quitting as she focused on job creation and challenges to the U.S. economy at campaign appearances across Pennsylvania, which holds the next primary contest on April 22 with 158 delegates at stake.

The only jobs a President creates are government jobs.

At an economic summit in Pittsburgh on Wednesday organized by her presidential campaign, Clinton was expected to propose the elimination of tax breaks for companies that move jobs to other countries and use the savings to provide $7 billion a year in tax incentives to persuade companies to "insource" jobs in the United States

Bait and rebates… enough already.  If you’re going to have business taxes, make them even.  Do not give companies “welfare”.  But do not punish them, either, unless they commit personal or property crimes.  That’s what our government is supposed to be about – protecting us from threats to our property or our selves.  It isn’t there to redistribute wealth, or run our lives for us, or make us feel good.

Pennsylvania and other states holding upcoming primaries, including Indiana and Kentucky, have suffered the loss of manufacturing jobs in recent years and have yet to transition to new industries and other ways of expanding their economies.

And the best thing the President can do it to get out of the way and tell people to take care of themselves and not rely on “someone else” to make sure they have a job.

Clinton's plan would offer new tax benefits for research and job development. It would also create "innovation and research clusters" and provide $500 million annually in investments to encourage the creation of high-wage jobs in clean energy.

More bait and rebates.  STOP!  If a President really had the ability to create high-wage jobs, why not create 100 million high wage jobs, and make is so everyone in the U.S. has a high wage job?  Does HRC think only so many people are worthy of high wage jobs, but don't currently have one?

"Senator McCain has been saying I don't understand national security, but he's the one who wants to keep tens of thousands of United States troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years," Obama said.

Another non-sequitur from B. Hussein Obama.  That’s okay – the MySpace generation won’t pick up on that.  They can barely remember what was said two seconds ago.

"One hundred years in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 may make sense to George Bush and John McCain but it is the wrong thing to do," Obama said, drawing applause at the town-hall session.

And Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, and yet we’re still there.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama's remarks showed his "complete lack of preparedness to be commander in chief."

"His attempt to paint McCain's position as something else is nothing but the disingenuous, old-style politics that he claims to reject," Bounds said.

Exactly.

Clinton assaulted McCain as a candidate who would stand back and watch as the U.S. economy spiraled downward and blamed Bush for the nation's deepening financial difficulties.

Better a President stand back and do nothing than make things worse and punish people who have been  responsible with their finances.  The problem is, the federal government already does too much.  If it did nothing, we’d be better off.

She announced support for a plan to create 3 million new jobs to rebuild the U.S. infrastructure.

Obama latched onto the same theme, promising to create jobs by using $60 billion he said would be saved by ending the Iraq war.

These people either have a complete lack of economic understanding, or they think YOU have.  I suspect the latter.

Jobs are created by businesses.  People get jobs by offering something for which other people are willing to pay – labor, time, expertise, skill, creativity, whatever.  The more a business can produce goods and services for which other people will pay, the more jobs it will create.

A Brisith company opens a grocery store in Compton, and gets dogged by local agitators.

Cynthia E. Griffin writes in a publication called Our Weekly about the opening of British company Tesco's Fresh and Easy store in Compton.

The Compton Fresh and Easy is built on a 10,000-square site, and features fresh fruits, meats, as well as staples like cereal, bread, juice, and more. It also sells magazines and fresh flowers. According to chief marketing officer Simon Uwins, there are no artificial colors nor artificial flavors added to the Fresh and Easy brand items, nor are there any added transfats. Additionally, only the preservatives needed to keep food fresh are used. Uwins also said about half the items in the store are Fresh and Easy products delivered from the company’s Riverside warehouse, and the other half are national brand products.

Sounds great.

Fresh and Easy officials also vowed to be good neighbors by constructing and operating green stores like the Compton one, which uses 30 percent less energy because of its warehouse-like design with sky lighting and concrete floors, which are easier to keep clean.

Workers are paid an entry level wage of $10 per hour, and work no less than 20 hours per week. Uwins said this entitles them to full benefits, 75 percent of which are paid by the company.

They are also eligible to participate in the company’s 401(k) plan and can earn a bonus of up to 10 percent each quarter.

But beyond the pay, Uwins said the goal was to create an atmosphere where employees were happy.

Sounds great.

While this might sound good, a spokesman from the Alliance for Healthy and Responsible Grocery Stores wants Fresh and Easy to do more than just talk. They want the retailing giant to put the promises in writing in the form of a community benefits agreement, and during the grand opening hand-delivered letters to Prince Andrew and the head of Tesco, Timothy Mason, seeking the support of the prince and urging the CEO to negotiate an agreement.

According to Elliot Petty, a spokesman for the coalition, a signed community benefit agreement will commit Fresh and Easy to do what they say.

What a bunch of annoying, whiny, arrogant leeches.  A company brings Compton fresh food for sale, good jobs, and tax revenues, and this "Alliance" greets them with this?  Tesco has already dealt with various government agencies to open their store, complying with many different regulations. They have either bought or leased the property from the owner.  The “Alliance” is not producing anything themselves – only demanding that others do what they say.  It’s none of their business.  Exactly how many people are in the Alliance, anyway, and how is that determined?

“There is also the question of where they locate stores,” Petty added. While he said the company is touting its commitment to locating in underserved communities, of the more than 70 liquor licenses Fresh and Easy has applied for, less than 10 percent are in communities that would be considered underserved.

Less than 10 percent?  So what?  That means almost 10 percent.  That’s a whole lot better than NOTHING.  Businesses go where they can make a profit.  These “underserved” communities would have an easier time attracting and retaining businesses if crime and corruption were not as big of a problem, and if the locals wouldn’t burn down the businesses every 20 years.

In terms of employees, Petty said it is not about unionizing, but about making sure that the jobs are middle-income jobs that allow people a way to get promoted.

NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!  Don’t like what they offer employees?  Don’t work there.  Don’t like how they run their business?  Don’t shop there.  Try opening your own store.

And so can “downsizing”.

To be sure, if you made your living making a CD player that holds 200 discs and is designed for the trunk of a car, you were not happy about the advent of portable MP3 players.  But as a consumer, isn’t the technology more convenient?  Nobody likes to lose their job, but if you find a better job or start up a new business that brings you a better life, aren’t you better off?  If everyone always had it easy, there would be a lot of innovations and advancements and consumer choices that never would have come about.

As communications and transportation (shipping, travel) technologies and industries have advanced, it has made the world a smaller place.  Employers are going to build and keep facilities where they can find the best workforce for their needs; the most freedom to do what they want without interference from the government, organized criminals, or unions; and infrastructure supporting their operations, including transportation of materials.

And where is the best workforce going to be?  The best workforce is going to be where labor with the right qualities is most plentiful.  “Right qualities” may include certain physical abilities, skills, talents, knowledge/experience, creativity, ethics, and ability/willingness to follow directions.  These workers are likely to be found where they can have a decent quality of life, which means they need housing, relative safety from crime, etc.  This is why you don’t see a lot of companies clamoring to move into the gang-infested areas of Los Angeles, for example.  It is hard to get employees who live out of the area to commute in, and there may not be enough locals capable of performing the work needed.

World trade helps, even if we “lose” some jobs.

The more each part of the planet is making the most of its resources, the better it is for more people on the planet.  It does not help us if the rest of the world has no money.  If they have no money, they can’t buy our products and services, nor can they provide capital, nor can they travel here to spend their tourism money.

If they aren’t producing products we can buy, the people who are producing those products have less competition and don’t have as much pressure to keep their prices down.

But if you want your state or county or city from losing businesses, consider what policies are being enforced in that area.  Are they business friendly?  Is there adequate physical and utility infrastructures?  Is there too much regulation?  Are taxes too high?  Is crime too high?  Is there a decent workforce?  Is there access to supplies?  Is there easy access to markets?

If you are so bent on protecting every tree and every gnat and insisting that  having any job should mean that a person will have good health insurance, housing, education form them and their extended family, then you are likely to lose business and lose much of the tax base, and… jobs.

Make yourself desirable as an employee, and if one employer no longer has use for you, you'll have a better chance of landing a better position elsewhere.

Believe it or not, the purpose of a job isn’t to be some scheme where a business charitably provides you with money, insurance, and other benefits.  A job exists because someone needs something accomplished, and you can do it for them either better, more efficiently, or less expensively than they could it themselves.  Your job is to make your boss’ job easier.  If your boss is spending too much time managing you or fixing your mistakes or otherwise reworking your work, or you are becoming more expensive than the value of what you provide, your boss is either going to replace you, do the work himself/herself, or not get that work done any more.  Your boss hires you to free himself or herself up to do other things.

That’s the way things work naturally.  Regulations, laws, and union contracts may interfere with this, but do so to the detriment of progress and growth.

We all have something to offer others.  They have something to offer us.  Agreeing to voluntary exchange goods or services for other goods, services, or money need not require any involvement by anyone else, and most of the time outside interference shouldn’t happen.

Nobody owes you a job unless they have voluntarily submitted to a contract obligating them to employ you for that length of time and you are upholding your end of the contract.  You can offer something you have for something you want, and if you find someone willing to make that exchange, you can both get what you want.

When the need to do that work no longer exists for whatever reason, the job should cease.  Sure, it would be nice to never have to worry about cash flow, to never have to look for another job, to never have to deal with an interruption of benefits, etc.  But if your services no longer meet an existing need at the right price, the natural thing is for the job to end – at least for you.

Very rarely is that the fault of a President of the United States of America.

The solution?  Make sure what you are offering makes your boss want to keep you around, or makes you valuable to some other boss.