I like to Entry get un/under-employed working to increase the tax base
Voting Disabled

9 likes

Rank1385

Entry#8596

This idea is active.
Department of Labor »

get un/under-employed working to increase the tax base

Save money by paying down the debt, and don't let default happen (or else interest rates rise, and the US debt will crush us!). The equation is taxes on income are source of funding for Govt. Currently govt is working on the wrong part by thinking to reduce Soc Sec, Medicaid, which help people, while ignoring the fact that TWENTYFIVE PERCENT of workers are UN/UNDER-EMPLOYED!! (9% unemployed, 17% underemployed = 26%) Now there's some pain that needs fixing. Get them working in jobs of value and you fix the deficit and start paying down the debt (what was happening pre-9/11).

The catch-22 is that businesses are cutting costs (including laying off and off-shoring). Why: they'd (individually) go bankrupt if they increase production. Why: people won't buy more. Why: people don't have money. Why: no jobs (oh, yeh, that 25% un/under-employment). Why: businesses not hiring. Why: they're cutting costs, including jobs.

But when jobs were lost, "what people want" didn't change, only that they could no longer buy. So now there are no funded customers able to reward the businesses that make what people want. ("unvested demand") Meanwhile, businesses are rigging laws (Enron, "cheaper to pay law suits than do right in the first place" etc.)

Our economy is supply-based: until businesses supply goods, demand cannot say whether a particular business is on the right track and should up production. We're waiting for businesses to produce, and they are not about to.

The fix:

1-ask people to register how they would spend a big (say $150,000) salary [note: do NOT just give them the money - we first only need to know what's wanted].

2-Aggregate this info as an "ultimate basket of goods" (i.e. what we really want)

3-Enlist CAD/CAM gurus to design the means to produce the stuff, and educate others to provide the rest.

4-train/support the un/under to be ready for the needed jobs.

5-Incentivize and support businesses in the demanded industries. And let unwanted businesses fail!

Submitted by Community Member 2 years ago

Vote Activity Show

Events

  1. The idea was posted
    2 years ago

Comments (20)

  1. Community Member Idea Submitter

    The scale of the debt problem is so big it is going to take a HUGE fix. This looks like it could be the answer!

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  2. I'm sorry I fail to see how adding more marketing research than private industry already has would provide adequate incentive to fuel hiring.

    How will you drive hiring with this? Perhaps if you said it a different way I would grasp your thought.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  3. Community Member Idea Submitter

    Glad you asked...

    Market research as practiced today is a snapshot in time. People have a finite amount of money at any given instant [none or almost none, in the case of un- and under-employed]. People have to decide how to spend that money, and market research as practiced today is a snapshot in time based on people's perceptions of their choices, given how much money they have [or don't have].

    This proposal is how to *shoot the moon*. We need a quantum economic leap to get GDP and gross national income high enough fast enough to get in front of the deficit, a big chunk of that being interest on the debt.

    Ask yourself: is the US making absolutely the most of everything people *really want* (as opposed to what they can afford) today? I picked "$150,000 salary" as a snapshot of value in time of the goods/services each person would buy to put the bar high as to what we should shoot for. Aggregate the requests that come in so we know what the "ultimate basket of goods" really is, help businesses see the *unvested demand* - the needs/wants/desires that exist in people's hearts but are not real to businesses if those people cannot actually buy because they don't have money/jobs, find the overlaps among what people want, take advantage of economies of scale, help take the guesswork out of how much more of what businesses should make (fewer buggy whips, more cars; less hydrocarbon and more geothermal energy; etc.), facilitate realignment of production to make what we really want on a grander scale.

    Any one business trying to go it alone will fail if there aren't people out there to buy. We have to do better than just hope for a leap of faith. The issue with our current supply-side economy is that businesses have to produce first and wait for people to come buy before it is known whether a given selection of produced goods was right. We need to target where we want to go. The scale is too big, and the stakes are too high, and the time is too critical to leave it to chance that Mr. Market will help us muddle through.

    Supply side is like having the cart in front of the horse. Hey, race cars are built that way and they go plenty fast - the model can work. As supply stays in front of demand, they feed off each other and can get quite big and quite fast. While the road is straight. Problem is when demand shifts and starts pushing in another direction, where does the rear-wheel-drive end up? In the ditch. And the bigger the cart, the more catastrophic the wreck. The solution proposed here is to get the demand horse IN FRONT of the cart of supply.

    Let's know the best target and aim for it, then put in best efforts on everyone's part, businesses included. If people train themselves up for the coming high-tech jobs needed to make what we want, and businesses across the board gear up (hiring, machinery, etc. - land, labor, capital) to produce what we really want in a big way (that high bar), they will make big money on big sales (nearly guaranteed, rather than guessed at) instead of paltry money on anemic sales, many more people will be employed thus there are more people who have the income to buy what they registered that they want, and the US government sees increased income that will raise total revenue while perhaps being able to actually LOWER tax rates.

    And btw, given economies of scale, production costs will be lower so sales prices will be lower, so people will not actually have to be paid $150,000 to be able to afford the higher value of the "ultimate basket of goods." (Remember we didn't want to simply give people the $150,000? They must contribute work that is of value for the money to retain its value.)

    Businesses flourishing instead of retrenching. Less unemployment pain. Deficits swung to surpluses. Talk about win-win-win.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  4. There is a similar idea about government overspending that you guys may like. Check it out. http://saveaward2011.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Stop-helping-everyone-else-and-help-OURSELVES!!/276053-10760 and http://saveaward2011.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Government-Overspending/275603-10760

    2 years ago
    2 Agreed
  5. The problem isn't economic, it's cultural. Most un/under employed don't want to learn new skills, they just want higher paying jobs. Our culture, is not telling those people that they live in a fantasy world, and giving them more money to not have skills would destroy our economy. What you have to realize is that America is an elderly nation of children. We want everything, we deserve everything, we're entitled to everything... but we shouldn't have to work for it. We shouldn't need to learn skills we don't feel like learning. "You can't leave it up to the children... If it was up to them, they'd just diddle themselves and play video games all day"

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  6. If you give the average taxpayer 150,000 dollars a year, they will spend almost none of it on manufactured goods. Even less will be spent on manufacturing equipment. Even less will be spent on green tech, because if people were making 150,000 dollars a year they wouldn't care that they're leaving a desolate desert wasteland behind for their children to inhabit... They'd spend their money on entertainment, not anything usefull. We need to stop imagining what a normal person would spen 150,000 dollars on, and start asking what a competent, cultured, industrialist would spend 150,000 grand on, and we need to stop supplying the demand for stupid useless crap, and start supplying the demand for people that actually make intelligent decisions. When Discovery and History started losing their market share to reality TV, they had 2 choices, keep their integrity, and make less money... Or sell their integrity. Ice Road Truckers, Swamp Loggers, and Searching for Bigfoot, showed you which direction they've chosen. We need to stop listening to "the common man", he's destroying us.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  7. Community Member Idea Submitter

    Wow, that's a pretty dour outlook. If they knew they could successfully learn and get employed in a high value job, I believe they'd be much more likely to actively participate. And over 5% of the unemployed you so glibly dismiss were in fact working in the 90's when the government was running surpluses. I said nothing about simply giving money to anyone. The point is to ensure we:

    1) know what we really want (going for the brass ring),

    2) figure out all the means - jobs, machinery, etc. - to get there

    3) enabling businesses and people to achieve all that.

    It's pretty simply math. The results would be beyond spectacular. And just because you think most unemployed are there because they want to be does not make it so. Have some faith in humanity, friend.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  8. Community Member Idea Submitter

    re giving $150,000 to the destructive common man - what I suggested was:

    "...note: do NOT just give them the money - we first only need to know what's wanted."

    Much like the "cultural" post, the "common man" post shows no faith in what people actually would spend $150,000 buying. Yet if in fact some do spend it all on entertainment, well then that's what we (I'm volunteering businesses here) need to find a way to do that better. Just because they would spend their own money on entertainment does not mean they wouldn't work making the stuff for those who can "make intelligent decisions". If a few people's entertainment seems frivolous but is harmless, why do we need to pass negative judge about it? The whole point of the overarching exercise is to Save the US govt money, and the point of this suggestion is to save un-/under-employment costs, with the added benefit that the people who were costing the govt become contributors to its revenue.

    I'm concerned that the phrase in the "common man" post

    "...start asking what a competent, cultured, industrialist..."

    suggests the writer believes trickle-down economics is what we need. We don't. It doesn't work - it merely concentrates money at the top of the economic ladder, which is bad policy: when only the top people have money, only what they can afford is what businesses will make. Where does that leave the rest of us? Waaaaaaay down the totem pole gasping for breath in the mud. Robert Reich is far more eloquent than I in explaining this. You may find his style brash, but he pegs reality.

    The idea is to give an economic vote to those who currently have no money so that their needs/wants/desires are include in what constitutes the ultimate basket of goods that the economy as a whole should create. This is what is missing in our supply-side economy, where all the businesses are sitting on the sidelines on piles of money they will not invest - neither to hire people nor to increase production. The businesses do not see any customers among the penniless because their demand is unvested. The un-/under-employed here in the US are just as invisible and economically mute as poorest people of the poorest countries on earth. (If there were a tribe of billionaires in the middle of Africa, you can bet your bottom dollar businesses would be doing their best to get goods there to sell to them. See the difference?)

    What I did not spell out is a mechanism by which people register what they want. Admittedly, this is a tricky piece of the puzzle. People's needs/wants/desires change so the system will need to be dynamic. People will most likely be quite reluctant simply to spout out what they want to some unknown repository so the system will need to be trustworthy. But this system needs to make use of all the technology we have at hand to fill in the "perfect knowledge" that helps keep Adam Smith's invisible hand operating well. This part is where the necessary brain-storming and experimenting will be hardest.

    It is quite likely that many people will have a hard time deciding what to buy since they've never had command of that much money before (yes, many could well pick entertainment) - perhaps there could be template best lives to emulate, tweak and modify, customize to taste. Guidance would be valuable - suggest things like better schools for their kids with teachers who connect with and inspire kids instead of just going through the motions; taking transportation to the next level by wanting better modes of travel; clothes that fit, have style and last instead of off-the-rack junk; augmenting home HVAC with small scale geothermal (if people could afford it, they might just suprise the "common man" poster and actually purchase green technology).

    In my proposition, nobody simply is given the goods - the goods haven't even been made yet. Nor are people simply given the cash with which to buy the goods - that cash has to be earned by filling jobs of value as they make the goods, or else the cash is inflationary and worthlessly chasing the not-yet-existant goods. My proposition is like discerning the knowledge of Keynesian stimulus showing how much of what to make, without the inflation.

    It will take the faith and effort of businesses that recognize and strive for the monumental wealth that can be achieved by listening to customers (even if they don't yet have money) and winning their loyalty and trust with the right mix of high quality products that the customers have expressed that they want. Happier customers will buy more (whether quality or quantity), pay more, expect more. People and businesses will have to make the quantum economic leap together to produce the ultimate basket of goods.

    Bottom line is we (people and businesses) need to align our efforts and resources to make all we really want at a higher general level. And those resources need to include the (re)skilled work of the currently sidelined un-/under-employed, or we won't have a US left in which to make all this blossom.

    We can start thinking our way out of this conundrum, or we can nitpick about and get waylaid by details and get wiped out by the imminent debt crisis. I believe in the USA. I love the USA. I think it's the best place in the world. Our forefathers all the way up to our current military have sacrificed so much for us to have what we do. I want there to be a USA when my children and their children grow up, and I don't want them to be slaves to an economic calamity we could have diffused if we had done the right thing today. We need a big scale solution to the monumental debt, and what I'm suggesting reverses the deficit, pays down the debt, raises the un-/under-employed's boats, and launches an across the board higher standard of living. Why is this so bad and undesirable? It may seem improbable, but it's not impossible, and time has run out. We need a paradigm shift.

    It is not communism. Nobody is telling anyone they HAVE to do anything. The idea is to find a way to marshal all the technology we have at hand to arrange our efforts and resources to provide a way for everyone who wants to participate to achieve a best life. Oprah Winfrey has made billions off simply selling this idea. Why shouldn't we also benefit by actually living by it?

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  9. I, too, love the USA. We have the best economy and products to choose from on the planet, and the freedom to use them; and I want to see us out of this debt crisis as well, for the sake of the next generations. So let me couch my questions in that light of agreement, so they don't seem more contentious than they are.

    I'm confused by some points of the suggestion:

    1. "[W]hen only the top people have money, only what they can afford is what businesses will make". If this is the case, why would any market research currently performed in this country target anyone but the rich? Yet we know this is not the case. The iPhone, for instance, was a pretty expensive piece of equipment when it was first introduced, but Apple has since been finding ways to lower the price and get it into more peoples' hands (particularly in other countries). This is one example from a hugely successful company that would seem to contradict this assumption. In general, not just knowing but expanding your market is a hallmark of business, and the rich represent a small market.

    2. "Yet if in fact some do spend it all on entertainment, well then that's what we (I'm volunteering businesses here) need to find a way to do that better." So is this a suggestion for the public or private sector, or both? Who would lead the effort?

    3. "It will take the faith and effort of businesses that recognize and strive for the monumental wealth that can be achieved by listening to customers (even if they don't yet have money) and winning their loyalty and trust with the right mix of high quality products that the customers have expressed that they want." I agree. However, doesn't this simply describe capitalism at its base?

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  10. Community Member Idea Submitter

    Great questions!!

    1a) re Apple's success a contradiction?: Generalizations have exceptions. Apple at first blush seems to be one of them, and yet it is not exactly. Apple, with iTunes as the point of its phalanx, successfully wedged itself into the hearts and minds of the technorati - mostly young, urban, connected, and generally better off financially because of their tech-oriented jobs. These were the folks who could afford the technology, sing its praises, use it openly in public, get the rest of us drooling over it. At the same time it was Apple's DRM proprietary format that convinced music/record producers/publishers/owners to make available, legally, for modest purchase price, the tunes people had been sharing illegally for a few years. Adding cellphone functionality was a logical extension and making the mircoscreen a bearable interface was a stroke of genius. With the ecosystem well ingrained on both Macs and PCs, the iPad made even more sense (finally, after many pad failures for years before).

    Mr. Jobs has been a masterful pilot, but I think Apple proves rather than disproves my generalization. They targeted folks with money first. Over time they had to bring the price down to keep selling because eventually the rich had bought what they could consumeh and competitors encroached.

    Apple's ecosystem has successful because they found a way to get consumers to buy in massively but in small, painless increments so that the resulting mass of consumer investment over time created the inertia has lent consumption weight to each succeeding add-on. Had Sony been a bit more clever with its marketing and stayed in front of the curve with video cassette technology such that they had garnered the consumer video market sooner and more completely at the beginning, we'd have been watching Betamax instead of VHS up until DVDs came out. VHS was good enough at recording, despite the poorer picture quality, and the time per tape was the final nail in the coffin.

    1b) re what about production not just for the rich? WalMart has been a master of wringing every last cent of discount out of suppliers to the point they have next to no profit left for R&D, but they have had to play along or not be carried in the biggest retail chain in America. The companies making the goods WalMart sells have had to find their own ways of reducing costs to stay afloat. The resulting off-shoring and layoffs from these producers has exacerbated the problem of converting US citizens from being consumers to being indigent. So the producers still produce but with thumbscrews in place - they're afloat but not awash with profit. It's not in WalMart's nature to share - typical business behavior, especially if you're the 800 pound gorilla. And WM's supply vendors certainly are not going to produce any more than what WalMart and a few other outlets will stock - their production levels are dictated to them. WalMart carefully watches what people buy. If people don't have much money and don't buy as much, WalMart stocks to that new lower demand. They may not be selling quite as much, but other stores are selling even less.

    2) re '..."that's what we (I'm volunteering businesses here) need to find a way to do that better."...public or private/who would lead?' Sorry if I wasn't clear that I expect businesses, i.e., private sector, to rise to the occasion. But as noted throughout my statements, I am not in any way, shape or form advocating forcing the businesses or workers to do anything. What I'm looking for is how to convince people to jump in with both feet and get themselves ready to work making what they want and to incentivize and support (with public assistance, e.g. financing OJT) businesses as they ramp up to produce to the higher bar of the ultimate basket of goods that we as a whole want.

    As far as why businesses would want to produce more when there is not yet a demonstrable market - I have noted that it will take a leap of faith to go this route, but it's not entirely a shot in the dark if businesses can know with very high certainty that, as a whole and acting in concert, they hire more workers to ramp up production of what we really want, they will find on the other side that there are well-funded customers ready to buy what they have (so to speak) signed up to buy. Stock left-overs having to be discounted at bargain basement losses and stock underages leaving customers wondering where's Elmo would be streamlined away. Businesses would be rewarded with good profits by producing to such close to perfect orders. So an economy that up to now has been almost entirely supply-side-driven will have true demand (including the unvested demand of the un-/under-employed) exposed so that businesses will find it to their advantage to forge ahead. I think it's well within reason to look at govt helping to facilitate the jump - certainly a far more effective way to stimulate the economy the QE1/2/3..., bail-outs, etc.

    As far as why workers would want to participate - well, if the median income in the US is in the $40K +/- range, $150K would be a pretty big carrot for most people to want to participate, especially if they can feel confident that that income *value* level will be consistent. (Re the outliers at the high end, professionals will continue to earn what they do, and entrepreneurs should end up earning more as their businesses supply the higher value and quantity of goods known to be wanted. The knowledge system being dynamic, when new ideas surface, they jostle faster to the top to be factored into the production decision mix.) Again, remember that the $150K figure is only to peg in today's dollars what goods people want (including the currently un-/under-employed), not what businesses will ultimately have to pay in wages and salaries. Economies of scale will bring down the production cost of items relative to today's prices because enough people are lined up to buy them.

    3) re isn't this capitalism? The intent of this suggestion is to facilitate businesses with the missing chunk of "perfect knowledge" that capitalism needs to work properly. Think of it as capitalism on steroids - exactly what we need, and sooner rather than later, if we are going to have any economy left before being overtaken and crushed by the impending cost of interest on the US debt when the rates go up.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  11. This really sounds like someone trying to get work for a friend / relative... I mean truly... Marketing? This thread is wrong on that front.

    But it is right on this one: The Gov focuses all their energy on CUTTING spending, where is the talk about increasing revenue WITHOUT increasing taxation?

    Where is the council / commitee made up of private small and medium size businesses to say THIS IS WHAT IS DRIVING ME OUT OF THE US? (Small / Med business provide 94% of all jobs in the US - Look it up).

    Simply stated, what can the FED do to reduce the BURDEN of government to make starting or keeping a business easier? What can the Fed do BEYOND STUPID incentive programs to get businesses to invest in new employees, new reseach, new products?

    How can the Fed Streamline the agencies that CONFLICT with each other on a daily basis within each and every industry?

    What can the Fed do to make Business a Can Do instead of a Can Not in America?

    2 years ago
    2 Agreed
  12. The idea that only the top peole with money dictate what the business make is pretty short sided and incorrect.

    Businesses must sell as many products as possible... DUH! This is how they make money...

    After resarch and development, advertisment, and distribution, if a product does not sell MILLIONS then it will not make it.

    There are not that many "at the top"...

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  13. Community Member Idea Submitter

    re Top people dictating business production:

    True, it is an exaggeration to suggest that businesses will only produce what the rich can buy. I admit this is one of many exaggerations I have made, but these are to make general points, not be absolute and definitive specifics.

    re make millions to profit:

    If you are running a business, you are looking to make maximum profit by creating items to sell for more than they cost. You are going to factor in profit margin when deciding how much of what that you are going to produce, the higher profit margin the better. Sure, you're going to factor in economies of scale, but at the end of the day, each item will have some cost and some sales value. If you choose to make millions and you'll economize on the scale, but you'll still have to sell pretty much all of what you make at your expected sales price to reach a profit. The bigger the numbers, the more accurate you have to be in deciding production levels. Certainly businesses want to sell as many items at the highest price, but there is a balance they must strike, and sometimes less is more...

    Dell makes more money on the fewer servers they sell than their many commoditized, bargain-basement-priced PCs that have to go up against many more competitors. Obviously Dell is going to market the servers with more zeal. The low end PCs are better for most folks but are not what Dell would rather sell.

    You are not going to lose a little bit per item and make it up in volume. So while you might consider producing millions of an item, you won't actually go to production if there isn't as much net profit in the long run as making few high-end items. There's a glut of custom homes and lack of lower-end housing by this reasoning (plus help from mortgage interest rates).

    It becomes even more critical if you make too many and have to discount the overage; and you may be able to charge a bit more if you underestimate quantity you make relative to demand, but you're still losing total profit. Same principle goes for retailers' purchasing.

    re not that many at the top:

    Absolutely correct, but they are the few who have purchasing power, while the US is hemmorhaging those in the middle, the ones who would be the buyers of the millions that businesses are going to stop choosing to make.

    A central point of this suggestion is to pre-determine what levels of production (both quality and quantity) to set so that businesses make as close to exactly as possible the best mix of goods, eliminating overages or underages, hiring the right number of workers for known demand. It then becomes more profitable to go ahead and make the millions you suggest and businesses can than pay their workers well to retain their knowledge and loyalty.

    As this happens across the many businesses producing the best mix of goods that we are capable of making, that everyone actually wants (the very millions you suggest businesses need to make to be ultimately profitable), and businesses employ the un-/under-employed along the way; this currently huge, invisible-to-business segment of our population becomes part of the funded consumers buying that ultimate basket of goods. They have been swung well to the other side of the govt ledger so the US saves the major cost they used to inflict. Couple this with far higher 1) GDP (= higher business profits), 2) aggregate income and 3) per capita income and the deficit switches to surplus and we get back to paying down the debt before interest rates rise and debt payments crush us.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  14. "...what can the FED do to reduce the BURDEN of government to make starting or keeping a business easier? What can the Fed do BEYOND STUPID incentive programs to get businesses to invest in new employees, new reseach, new products?"

    American businesses fail or falter for many reasons, but the burden on them by the government is among the least among those. Instead of humbly studying the market, Detroit automakers in hubris ignored their market and made big, expensive, chrome-laden gas guzzlers with Landeau roofs instead of smaller, more fuel efficient, more practical automobiles and promptly lost dominance in their own home market to those who did humbly study the sensibilities of America.

    That is one example, but every day we are seeing the same pattern being played out, and not just in business, more of the same.

    There is more credibility in the idea of understanding rather than assuming what the people want than perhaps you have recognized.

    2 years ago
    2 Agreed
  15. Community Member Idea Submitter

    re sounds like recruiting for marketing job for a friend:

    Marketing? Sort of, but on a scale and a direction never done before.

    What market researchers in their right mind would poll the un-/under-employed? What market researchers ask, "Now, if you made a $150,000 salary, what would you buy?" That doesn't seem realisitic - when is anyone simply going to vault from the $23,000 job to $150,000? Market researchers mostly are on companies' payrolls, and they must get prospective customers to expose under what circumstances they would jigger their limited budget and elect to buy item X.

    What this suggestion posits is that

    1) we, US citizenry as a whole, want far more than we can afford, especially if we have no job or a job far below our ability and experience, so we will need to be marketed to to participate in the information gathering system (we'd have to develop);

    3) businesses would benefit by the aggregation of this information to render the country's shopping list of what we as a whole want, the point of market research;

    2) businesses are able to produce a lot more than they do, but they won't increase production without the prospect that they will achieve better profits by doing so, so they will need to be cajoled and supported, essentially they will have to have this concept marketed to them, so that they grasp the possibility of immense profits when all businesses as a whole commit to making what we have revealed we really want by investing in the means of production and by hiring the people needed to build, install, run and repair this new capital; and

    4) people would find the prospect of being able to afford a seemingly unattainable quantum leap in their level of living and consumption would need very little, but some, marketing to energize and inspire them to train in needed skills, perhaps move to new locales

    The outcome of this "marketing" set would be win-win-win, as outlined already.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  16. I can hear the outsourcing proponents already arguing that market research is for private, not public, enterprise. I understand that you can argue that it is the role of government to do what needs doing that no one else would, but the trend in most arguments I hear favors at best that the role of government is to do what needs doing that nobody else can.

    There are far more things, too many things, within the scope of what the Government is supposed to do if we couch the mission the first way. More reasonable is the latter description.

    Third there will be push back against Government performing marketing research because that is something the Soviets seem to have tried, and they failed utterly.

    Not wanting to throw water on your idea: it is a good path to follow seeking a novel solution, but I don't think we have quite chased down its potential just yet

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  17. Community Member Idea Submitter

    re govt doing what no one else can vs would:

    Thank you. This is a valid point. The reasoning supporting that this suggestion falls in the "can" rather than "would" category is because it would entail people divulging some of their innermost information, and this is too sensitive, and the value too high, to leave under the purview of private businesses.

    The main concept involves aggregating global demand for an ultimate basket of goods. There is no need to divulge specific requests and/or specific people. Yet the system would need to track individuals and their personal basket of wants to ensure each person submits and updates only her/his own information. Imagine how valuable it would be to a business to be able to drill down in such data, profile among the registered, and advertise directly to individuals of interest. That would be like out-Googling Google, but without their mantra to do no harm. No thanks.

    Perhaps a non-profit or NGO could take on the task, at which point then the emphasis of this suggestion would need to change from creating the system directly to funding a grant for a non-profit/NGO to create and maintain it.

    But the essential concept to SAVE by lowering un-/under-employment cost, thus lowering the deficit (and hopefully returning to surpluses, thereby also lowering the debt, further lowering govt costs of interest on the debt) by facilitating a quantum economic leap that incorporates as many people as possible, giving voice to unvested demand, getting businesses to make an ultimate basket of goods, etc. is desperately needed, by whatever means it is achieved.

    This suggestion is one possible way. If anyone has a possibly better way, by all means post a new suggestion, come back here and leave a comment with a link to your suggestion. I'll certainly visit your suggestion and Like it.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  18. Your examples all disprove your argument. Apple and Wal Mart? That's where the common man spends their money now... Do we need more Apple stores? Do we need more Chinese Apple laborers commiting suicide of the roofs of their buildings, only to have corporate up up nets?

    Do you really want to use Wal Mart shoppers to rate the future of the US economy? "I'm going to buy the cheapest plastic piece of crap I can find, made anywhere in the world by slaves, then I'll get to drive a luxury car, and watch a 50 inch plasma"... That's how the common man thinks today... Is that good for America? That sends all our jobs to whoever has the cheapest labor, instead of whoever makes the best products.

    If you gave most single male laborers, 150,000 a year, they'd buy an expensive house, and an escalade to attract a woman, and they'd go out drinking every night. What would smart people do with their money? We need to think about that, so there are more products available for the intelligent, and less for the stupid, and thus it incentivises intelligence. I don't believe in trickle down economics, I believe in meritocracy. I believe America was great, because it used to be great for smart people.

    There isn't even a niche market for smart anymore, The "Discovery" Channel is all reality shows about bigfoot and monsters... And the "History" channel is about people who cut down trees for a living now. We need to stop asking ourselves, "How would the lowest common denominator spend their money?". America is not supposed to be the lowest common denominator.

    2 years ago
    1 Agreed
  19. Interesting, some would argue that this proposal includes too much government intervention. I agree that jobs are a critical issue at this time. All proposals that increase jobs should be looked at carefully.

    2 years ago
    0 Agreed
  20. I like the ideas of a retraining program and job creation. The marketing scheme doesn't make as much sense to me. Why not ask about spending a more realistic amount of money?

    2 years ago
    0 Agreed