There is a huge amount of work to be done. More than enough for everybody.
Can you imagine if they spent the next 4 years spending some money to fix up the cities to make them attractive to young people? It might bring new investment, jobs and life to the area.
No, it doesn't. It requires initiative and investment, but there's no reason why those things have to come from the government.
> Many of the depressed areas keep voting for politicians who are convinced government doesn't work and they are determined to prove it.
Many other depressed areas keep voting for politicians who are convinced government can work--but they are unable to prove it.
Because the market that is supposed to match workers with jobs is highly inefficient. There are a number of possible causes of this, but I think a major one is regulation, which greatly increases the cost of hiring a worker. Any market with large transaction costs is going to be inefficient. That's one of those "economics 101" things that many people tend to forget.
- High implicit labour prices. When you add up all the required costs to hire somebody (minimum wage, healthcare costs, payroll taxes, etc.) it's no surprise that there's going to be some portion of the population which can find no work at that price.
- Unnaturally high costs in the most productive areas. Cities with lots of jobs will naturally have high costs, but a lot of regulations, like zoning law and building codes essentially put a high minimum price on living in particular places. This makes it very hard for people to move to the work.
- Licensing and accreditation. There's tons of jobs (many of them service-sector jobs) that require a license, lots of permits, and often particular kinds of schooling to be able to legally do them.
But on your point about implicit labour prices I have to disagree. At least with the costs listed. The implicit labor costs increase the de facto minimum wage. But payroll taxes are 7.5%, federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hr, fine for not covering healthcare costs ends up being ~ 1$ an hour. So we end up with a de facto minimum wage of $8.80/hr.
This means that it only prevents jobs that produce less that ~$9/hr of value. Which I don't think many people would classify as a "good" job.
But it also has all of the effects both positive and negative of a minimum wage. The negatives are that any potential jobs that generate less than $8.80/hr wouldn't be created, but it also brings the positives which are that any employees that generate more than $8.80/hr an value but who due to negotiating power would have made less get a raise.
- Various laws and regulations that micromanage the hiring process, e.g., forcing employers to show evidence that it is "fair".
- Various laws and regulations that make it difficult to fire a worker even if they are genuinely unproductive.
I'd definitely like to know more about this. The only big issue I see with this is not allowing IQ tests to be used.
- Various laws and regulations that make it difficult to fire a worker even if they are genuinely unproductive.
I live in an at will state(Texas), and it doesn't seem like our job market is that much better than states with more onerous firing restrictions. Are the restrictions at the Federal level?