Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
10 Ways to Solve the Jobs Problem
Imagine a no-holds-barred "summit" that comes up with ideas to solve both our job and environmental problems. What might it come up with?
As the midterm political season heats up, one word on every
politician's lips is "jobs." And for good reason. People are
hurting-they can't pay their mortgages, send their kids to college, pay
their dental bills. Young people are wondering if they have a place in
the work world.
So the economic pundits cheer when car sales go up, housing starts rise, consumer confidence strengthens. But as the oily ooze in the Gulf tars yet another beach, we all sense something is terribly wrong. We can't keep tearing up the planet to keep ourselves employed. There must be another way.
So-imagine a no-holds-barred "summit" that comes up with ideas to solve both our job and environmental problems. What might it come up with? Here is my starter list. You can add your own ideas in the comments to this article on the YES! website.
1. More farms, less agribusiness. Agribusiness substitutes chemicals and machinery for labor and employs remarkably few people. Small organic farms are far more productive per acre and bring the people back.
2. More repair, fewer products. Instead of tossing those shoes, that toaster, that computer, let's fix them-and employ repair people in the process.
3. More recycling, less mining. Ray Anderson of the Interface flooring company says we already have enough nylon to meet the world's carpet needs forever. The same may be true for aluminum, steel, copper, and other easily recyclable materials. We just need good systems for recovering them.
4. More renovations, less construction. Our nation has 129 million housing units. We build new ones and let old ones deteriorate. How about renovating what we have and in-filling our cities to use existing sidewalks, gas pipes, water mains, and roads?
"What if we stopped subsidizing advertising with tax breaks and focused on educating people to lead satisfying lives?" |
5. More restoration, less destruction. Whether it's forests, Superfund sites, or oil-laced wetlands, it's time to restore. Some restoration can even pay for itself, as in restoration forestry where folks make products from the fire-prone, small-diameter trees normally considered too small to market.
6. More bike paths, fewer highways. They both cost money, but one is good for our health and good for the planet. What's not to like?
7. More local businesses, fewer megastores. Locally owned stores employ more people per goods sold and you can often talk to a decision-maker about your purchase.
8. More dishwashing, fewer throw-aways. What if we got rid of all the disposable containers in fast food restaurants? At my friend Ron Sher's Crossroads Shopping Center near Seattle, the food court vendors share a common crockery supply. No trees needed. It works.
9. More education, less advertising. Let's face it. Advertising is about making us feel inadequate for something we don't yet have. What if we stopped subsidizing advertising with tax breaks and focused on educating people to lead satisfying lives?
10. More clean energy, less fossil fuel. Here we do need new stuff-wind turbines, solar panels, insulation, passenger trains. Politicians are providing some-though not enough-funding for these sources of "green jobs." It's the other items on this list they're not even talking about-but need to.
You may be thinking that my list isn't realistic because these options cost more or depend on government funding. But that's partly because governments subsidize oil, agribusiness, nuclear plants, ports, highways, advertising, and other unhealthy choices.
So the next time you hear a politician talk about jobs, try comparing
the solutions offered to this list. By breaking out of the narrow range
of options that keeps policy discussions stuck, we can create jobs that
not only sustain families, but also build community and restore the
living systems of our planet.
This column was written for A Resilient Community, the Fall 2010 issue of YES! Magazine.
- Posted in
85 Comments so far
Show AllEminently reasonable suggestions. The thinking public agrees with you... except for that tiny fraction that owns/runs the corporations (because your suggestions run contrary to the concentration of wealth.) The unthinking public will be swayed by whatever message is necessary to counteract yours.
An 11th item that is more critical than the 10 mentioned is single-payer medical insurance.
The current employer-based medical insurance system favors large corporations, works against sole proprieters, enterpreneurs, and small business being domestically and globally competitive.
Single-payer does more to level the playing field than any other change would.
Even better than single payer would be single payer with universal health insurance; everyone would be covered and the coverage would be administered in the same way Medicare is.
A huge resulting advantage would be to remove the cost of employee health insurance from the operating cost of every business. This would be especially beneficial in making U.S. made products more competitive in price.
Of course the change to single payer universal health insurance would require an increase in taxes. I suggest that this could be paid for in several ways:
1) End all corporate subsidies including giving away mineral rights to corporations for a pittance. Eliminate off-shoring as a way to avoid taxes. Any corporate profit on sale of goods produced and sold in the U.S. should be taxed regardless of the location of corporate headquarters.
2) Fund IRS for additional investigators. At the end of 2005 the amount of unpaid taxes due was over $100 billion and IRS records show $4 collected for every dollar spent on collections.
EXCELLENT!
I'm afraid that many of the ten on the list are , in fact, dreams. For example, the second one. We cannot repair shoes today because most of them are not made to be repaired. To change that would require that factories in China change their production methods. So it is not just a matter of us fixing instead of replacing.
And recycling is another problem. It is a fine idea, but no one should believe that recycling what we have will last us forever. It is true that it takes 8 times more energy to make an Aluminum can from the bauxite ore than from a recycled Aluminum can, but every time you make something from recycled materials, you lose a little - the second law of thermodynamics ensures that. So we will in fact, run out some day.
That said, in principle the items on the list will result in more jobs, but not necessarily ones that most people would want to do or be qualified to do (e.g. cleaning up superfund sites).
Good shoes can be repaired again and again. I will say, though, that a heel and resole job costs me about sixty bucks - half the price of a new pair.
The little local shoe store could have its own little shoe manufacturing equipment, the same kinds of little machines that they use in the Chinese sweat shops, or better. They can custom design and make their own shoes. And they can repair others that are made in the same way. And if shipping was no longer subsidized, and when Peak Oil kicks in, this will be far cheaper than shoes made from far away. The more leaks that are plugged, the less expensive everything made locally will be.
Also - it's not the number of jobs that is important, but the quality of jobs. A good quality job pays more, requires fewer work hours, has a pleasant and safe work environment, and involves creative participation. Remember that a generation ago, families could thrive on one wage earner's income. That now two wage earners struggle is a result of the big lie and rip-off.
"It is true that it takes 8 times more energy to make an Aluminum can from the bauxite ore than from a recycled Aluminum can, but every time you make something from recycled materials, you lose a little - the second law of thermodynamics ensures that. So we will in fact, run out some day"
You lose a fraction of a percent of aluminum in recycling. That's tiny compared to that percent that presently goes into the landfill, 40%. So we will in fact run out some day like five hundred years away. Besides, we need to greatly reduce our consumption, so the volume presently in circulation should be most satisfactory for our true needs. So I don't think you made the slightest dent in Korten's suggestion. They are usually among the best around.
How about:
More nations, less states....????
The Soviet Union did it, maybe it is time for the USA to do it.
How about NO nations?
You will be pleased to hear that the Greens in Australia got a record 14 percent of the vote and will have the balance of power in the Senate from the middle of next year. The revolution is slowly unfolding.
Revolution to what? They will line up behind Labour and bend all their principles. Greens are bourgeoisie.
Are you a Marxist? Define "bourgeoisie".
Look it up . The greens are not "revolutionaries". Nor will they ever be.
Just the opposite of "Globalization".
Quit shipping stuff all over the world.
Grow self-sustainable local economies not just here; but worldwide.
Restructure the global economy to encourage people to live this way. One way is the flat tax, on NEW items. Selling used or recycled goods is free of any tax.
Actually, you're describing the Fair Tax, a national sales tax, not the Flat Tax which is a tax on income. Fair Tax also eliminates the taxes that businesses pay and pass on to their customers.
We already know what we need to do. The problem is that the mega-wealthy won't let it happen because they want to get even richer.
Two words: domestic service. According to the 1900 US census, the second most common occupation in the US at that time (after farming) was domestic service. I'm not sure why it could not be again. It needs to be made easier (ie, less bureaucratic and expensive) to hire people though, as it was back then.
You don't want me as your maid. Between the spewing of my own filth and the flowing waves of cat hair from my "family," unless you have the immune system of a Mack Truck, you would quickly succumb. Besides, I would tell you the truth, which would not be pleasant. My concept of housecleaning is to bomb and then move, sort of how the German army treated Europe during World War II.
You remind me of my daughter-in-law, who said one evening at dinner, 'I studied psychology, and if I can't work as a psychologist, I won't work.' To which my own daughter, bless her, replied, 'If I can clean my house, I can clean someone else's.'
For 30 years I was director and English teacher of first a private high school and then a private college, and I can't count the number of middle-class kids who thought they were something special because daddy made a good living. Their moms never even asked them to help clear the table or load the dishwasher. If we brought our kids up to have respect for craftsmanship and frugality, every one of those 10 ideas would work. And, oh, what a wonderful country this would be!
Run the trains in Metro areas for LOCAL transit not just rush hours and employ conductors.
Run shuttles to train stations, offices and malls and employ
shuttle drivers..
do NOT expand highways or roads!!
Amen Fran Korten. I like #2 the most. I used to get to do lots of repair jobs for a living. Now, I do #4 and build greener leaning buildings. Life's kool.
All right, Shawn!
All excellent and reasonable suggestions.
I would add that in order to get these things accomplished on a national level and assuming we need to rely on our politicians to have laws passed, the following prerequisites should happen:
1) Campaign contributions from corporate interests will be banned and it will be illegal because it is no different than accepting a bribe. How can politicians represent the people when they are bribed by corporations? Politicians will only use money equally distributed from a public fund.
2) Politicians get minimum wage for expenses; they will have to work also or stand in the unemployment line. Food stamps are also possible for politicians that dont know how to grow their own food, but then maybe not. Let them starve.
3) Politicians will get the same health care as everyone else.
No more double standards.
Unfortunately Obimbo is no FDR, so forget about work programs. God forbid any kid would learn how to use a paintbrush, learn how to repair something or clean someone's puke out of a urinal. I also favor having every high school graduate serve in a public work program or in the military for 2 years. Of course that would never happen either.
But, we can all do our part no matter how small and we will be better off by it when it all comes crashing down on our heads.
stimpy -
I like: 1) Campaign contributions from corporate interests...
A "Corporate Political Contribution" is a euphemism for "Retainer." My company pays you now for legal - and sometimes illegal - services you must provide whenever I command you to do so.
Now, if we were even more direct, we'd call it what it really is; a "Corporate Bribe."
woodboot
I certainly agree with #1 and #3; #2 sounds pretty far-fetched. But #4 definitely needs to be put into effect ("every high school graduate...") with the immediate benefit of reducing unemployment in addition to providing two years of stability and leadership training from those years in the military.
However, the overwhelming benefit would be the elimination of preemptive wars that the neocons are so anxious to fight with someone else's sons and daughters. That would more than pay for the the two years of public works/military training.
Obviously a commie and un-American. But seriously, our lives today are centered around personal autonomy, personal pleasure, and convenience. We've all become such good little consumers. Politics, which is supposed to be about our common objectives, has become another realm of entertainment, of "bread and circuses," if you will. Witness the number of millionaires and billionaires who "dabble" in running for office or dominating policy discussions. And woe to any politician who asks Americans to consider a less-expansive lifestyle. Meanwhile our infrastructure crumbles, the American empire (how many bases in how many countries do we need for "defense?") continues to expand, education at all levels gets cut back again and again.
People, we need to present the American people with an alternative to empire and over-consumption before it's too late. And harder that that, we need to figure out a way to convince them to actually vote for it, and for candidates that will fight for it. Or we will face darker days ahead.
Excellent article! i agree with all.
i have been arguing for some time now for the concept of "fixing" instead of replacing. And if i can't fix it, see if i can do without it.
Our modern economy deliberately militates against it. As pointed out above, some stuff is made out of stuff that, by and large, can't be fixed - plastic junk. Or such stuff is incorporated in such a way that when one small part breaks, you can't fix it or replace it and you have to throw the whole damn thing away - if the components are mixed together, sometimes you can't even recycle it - so one thing I would add to the list is a requirement that EVERYTHING be made in such a way that it is reusable, fixable and recyclable - talk about a huge impetus for R&D ...
On occasions too numerous to count i have taken broken items in to be fixed only to be told "a new one is cheaper"; for most folks that's enough to end the conversation. When i persist and say "O.K. but i want THIS one fixed" the next line is, "we'd have to send it away" or, "it will take a long time" if i persist, the next line is "we can't get the parts". On a couple of occasions, when i get this line, i have taken it home and tried to fix it myself - actually succeeding once in a while. In the process i have learned a great deal and can apply what i learned to other areas ...
I have a '93 Buick that I keep bringing in to the repair shop - even the fix it guys tell me i'm crazy, but thank God, they are still fixing it. There will come a time when it can't be fixed anymore, or it will cost more than i can get my hands on. But i have told them, i would prefer to spend my money on your labor than on a new item made far away by slave labor. Does it cost me more in the short run? Maybe, though not always, but in the long run it will cost all of us less and it puts money in the hands of the locals and not in the pockets of Wall Street ....
Philosophically, i wonder what it means to human relations when we don't believe in "fixing" things anymore - but just throwing away the "old" or the "unstylish" or the slightly threadbare ....
i might suggest perhaps we start a new trend in which "bragging rights" belong, not to those who have the newest and latest but to those with the oldest and most time tested. i realize that we are encouraged to get rid of "energy inefficient" items, but aside from the waste of the materials these things are made of, perhaps we could just use them less and in a more efficient manner ....
I was watching Family Feud with kids (I'd never watch it myself). The question: "name a profession that charges by the hour." None of the contestants, or my kids, were able to get the last 2 professions. They were Carpenter and Plumber.
People don't fix things, they just buy new. Many items are designed so that they can't be fixed or are uneconomical to fix. The notion that capitalism makes the most efficient use of resources, as many economist claim, is completely false.
I would like to amend #6 to say more bike lanes instead of paths. Bike lanes are less expensive to make than paths and more useful for everyday travel. You can even retrofit streets for bike lanes by stipping away paint and then repainting. Plus, bike lanes makes bicycles more visible to drivers and when they see how much more fun bicyclists have than drivers, they are more likely to join in the fun!
The unsaid, but underlying message that needs to be said- we all need to accept that our lifestyles ARE going to change. We will eventually do many of these actions out of pure necessity. We WILL live much more simply, travel rarely, few of us will own a car, we'll reuse clothing, repair everything (including shoes, which will probably be made locally and be a lot more basic), and so on.
I find that the "progressive" demographic has the most trouble with this concept- as the most educated (and therefore the wealthiest) segment of the population, they tend to FREAK OUT when you imply they wont' always have a minivan, trips to Europe, new bike gear whenever the mood hits, and the latest computer technology.
Hmmm, what is this "'progressive' demographic" you speak of? i refer to myself as a "progressive", but don't feel like "freaking out" at any of the prospects you describe - in fact i think they would be good things not to "always have". I had a heck of a time trying to find someone to fix my now 8 year old computer, but persistence pays. How old is your computer?
My computer is about 8 years old, too...not sure what that has to do with anything, tho. We have a big "progressive" community here...lots of environmental-types, social justice-aware, liberal folks. When I talk about coming changes to the economy because of energy depletion, invariably I am accused of being a real downer, a doomer, and the conversation moves immediately to how algae or some other 'up and coming' alternative energy is going to let us all to keep living this lifestyle or at least very close to it.
If you want to see some real rage, try telling some of these people that they may not be able to travel to Europe, or across country several times a year, if at all. Or that even an "elderly" 8-year old computer will be considered a true luxury. I have seen some wonderful liberal folks get downright murderous at this kind of talk!
There are a few folks like you who understand and accept that we'll be simplifying and powering down in a big way, but they are typically younger, and don't have all the trappings of middle class yet. Less to lose, I suppose. And more to gain.
"When I talk about coming changes to the economy because of energy depletion, invariably I am accused of being a real downer, a doomer, and the conversation moves immediately to how algae or some other 'up and coming' alternative energy is going to let us all to keep living this lifestyle or at least very close to it. "
Yeah well whaddya expect if all you can do is give doom and gloom fart talk and not give a solution? Reducing consumption alone isn't the answer. Alternative energy is coming whether you like it or not so stop being an meathead. You have no business telling others not to consume when you're consuming too. Get it?
Didn't you just prove Blueskykate1 right! I too note that my prosperous progressive friends balk at the idea of hemming in their lifestyles. "Reducing consumption alone isn't the answer," you say, but it is certainly a significant part of the answer.
I didn't say it wasn't a significant part but using the fact that it's significant to make it the only solution is just as wrong as saying we should just switch energy sources. We have to do a fair mixture of the two and give both sides a fair market hearing if you will so we can get it good.
Could we please not call people meathead or accuse them of fart talk? We do have a right to report our own experiences honestly, and there are plenty of us who have been told to lighten up. I usually preface my doom and gloom by saying, 'It's easy to say "Apres moi le deluge" when you're 82, but I still worry about what kind of life my grandchildren will have.'
Those optimists who think algae, corn, whisky pulp or whatever the next great idea is, is going to solve all our energy problems are closing their eyes to the depletion of edible fish, the end of oil-based plastics, the desertification of arable land ... still smiling, are you?
Meatheads always talk about doom and gloom but they don't practice what they preach. It's fart talk and hypocrisy to tell people to ignore alternative energy solutions and just stop using energy. They sound like Nancy fucking Reagan and oughta be shot. Give others a chance to solve the problems. That's what they're trying to tell you. Get it? Sorry to be an asshole but those pessimists sound just like the Christian evangelicals calling for the apocalypse !
"the end of oil-based plastics"
Some people have discussed plant oils that can be used to manufacture biodegradable plastics. It's not cheap but why throw out good solutions? Why not both make your non-biodegradable plastics reusable and look for biodegradable replacements? Whining about the "end of oil" is for quitters.
"the desertification of arable land"
Who says you can't restore arable land? But don't listen to solutions. Just be a pessimist and get paid for it.
Plastics were first made from peanut shells, the very beautiful "Tortoise Shell" Plastic
Autos first ran on Electricty and Steam.
I have run across some discussions on some of what you are saying. Let me be fair though. I don't know how well these solutions will work. The population then was far less than what we got and people are used to throwing away. Fossil fuels were never meant to be disposed or taken for granted. I'm neither a pessimist or an optimist. I'm retired too but I still have an open mind. Curious about one thing. How good are peanut shell plastics compared to regular plastics? I'm not sure if we have enough water to meet all of the fuel and electricity demands but I'm open to that idea.
Blueskate reveals no knowledge as to why renewables can not replace fossil fuels.
But mistakenly claims there are no resources to build renewables as if fossil fuel infrastructure does not require ongoing resource use. Think tarsands( thousands of miles of pipeline), Fracking ( Billions of gallons of water), LPG ( Multi-Billion Dollar ports)
Being a nay sayer regarding renewables is as much an impediment to progress as voting Democratic Party.
What citizens promoting renewables are not exceptionally aware of the devastation that demands the prompt change to a renewable energy system?
Thank you Glenn. This is what I am talking about. Renewables are already replacing fossil fuel dependence in other countries. Maybe not fully but enough to keep the oil crunch down.
"Being a nay sayer regarding renewables is as much an impediment to progress as voting Democratic Party."
Excellent Glenn and a big thank you !
Your welcome F.J., An analogy;
Both Kerosene Lamps and Photovoltaics require metal and glass, but photovoltaics require no kerosene which would you rather produce?
The "Tortoise Shell" plastic was developed by George Washington Carver to enrichen peanut farmers. The beauty is unsurpassed as a item of personal adornment etc. but I would doubt it being as rugged as todays polymers unless it was successfully altered to compete in toughness.
We need to stop using Fossil Fuels,
If only because every step in their use is toxic to all life ( except those oil eating bacteria, which I remember as being developed in Labs, but now they are in the Gulf of Mexico?)
Stop using Fossil Fuels which could happen in twenty years, if there was the will to implement the vast array of available renewables and a prudent use of oil for plastics would last centuries. Besides synthetic oil is being made today and is available in any Automotive store.
The uninformed do not seem to realize that once renewables are built, they require very little and last for an extremely long time (photovoltaics have no known expiration date, geothermal require only small pumps,turbines require minor routine maintainece as do ocean thermal differential generators).
And as renewables are built more renewables may be used to build them. And there are two or three practical ways of storing renewable energy without requiring batteries. Much of the present research is aimed at coordinating the input of renewables into the grid so as to use the power as it is produced and send it to the places it is needed.
But the will is lacking, our state asked our Senators to fund our smart green grids because we have an over abundance of renewable energy, instead we were given a new Drone Command Center.
That is the problem; the Constipation of vested interests which have sicken and fouled the world.
How is this for a suggestion.
put a luxury tax on lawns, but no tax if instead you grow food (noncommercially) on the land instead
I like that!
Vegetable gardens and fruit trees not chemical addicted, water guzzling lawns.
I've got a garden out back and several fruit trees, but if you look at my front lawn you'll note it's not a water guzzler. That's because it's BROWN right now from the lack of rain. My tomatoes are also about done for the year, but my peppers are still going, if not very strongly. Point being, not everyone thinks of wasting arable water just because we can.
"I can't believe the things I used to make myself believe."
- Bedhead
Some good ideas in this article but I think the only way they will work is if there is a national progressive leadership summit first to initiate a new movement behind them. This must be done ASAP!
For the most economically honest and historically valid take on the current U.S. economy, amble on over to counterpunch.org and read, respectively, the Paul Craig Roberts entitled Death by Globalism and the Michael Donnelly piece entitled Some Fight Back (actually a review of a new book by Joe Bageant).
Both the DLC Dim and GOP economists deny the horrific effects of the "free trade" regime on our real economy and its inability to "recover" without a new false asset bubble of some kind. Contemporary U.S. economics and agricultural sector structure have eliminated any survival fall-back position for the teeming millions eliminated from the industrial and post-industrial workforce. If the economy and/or government truly collapse, those tens of millions will have no way to feed themselves. This means that in that event there will either be chaos or a brutal Police State with concentration camps for the "economically un-viable" that we used to call the blue-collar working-class and welfare-dependent under-class. The Tea Party Libertarians and corporatist Republican fascists rejoice at this prospect and Glenn Beck has cried crocodile tears about the economic fact that "there will be suffering" as they "restore" America.
I agree with the gist of the article but not the specifics. That is...the choices are not that simple.
for example, "More local businesses, fewer megastores"
while there are clear benfits for local businesses, there are also benfits for "megastores" including cheaper prices for consumers and more.
The real solution is not one or the other but the right balance.
The US economy is based on CONSUMPTION...the focus needs to shift to at least "efficient, maintainable consumption"
"Maintanable consumption", is going to be VERY different from what we might think. In fact, I would guess that about we could consume about 3% of what we do now sustainably, assuming the system could survive. If we were able to wave a magic wand and change the economy into dealing only with "maintainable", sustainable consumption, the whole structure would collapse because,if I am not mistaken, the Economy must continually grow in order to continue.
It appears obvious to me that there is no stopping or even slowing the momentum of the old economic paradigm...which will cause social and environmental devastation the likes of which we can scarcely imagine.
Nature is sorting that out: there is already environmental devestation and the social consequences are inevitable. Last week, after 8 months, we passed the point at which we have used up the natural resources that we needed for the whole year. This is several weeks earlier than any year before, and that's a trend that will continue.