It’s the jobs, stupid

Whatever the causes of the recession, addressing those causes alone will not end it. We are currently seeing an acceleration of job losses, which is the path to depression. An economy can absorb a certain level of unemployment without serious problems. Above that point, higher unemployment becomes a self-perpetuating condition as shrinking incomes reduce spending, resulting in still more unemployment. Jobs will be lost in service sectors, small businesses will shut down.

Foreclosures will increase, but now among those who had traditional mortgages, who had till now been making payments without difficulty. Cars will be repossessed. Spending in all sectors will decrease–including the retail food sector. Restaurants will close. Those still with jobs, of course the majority, will curtail spending out of fear. The travel sector will experience declines.

At this time it is essential to preserve however many jobs that can be preserved. That’s the primary reason for bailing out the automakers. While it’s true that there are currently very few customers for new cars, improvement must be anticipated as people are put back to work.

President-elect Barack Obama has made it clear his top priority will be job creation. He sees the threat of spiraling unemployment. That the current administration refuses to address this concern makes one suspect that Republicans may wish to allow conditions to worsen even more, leaving the new president with an almost hopeless depression even before he takes office.

Investing in the future

In past essays about global warming and alternate forms of energy, I’ve recalled the Manhattan Project that gave us the world’s first real weapon of mass destruction. It was a time of war, and the bomb was seen as a way to bring it to an end more quickly than we would without it. We would save American lives and materiel, shave months, perhaps years off the war, with this one awesome weapon. That we would obliterate two cities and countless lives in the process was an aside. It was a matter of national security.

Combating global warming is also a matter of national security, in that if we think of it as a war it would result in our independence from foreign oil and thus secure our energy needs forever. Never again would we face the threats of oil embargoes. Never again would we feel compelled to wage war to secure dwindling reserves of oil. But it goes beyond our own national security. It’s the security of humanity that’s at stake.

The original Manhattan Project cost $2 billion, and that’s 1940s’ dollars — about $20 billion in today’s dollars. Some 175,000 people were employed by the Project. It was an acceptable expenditure of American tax dollars. We were, after all, at war. The Manhattan Project could hardly be left up to the Free Market.

I would argue the same logic applies to the project of the new millenium, whatever name we give it. The Gaia project? What a great name that would be. The point is, we are in the midst of a war right now, and I’m not talking about Iraq. I’m talking about the war for energy independence, the war against global warming. Today, $20 billion is chump change, but it would go a long way toward getting our solar and wind industries way up off the ground. It would go a long way toward assuring that the United States were a leader among nations in the development and manufacture of alternative energy equipment. It would go a long way toward making is secure at last. And it would put a lot of people to work in decent jobs.

Common cents

Despite almost overwhelming evidence, there are still many who doubt that human activity is causing global warming. For this reason, many of them don’t see this as a reason to change the way we supply our energy — and many don’t even think we need to at all.

Global warming aside, there are other reasons to move away from fossil fuels. National security, for example. The technology exists to make us independent from foreign oil, to permit us to be the sole supplier of our own energy. What more reason would we need?

Well, we’re also addicted to coal, with about half of our electricity coming from coal-fired plants. Coal mining ravages the landscape, adversely affects local and regional ecosystems, and the jobs it creates are filled with risks. What coal miner wouldn’t prefer a job in a plant that made wind turbines or solar panels to one that required a descent into the bowels of the earth, where tunnel collapses and explosions are very real threats.

And there are still other reasons. Were the fledgling companies now manufacturing and marketing alternative energy systems in the US encouraged to grow because of incentives and increased demand, it would be comparable to the oil boom of the early 20th century. Those wise enough to invest would profit. New jobs would be created, good-paying jobs. Tax revenues would rise. And the trade deficit would shrink.

More reasons? Eventually energy costs would come down and stabilize, consumers would have more money to spend, save or invest, and the economy would begin a steady, sustainable climb.

Still more reasons? Well, if these aren’t enough already, I’ll think of some more.