The New York Times is out of ideas:
In an editorial, Wanted: Leadership on Jobs
, the New York Times
has virtually nothing to say about creating private sector jobs except for this:
If successful, ambitious goals like health care reform and energy legislation may generate jobs ...
... but officials have not persuasively linked them to job growth.
The Times notes:
Economic recovery will not automatically replace the jobs that have been lost so far in this recession. Nor will higher levels of learning and skill — necessary as they are — magically create jobs, especially in the numbers that are needed.
How did those jobs get lost? Some of it was due to free trade, a policy the Times promotes. As in a recent editorial opposing tariffs on tires made in China
... the additional duties are unlikely to give [workers] lasting relief. In a globalized economy, raising tariffs cannot long protect uncompetitive businesses.
Hey, guess what? As long as we trade with a China that pays its workers very little in wages, all manufacturing jobs in the U.S. will be "uncompetitive"
, which is just fine for the Times, requiring no action at all (like tariffs).
Global free trade with countries that employ low-wage labor is a job killer in developed countries. The Times prefers not to notice that fact.
In that (latter cited) editorial, there was this gem:
Like all American workers, these workers can best be helped by regenerating growth at home and abroad. Protectionist remedies, even legal ones like this, impede that growth without providing long-term replacements for vulnerable, trade-threatened jobs.
Okay, New York Times, what are the long-term replacements for such jobs? What are
they? Give us a list.