It's probably worthwhile to broaden this out a bit; it's not just military-related jobs that have been on the "chopping block" the last few years, after all. Jonathan Chait had this to say when the GOP recently reacted to the CBO report that raising the minimum wage could result from zero to a million jobs lost (though the CBO estimated ~500,000 and naturally didn't use the "dynamic scoring" that the GOP sometimes tries to argue is necessary for projections like this):
-------------------
-------------------
Military spending is like most other government spending: it creates jobs not just directly but also through indirect means like contracting, secondary sales and so on. Making cuts or scaling back funding increases below projected growth, as was done both in the sequester and to a lesser degree in the Defense budget, usually means a loss in production, especially when those cuts are sharp and fast. Less production and fewer services means fewer jobs.
If someone is opposed to sharp cuts in Defense spending because it means unnecessary unemployment for employees in an industry shrinking to fast too adapt through other means (i.e., attrition, early retirement, etc.), that person should likewise be against budget policies like the sequester or refusing to extend unemployment benefits. They should praise the stimulus for saving many jobs and possibly even criticize it for not being larger.
In short, the prospective loss of jobs and the rise of long-term unemployment among Defense contractors is no different than the loss of jobs and increased unemployment in other sectors. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; we can't very well oppose dramatic cuts in one industry because of their effect on employment and support dramatic cuts in other industries despite their effect on employment.
—Sam
-------------------
Since the outset of the Obama era, the GOP has formally committed itself to Austrian economics or some other intellectually amorphous defense of austerity. Higher spending cannot create jobs, Republicans say. And they have acted on this belief, using every bit of leverage at their disposal to clamp down on spending, and to block every proposal to stimulate the economy through infrastructure investment, temporary tax cuts, or any other Keynesian measure. Whatever the effects of the Party’s much-touted wave of economic reform, it has left the anti-Keynesian wall intact.
And yet the Congressional Budget Office, now brimming with conservative credibility, has spent the last five years issuing report after report assailing the Republican position. Republicans weeping for the half-million or so jobs that would be destroyed by a higher minimum wage would be shocked to learn that, according to the CBO, they have destroyed 200,000 jobs by blocking the extension of emergency unemployment benefits (which lift the incomes of destitute workers, creating higher demand). Likewise, the budget sequestration they have embraced as their cherished second-term Obama trophy has destroyed 900,000 jobs. What’s more, the CBO has maintained all along that the hated stimulus saved millions of jobs.
Military spending is like most other government spending: it creates jobs not just directly but also through indirect means like contracting, secondary sales and so on. Making cuts or scaling back funding increases below projected growth, as was done both in the sequester and to a lesser degree in the Defense budget, usually means a loss in production, especially when those cuts are sharp and fast. Less production and fewer services means fewer jobs.
If someone is opposed to sharp cuts in Defense spending because it means unnecessary unemployment for employees in an industry shrinking to fast too adapt through other means (i.e., attrition, early retirement, etc.), that person should likewise be against budget policies like the sequester or refusing to extend unemployment benefits. They should praise the stimulus for saving many jobs and possibly even criticize it for not being larger.
In short, the prospective loss of jobs and the rise of long-term unemployment among Defense contractors is no different than the loss of jobs and increased unemployment in other sectors. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; we can't very well oppose dramatic cuts in one industry because of their effect on employment and support dramatic cuts in other industries despite their effect on employment.
—Sam
Comment