VIDEO: Michael Steele Is An Idiot

You are misrepresenting what he is saying (0.00 / 0)

Point 1) I don't think anyone here is disputing that whether or not it is a "job" or "work," people need to support their families.

Point 2) What Steele is arguing is that there should be a "job" that can be sustained beyond merely a government bailout to employ people for a fixed period of time. Another way to look at it is teach the people to fish or have them get jobs with fisherman and learn the trade, learn how sustain populations of fish, grow with the fisherman as he expands his business. If we just give people work, what will they do next after that particular work is done? Will we create a bunch of people who are reliant on the government for work? If we support small businesses and other business, instead of fixing a road (his example) we can get them "jobs" or even careers where there is growth potential beyond finding projects to just employ people (don't misunderstand  - Im not saying this work is only that).

Point 3) Nobody is saying that there are not "jobs" in government. In fact, I used to be at one (my opinions on that for another time, but Im sure you are not interested - but I will say that it certainly did not reward efficiency and hard work,  but I certainly can't speak on all government jobs). Our mailman/woman who delivers your and my mail everyday is different. That is a sustainable career that has lasted generations and will continue to do so. Employing someone for a project and employing so many people for various projects will give them work now and ultimately leave them without work when that project is complete. Mail delivery will not be complete.

You are taking this way out of context to suit your needs and being intellectually dishonest. Those soldiers in Afghanistan have skills that can be used wherever soldiers are needed. In fact, many have skills taught by the military that can translate into the private sector (the man or woman who fixes a particular vehicle can be a mechanic or the woman who works in JAG can be a attorney in the private sector. Even the soldier in the trenches has transferable skill sets). Whether we agree with Iraq and Afghanistan, history tells us that wars will happen and the military is necessary. We will always need soldiers whether they be on active duty abroad or doing other work in the US. Soldiers are needed to maintain the peace or our interests abroad on a regular basis.

Steele is correct in differentiating the two. That being said, there needs to be support for both "work" and "jobs." People need careers and skills to support those careers. Merely giving people work for the sake of work to support their families is important right now too. No question, but sustainability is equally if not more important for the long term.

---

by: 123allent @ Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 21:05:52 PM UTC

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

First of all, you're missing the context.  Steele recently was quoted as saying "[l]et's get this notion out of our heads that the government create jobs. Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."  The quote is linked in the Yglesias post.  You should have taken the time you spent writing out that response and followed the links to see what was being discussed.  Either way, it is within the framework of that whopper of a quote that we look at Steele's latest statements.  

Secondly, I think Steele is the one being intellectually dishonest, not Phil (or Yglesias, as he's the one who actually makes the point).  His conceptualization of a job (and yours as well) actually seems to be a redefinition of the what the word means.  According to dictionary.com, a job is:

1. a piece of work, esp. a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price: She gave him the job of mowing the lawn.
2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position: She was seeking a job as an editor.
3. anything a person is expected or obliged to do; duty; responsibility: It is your job to be on time.
4. an affair, matter, occurrence, or state of affairs: to make the best of a bad job.
5. the material, project, assignment, etc., being worked upon: The housing project was a long and costly job.
6. the process or requirements, details, etc., of working: It was a tedious job.
7. the execution or performance of a task: She did a good job.

(There are other definitions unrelated to this topic.)

None of these definitions fit your description of Steele's job definition, or employment "that can be sustained beyond merely a government bailout to employ people for a fixed period of time."  (In fact, many of these standard definitions imply tasks for, one would assume, fixed amounts of time.)  Instead, the definition of job is being transfigured to mean "work," and the definition of career is being altered to mean "job."  

I know it's a case of semantics, but I want to point out the intellect dishonesty in that usage.  Steele's basic point is that the stimulus is wasteful because it doesn't invest heavily enough in careers, but instead just creates jobs.  (A ridiculous argument on its merits, and one that completely misunderstands the underlying principles of the business cycle, downturns and recessions, and the role fiscal stimulus is supposed to play in those scenarios).

He doesn't want to use the word "career," however, because he wishes to attack the notion of the stimulus as a job-creating undertaking.  He does this by implying that, in fact, the jobs created will be only temporary "work" that will surely disappear when the stimulus projects end.  (Once again, this is misunderstanding the point of the stimulus, which will create jobs, which increases consumption, which expands output, which causes private sector expansion, which thereby, lo and behold, creates permanent jobs!)  He's thereby attempting to undermine the fundamental tenet upon which the stimulus package has been presented to the public.  And he's doing it by playing games with word meanings.  

Now, I've just discussed Michael Steele more than I've wanted to do in my entire life, and much more than that silly character actually deserves.  So I'm going to stop now.

---

by: Kluggy @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 07:38:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep. (0.00 / 0)

This is a totally absurd billow of obfuscating smoke.

Fact is, more and more private-sector "jobs" are contract-based (people are often even hired as temps-- through agencies-- to work on given projects with no long-term commitment.... particularly common in IT).  And, government work is some of the most stable work around.

That said, it is the nature of infrastructure that it requires quite a bit of contract-based construction and maintenance work, if it is to be kept in good repair and adequate to use.  Our infrastructure is failing, we need the common good of working infrastructure, and our economy needs some demand-side stimulus.  The stimulus package can and will provide that through private contractors who do now, have in the past, and will continue in the future to do project-based contract work.  Construction "contractors" are called that because they contract for work.  When they have no work available to contract for (due to government cut-backs, private cut-backs, or whatever) they lay off the people who have jobs working for them.  Get a clue, dude.

---

by: robinia @ Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 22:55:24 PM UTC