One-dimensional stimulus

By Evan Rohar

Following are excerpts from two articles published in The Enterprise Newspapers in two days that illustrate the ineffectiveness of a one-dimensional economic stimulus plan:

"From Washington, D.C., and from Olympia, the refrain is the increasingly same: This recession demands a job-creating stimulus package.

"From Edmonds, the response has been quick: If you have money, we have ways to spend it. . .

"Sidewalks, walking trails, lighting improvements on downtown Edmonds' Main Street and more mundane projects are all included in the city's 11 project, $9.2 million 'stimulus package' wish list . . .

"All told, the city's projects would create a total of 116 full-time equivalent jobs, officials estimate." ("Edmonds' stimulus wish list $9.2 million long," 12/10/08)

"The [Edmonds school] district received almost $9 million in I-728 money last year, which funded about 78 full-time teachers. Mostly it goes to reducing class size, and the rest goes to teacher professional development and extended learning." ("Public school funding picture bleak," 12/11/08)

This is the problem with a one-dimensional economic stimulus program. If funding is taken away from I-728, 78 teachers will lose their jobs. Even if Edmonds gets everything on its bailout wish list (an unlikely prospect by the tone of the first article), it will create only 38 net jobs after subtracting the lost teaching positions.

An approach which pinpoints only certain ailing sectors of the economy will not work in a recession of this magnitude, especially when workers already have a very hard time finding living-wage work. From the Seattle PI:

"Nearly 80 percent of job openings in Washington last year paid less than a living wage for a single parent with two children. And every opening that did offer a living wage for that type of family drew an average of 10 job seekers.

"Overall, the percentage of job openings paying less than a livable wage for different household compositions remained virtually unchanged in 2007 from 2006, according to an annual study on the gap between what families earn and what they need to get by.

"Because the study does not reflect the economic trends of 2008, 'in all likelihood, the numbers are an underestimate, so the picture is even more bleak,' study author Gerald Smith said Tuesday." ("New jobs offer less than living wage," 12/9/08)

Workers' real weekly earnings have been declining since the mid-1970s. We need a diverse array of living-wage jobs in order to boost the living conditions of workers in this country.