Is it possible for everyone to have a job and earn a decent living?

Under laissez-faire capitalism, no.

Classical economic theory indicates that, in a totally free market, everybody that wants to work will have a job. But that's only if people are willing to compete with each other, and accept whatever salary the market offers. And with international trade (of finished and semi-finished goods), you're competing with every other worker in the world (protected only by tariffs and transport costs). So wages drop to nearly nothing -- a capitalist's dream -- to the point that some workers must live in squalor, and most workers experience a yearly decline in living standard. (We recently started calling rich people "job creators," which is the exact opposite of what successful businesses do. If your business plan relies on hiring more Americans as your revenues increase, it's only a matter of time before a competitor figures out how to beat you with less people.)

For every American to have a job (ie., "full employment," or about 3-4% unemployment), the government must intervene, whether you like it or not.

To make the task a little harder, the government first creates stickiness in the workforce by enforcing "labor market fairness" rules, like laws against unfair dismissal, unsafe working conditions, and collusion between employers. These rules tend to increase labor costs (and drive the export of jobs). Minimum wage laws make it even worse, by making some people totally unemployable, and some jobs totally unfillable. Import tariffs work great; it's too bad we've been pushing a "free trade" agenda on the rest of the world, so this one is pretty much off the table.

To offset this, the government has to make Americans more employable, by funding a world-class (HA!) education system (which also makes people more content at lower salary rates), and providing good infrastructure and tax breaks to employers. The government also does their part by employing lots of people for services that you get, whether you want them or not -- like teachers, cops, bureaucrats, soldiers, judges, jailers, park rangers, hospital interns, and street cleaners. Unless you don't mind seeing beggars at every traffic light, and tent cities under every bridge, the government also needs to mop up the lower end of the population with welfare, social security, and make-work programs.

The math gets to be a problem, since the government has to spend so much to maintain a functional economy. That's the primary justification for a progressive tax structure, so that people with the ambition, smarts, and opportunity to succeed pay more in tax, to pay for the system that made their success possible. (The justification behind the Bush Tax Cuts was that, by lowering the tax burden, these ambitious, smart people will be even more incentivized to work harder and achieve more, so the total tax receipts will increase. It's total crap, of course, because we know that money is among the most inefficient motivators. As a rule, people will not work harder if they get a raise; every HR Director knows this. So all he achieved was to increase the deficit and make the nation very vulnerable to economic shocks, while increasing wealth inequality.)

Counter to the current dogma coming from the Republican party, a hands-off government is a recipe for economic failure for the masses, and massive success for industrialists and robber barons (like Romney and the Bushes). The Democrats don't necessarily have the right formula either, especially the current team; but the Republicans are pushing an economic model that is fundamentally flawed. It would be a huge step in the right direction if Congress could reach some sort of consensus on economic fundamentals, so the two sides can stop stonewalling each other.

Ultimate Guide To Job Interview Answers Click Here!