Nothing is certain about the future of the world economy. So far, all the economic analyses and inferences made from the available data and statistics have revealed that the governmental economic stimulus programs and bailouts offered to several financial and industrial sectors, in addition to the Car Allowance Rebate program in the United States and 13 EU member states and other incentive programs, have only helped achieve modest quarterly growth rates in some countries, while barely preventing collapse in others. When projected over the entire year however, these growth rates remain well behind the levels reached during the “golden era” prior to 2007. Meanwhile, concerns [about the economy] are being exacerbated by the instability of the job market. As such, unemployment remains a major negative index that is upsetting the parameters that go into the determination of the forecasted growth rate, both in terms of the GDP-related indices, and the Human Development indices (which economists emphasize as being important complements to the GDP index.) In fact, more people are losing their jobs across an ever-expanding board. While the monthly unemployment statistics are showing slight improvements, the knot of people who lost their livelihoods because of the crisis is growing larger with every passing day, and is affecting sectors where jobs had been hitherto spared from becoming redundant. In its latest issue, Le Monde Diplomatique wrote: “after the textiles, iron-, steel and automotive industries, [...], the turn has now come for the media sector [...]”. While the French newspaper associates the layoffs against workers with the relocation of their factories from the north to the south, journalists are watching their jobs disappear as a result of their readers' migration to the internet. Nonetheless, the facts on the ground link the severance of employees and workers to the recession and contraction that have been caused by the global financial and economic crisis. This latter had thus forced corporations and organizations to reduce their financial liabilities, and to restructure them, including their human resources and advertising budgets; this in turn squeezed the media sector into a corner. While labour leaders in the developed nations succeeded in delaying some layoffs, proposing instead schemes for part-time work that were accepted by the employers, two main issues make it essential to take into account the possibilities of major changes occurring in the labour market: First of all, there is the fragility of economic growth; if this should extend further in time, it would ultimately force governments to extend their burdensome, albeit inevitable, stimulus programs. As such, the recent G20 summit in Pittsburgh recommended that the economic stimulus programs be continued, until growth becomes sustainable. However, continuing the stimulus programs within an unstable framework that does not mandate the maximal mobilization of capacities is rather harmful to the economy and will ultimately strain the public budgets that nurture these stimulus programs. Secondly, it may be sufficient for many corporations and organizations to continue operating with what's left of their human resources, even if growth is to return to the economy. This is especially valid since many of these companies have already adopted new software that helps accomplish many office tasks and other services previously performed by those who were laid-off, and as such, these companies may no longer need to rehire them. Conversely, this newly unemployed cluster of people is costing governments additional burdens; in developed nations for instance, the jobless benefit from a set of unemployment compensations, healthcare and social welfare, which all enhance the standing of the human development index, while maintaining an acceptable stand of living for these individuals. In the developing countries and other countries however, social welfare benefits are nonexistent, such as unemployment insurance, free or subsidized healthcare, education and other forms of welfare. For this reason, unemployment in these countries poses a major social concern, and even catastrophe, and as such, companies there that dismiss employees are accused of arbitrary layoffs. Meanwhile, no matter how advanced the social welfare programs that support social progress are, they remain heavily affected by the lack of corporate responsiveness in bolstering them. An instance of this would be when companies evade paying their taxes in full, when they trim down their contribution to the different welfare bodies - rendering these latter unable to cover the costs of all the branches of welfare-, and when these companies avoid adopting pension plans or unemployment shields that would ultimately relieve both employers and employees. Meanwhile, the U.S President is seeking to make healthcare more inclusive of American citizens, even if that will cost his government hundreds of billions of dollars, and no matter how staunchly is his healthcare plan being opposed by those who are benefiting from the non-inclusive status quo of healthcare in America. However, such healthcare plans are absent in developing countries, including some Middle Eastern and particularly Arab countries, where layoffs become a considerable social burden. For this reason, these countries require some radical changes in their so-called equitable distribution of income. Also, the growth of the GDP per capita does not mean that the annual gross income has been equally divided among everyone, and does not go against the fact that wealth is concentrated in the hands of few. As such, a fairer redistribution of wealth can instead be ensured by providing full social welfare for citizens, and which would ultimately be a factor that contributes to enhancing the human development index. It is the right of every citizen to have a job when he or she is in the working age, or to otherwise have unemployment benefits, pension plans and healthcare if jobs could not be secured. Here, the argument that there is a scarcity of liquidity to fund social welfare programs is not valid as an excuse; it is enough to impose taxes on fuel consumption, for instance, to cover the costs of these programs. Such a move is also proper because the consumption of fuels causes great environmental damage, and its contribution to increasing the GDP is the result of a detrimental activity. As such, it is not unfair or inadequate that taxation on fuels would consequently bolster the human development index, compensate for their environmental damage, and lessen the burden on everyone.
