Why do we need to create jobs?
Lumpenproletariat: The only need is to create wealth.
There is no more need to CREATE jobs than to DESTROY jobs. Employers do both every day, because it's necessary in order to get the needed production done. Yet no one preaches a need to destroy jobs.
All the necessary job creation and job destruction happens automatically. So why do economists and politicians preach a need to create jobs?
There is no such need. The need for job creation is mass hallucination.
Comandante: "Jobs are how wealth is distributed.
Hence why it’s important.
They need to create meaningful jobs and improve pay. Improve salaries."
There's some truth to all the above.
However, it doesn't answer why jobs need to be CREATED. In some cases jobs have been created by destroying a factory because it had machines that eliminated jobs. (E.g., Charles I of England did this, and there are other examples where "jobs" are created not to produce, but only to provide a place to put workers who otherwise would be idle.)
So there is no basic need to CREATE jobs per se. Rather, the need is to create wealth, or products, or benefit to consumers. Sometimes jobs are needed for this and sometimes not. In some cases the "jobs" created are not worth what it cost in order to create them, because their cost is greater than the value they produce for consumers. These "jobs" are really nothing but babysitting slots into which to put workers/job-seekers, to keep them out of mischief.
Then your argument is not against creating jobs (as we have established the importance of jobs), but in creating meaningful jobs (jobs that are not at the expense of progress).
Question: How do you propose wealth be distributed into the population without more jobs?
Considering that there is a real issue on not enough jobs and poorly paid jobs (hence some will need more than one to cover their expenses).
freedomfirst1797: The only jobs the government can create are "government jobs." By hiring more bureaucrats, mailmen, soldiers, teachers or social workers. And they can hire as many as they want, because they don't have to cost justify them. They have the power of taxation, which makes job creation a relatively easy thing for them to do.
The government can also create incentives for job creation in the private sector. But unless there is real demand for those jobs, they will disappear the instant the incentive is removed. So they aren't "real jobs" unless they are self sustainable.
All of the other jobs are created by supply and demand in the free market. Because when people are willing to buy something, someone will hire people to make it. And the more things they buy the more jobs will be created.
There is no such thing as "wealth distribution." Wealth is either earned or inherited. What you might be thinking of is "wealth redistribution" when it is earned by one person and given to another person, and normally without the consent of the donor.
Simply redistributing other people's earnings isn't a long term solution. While it does prevent starvation, it also encourages dependency because it removes one important disincentive for being unemployed.
If you want more of the population to have jobs, then you must either create incentives for working or disincentives for being unemployed. Or both. But the private sector can only create jobs that sustain themselves. If that isn't enough, then you need to hire more bureaucrats, mailmen, soldiers, teachers or social workers.
Wealth Distribution and Wealth Redistribution are fixed terms. It is a thing.
My statement: “Jobs are how wealth is distributed”. Simply means jobs are a means or way in which people acquire wealth and deal out wealth. Nothing profound.
It is the reason why politicians chant that they will give more jobs and why people want more jobs & job security, because they both see it as a means of having wealth distributed.
Hope that clarifies matters for you.
freedomfirst1797: Wealth is earned or inherited, but cannot be distributed. You probably meant "redistributed" which means someone earns it, then it is taken away and given to someone else. And this isn't a very sound policy, but some people want this to happen.
And whenever politicians chant that they will "create jobs" they are lying to you. Unless they are talking about hiring more government workers, because they certainly have the power to do that.
Income can be earned. Wealth differs from an income. Not sure why you are repeating an argument on a ‘probably meant’, when I have stated clearly what I meant. No. I do not mean taking away from someone and giving to another as that will have nothing to do with a job/jobs. I think my words are straightforward and basic to understand.
My simple point is that having a job = gaining income, that income can be used to generate wealth. There are other ways in getting an income or generating wealth but the Original Post is on jobs so I focused my point towards that.
There is an issue on the inequality of wealth distribution. In my simple view jobs = income and income is useful in acquiring wealth and from the employer/government view in distributing wealth via the use of that income.
I’m viewing this as a working class man. Without a job in a capitalist society or in this modern structure that we are living in, it is difficult to acquire wealth. What I see as necessary is better income, along with other things.
Governments are capable of creating jobs. They do this both directly and indirectly. I see no argument against this capability.
Fractured fairy tale: Lump Watch hidden secrets of money
By Mike Maloney on tube
He explains the modern global economy
dclark13: Hi Lump, when a job or the product the job produces outlives its usefulness the company does away with it. it's called product cannibalism. That means the product is using up resources for little return. I agree with you about creating jobs. I'm an accountant in a big manufacturing company and we don't need any new jobs, we can't get the positions we have filled. I think the government needs to stop speaking about creating new jobs and just focus on getting people back to work period.
And I totally agree with Freedomfirst.
"Simply redistributing other people's earnings isn't a long term solution. While it does prevent starvation, it also encourages dependency because it removes one important disincentive for being unemployed."
||||| "Then your argument is not against creating jobs (as we have established the importance of jobs), but in creating meaningful jobs (jobs that are not at the expense of progress)." |||||
OK --- but then the point is that it's not the jobs per se which have social value. I.e., not just any "jobs" have value, but only jobs which produce more value than they cost. Because just the JOBS PER SE are not what has value, but rather whatever the jobs produce which serves need, provided that enough need is served, or value produced to justify the cost. Which means creating JOBS PER SE is not legitimate.
Example: Trump's jobs which were brought back from China, by raising tariffs (on steel, e.g.), were a net loss for the economy, not a gain, because the result of those new U.S. jobs was to increase the cost of the production (labor cost) and thus increase the price of steel to U.S. consumers. Those "jobs" Trump produced did NOT increase wealth to the U.S., but only made the price of products (e.g. steel) higher (because American workers have to be paid several times higher, thus driving up cost).
This is a net loss for America, because the jobs and production that results is more costly than the benefit. If the jobs created are a net loss, or a net cost to consumers, then the country is worse off, not better.
So just "creating jobs" is not a net benefit. Rather, it's a net increase of wealth which is a benefit, or net improvement in production to better serve the consumer need, or public need. So it's not the "jobs" per se which have value, but cost-efficient production to serve need. In some cases this might be done better by machines, and FEWER jobs, or in other cases it's better done by foreign labor, or by cheap labor, because it's not the jobs per se but only the production which is needed.
And in some cases we "create jobs" which are not a net benefit, like those produced as a result of trade protectionism, or by corporate welfare to benefit some special interest.
Or, when new technology is rejected because we want to save jobs of workers who would be replaced by machines, those jobs which are saved are not a benefit to the economy, but a net loss.
Example: There's a need for a new bridge, and 2 companies compete for the contract -- Company A offers to build it at a cost of $100 million employing 1000 workers, while Company B offers to build it for $90 million employing 500 workers.
Which company should get the contract? If creating jobs is part of the reason given for it, then maybe Company A would be chosen, being paid $10 million more in return for creating twice as many jobs.
Since creating jobs is often given as the reason for infrastructure, then maybe the contract would go to the company which costs more but would create more jobs. Which is wrong, because CREATING JOBS should not be the reason for any infrastructure project.
So it's wrong for JOB CREATION to be a reason for any infrastructure project, or for any economic program. No legitimate economic program should have "job creation" as part of its purpose. The only legitimate purpose is to get the needed work done, with none of the cost for it going to job creation.
||||| "Question: How do you propose wealth be distributed into the population without more jobs?" |||||
There's no need for that, whatever it means. Or, the "wealth" is just distributed automatically, without someone deciding how "wealth be distributed."
There's no need for a "wealth distribution" program by the government, other than just for government to spend money on its programs like infrastructure etc. But there's no wealth-distribution function for government to do.
It's OK for government to increase the money supply if necessary to offset deflation, but no need to distribute wealth.
||||| "Considering that there is a real issue on not enough jobs and poorly paid jobs (hence some will need more than one to cover their expenses)." |||||
That's a personal individual problem. There is no social need to provide more jobs or help someone who needs more than one job. That's an individual problem, not society's problem. Artificially creating extra jobs for certain people doesn't benefit society.
If someone is "poorly paid," that is their personal problem, not a social problem. If they're worth more, they can automatically gain whatever more they're entitled to as a result of the market, which rewards workers according to their value. They need to improve themselves in order to become more valuable so they can earn more. It's their personal responsibility, not society's.
||||| "Wealth Distribution and Wealth Redistribution are fixed terms. It is a thing.
My statement: “Jobs are how wealth is distributed”. Simply means jobs are a means or way in which people acquire wealth and deal out wealth. Nothing profound." |||||
OK. But the function of jobs in society is not to distribute wealth. The function of jobs is to get needed work done.
The function of wages/salaries paid to workers is also to get the needed work done. Because the payment to them is the enticement to get them to do the needed work. The reason to pay them is not that they need money distributed to them, but that society (or an employer) needs them to do the work, and so the money is paid to them in order to entice them to perform the needed work.
The motive of the worker is to get the money, but the social function served is that of the needed work getting done, and it's for this that the money is paid.
||||| "My simple point is that having a job = gaining income, that income can be used to generate wealth." |||||
Sort of, but something's left out, or something imprecise when you put it this way. Because -- what about volunteer work. There are cases of workers not being paid anything at all.
Yet isn't it still a "job"? It's still work, isn't it? And there are cases of the same work being done by volunteers in one case but by paid workers in another case. It could even be essentially the same work.
If you want to explain what a "job" is, you can't leave out some cases, and the fact is that there are cases of VOLUNTEER work, in which case the job does NOT equal gaining income. In that case it only means getting work done.
||||| "Governments are capable of creating jobs. They do this both directly and indirectly. I see no argument against this capability." |||||
The argument is that some "creating jobs" is wasteful and should not be done. So when a politician promises to "create jobs," it may be more harm than good what he has in mind. He has to do more than promise to "create jobs" -- he has to show that his spending program will produce net benefit for taxpayers, or for the public. And just saying it will "create jobs" is not any reason to do it.
Example: Trumpsters want to "create jobs" by promoting oil pipeline and coal production, which is not necessarily a social benefit.
Maybe not all such jobs are bad, but probably it's better to reduce this kind of work and move the economy in a different direction, even fewer jobs in some categories, for the long-term good, regardless of some instant-gratification "jobs" for some workers today, when that kind of production is doing long-term harm to our society.
So the point is that it's not the jobs per se which are valuable, but the needed work done, or long-term benefit, and some jobs are actually more harm than good in terms of the overall benefit/harm.
I don’t see why the function of a job is restricted. One function is to gain an income and by that income an individual expects to generate wealth. I will also include your statement that the function of a job is to ‘get work done’. There is also the function of giving an individual satisfaction. There are many functions of jobs. However, I’d say that to the average person, it is about making a living. I don’t picture someone working 2 jobs with the intention of “getting work done”. That will be an employer’s perspective.
We can look at countries where the population is high, where there is a stiff competition to get a job. Each position of a necessary job position can be filled. Now what are you to do with the excess population who are without employment? How are they going to ‘make a living’?
Both positions are necessary. You can not look at it from only a stance that a job is just to get work done, but also need to realise that work is necessary for an income at least in the societal structure that we have. Take that away and you will have to introduce some social programmes to distribute finances to the excess of unemployed persons. The only economic structure I can think of that will cater to that will be a form of socialism.
Wages/salaries also have the function to keep the economy going. Workers are paid and these workers purchase.
It’s as a cycle: Workers make the products/entity (I don’t have the proper words but as the ‘output from production’ ) -> Workers get salaries -> Workers use that salary to purchase the products/outputs.
The importance is not a lack of ‘getting work done’, the work will get done. The importance is income and individuals generating their own wealth.
I may be old fashion but my thoughts is that the working class is the backbone. We get the work done but we also get the whole economic cycle going by purchasing and using that income.
If we were in a different society that a person can have a secured lifestyle while working (as what is proposed under communism etc) then I can see the lack of emphasis on income and wealth.
**Excuse if my words may be messy**
Your statement: “ Sort of, but something's left out, or something imprecise when you put it this way. Because -- what about volunteer work. There are cases of workers not being paid anything at all.”
I have not met a person who lives off of a volunteer job. They usually have a side job to generate income. Which I guess goes back to the point. We are in a capitalist society, jobs are heavily sort after for the income aspect.
My statement on Governments creating jobs is in response to the statement made by freedomfirst1797.
As I said before, your argument is on creating meaningful jobs, which I have no issue with.
My question to you however is realistic: living in a capitalist society, how are those who are unemployed (retrenched, cut off due to having a redundancy job, etc) suppose to financially support themselves and their family? How will you proceed to cater to these excess? How are you going to make sure that they also have the ability to generate their own share of wealth in the capitalist society that we have now?
Say all the meaningless/redundant jobs are cut. Now you have a properly functioning production line, now what for the excess workers who will be dismissed?
It’s not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely open to reading what you propose.
I just saw your other post.
It bothers me.
Just because labour in China is cheap, does not make it fair. Yes, bringing it to the US means not just ‘better pay’, but fair pay. There are labour laws etc that are here for a reason.
Hell, it’ll be much cheaper for the economy to have slave labour.
I am willing to bet that YOU would not want to work for shit pay to prop up the economy. YOU would not want to experience exploitation to increase a profit for your employer or the economy.
Who do you think purchase these goods made? It is the average Joe. Where will the average Joe get money to purchase these goods? It’s a fair salary.
What you propose is so detached from the nuances of reality. What will be the sense of having anything if the quality of life for citizens is shit? Good luck with that. I can already see people protesting in desperation under the circumstances you state. You will need to have a dictatorship government and not a democracy for this.
|||| "I don’t see why the function of a job is restricted. One function is to gain an income and by that income an individual expects to generate wealth." ||||
Whoops! you just named TWO functions together. It's OK to say there's more than only "one function" -- that's not erroneous, but you have to identify each function separately, without the other being part of it. So, you can say one function is to generate income. Like robbing banks is done by the robber in order to generate income for himself.
Fine. To generate income for yourself can be your function. But if you then have to qualify it by saying that something else -- a 2nd function -- also has to be accomplished as part of the first function, and that without the 2nd function the first one is invalid, is in effect to say that this 1st function is not authentic. What's wrong your "gain an income" function in itself? Why must it be qualified or limited by the demand that it has to "generate wealth" also? Why can't your 1st function -- "gain income" -- be authentic in and of itself?
Mind you, I'm not saying there can't be multiple functions served by something. You could have 4 or 5 or 6 different functions. But each one has to be independent of the others. You should be able to eliminate any one of them from the others, and the others are still valid. But your "gain an income" function, as you explain it, was not valid in itself without you qualifying it by adding that it has to generate wealth. That invalidates it. Is it a legitimate independent function or not?
Creating wealth is legitimate in itself without the "job" being necessary. If that wealth can somehow be generated without hiring anyone, that's fine. And likewise your "gaining an income" function has to be legitimate itself without tacking on to it the requirement that wealth has to be created along with it.
Maybe "wealth" has to require work getting done somewhere. However, there is wealth, like the air we breathe, and other goods, which we didn't do any work to create. And there are cases of increasing the wealth, or the goods, without increasing the work we have to do. Reducing the work is always good per se, even though maybe producing the goods or wealth usually requires some work, or "job" to be done by someone. But these are 2 separate realities --- 1) doing the work, and 2) enjoying the wealth or the goods which were produced or which somehow are there, however they got there.
|||| "I will also include your statement that the function of a job is to ‘get work done’. There is also the function of giving an individual satisfaction. There are many functions of jobs." ||||
Fine, but name each one separately, independently of the others. Name a job you would give to workers which has no wealth being created but still would be a function served. If the function of creating wealth is necessary, and without it the "gaining an income" function is nullified, then you're really admitting that the "gaining an income" function is not valid and that it's only to create wealth that we need jobs. Because if the "gaining an income" is a legitimate function, you must be able to identify it separately.
Of course you could say that the worker does the job in order to gain the income, just like that's the goal of the bank robber. But that's not society's goal. Rather, paying an income to the worker is done as an incentive to the worker to get him to do the work. Society (or the employer) wants the work done and so will pay the worker as an enticement to get the worker to do the work.
But some work is done for free -- VOLUNTEER WORK. Isn't this also legitimate work done for a legitimate function? It's to get the work done or create wealth that the volunteer work is done, just like that's the function of paid work. The worker is paid if that's what it takes in order to get the work done. But if not necessary, the worker need not be paid. It's not the worker being paid that is basic, but getting the needed work done, while paying the worker is secondary. It's done if necessary, as a means to the goal, while getting the work done is the goal or the end or function of the work.
|||| "However, I’d say that to the average person, it is about making a living." ||||
That's the incentive, the enticement to get the work done. Those who decide to create the job and pay someone do this in order to produce the wealth or get the work done, not in order to provide the worker with a living, or income. What society needs is for that work to get done, not for that worker to gain an income or make "a living" -- that's only the means, or the tool used in order to get the real goal which is the wealth produced.
And those who decide to create the job are the ones who really know what the function of it is, not the one hired to do the work. The worker's purpose is not the function of the job, but rather it's the employer (or society) which decides the function, and if it's necessary to pay someone, then the decision is made to pay someone -- not out of sympathy for someone needing a job, but in order to get the needed work done, or the desired wealth produced.
|||| "I don’t picture someone working 2 jobs with the intention of “getting work done”. That will be an employer’s perspective." ||||
Or society's perspective, of getting the wealth produced. That worker doesn't care what society's intention is, but only his personal need for the money. But the real decision to create that job is not the worker's perspective, but society's need for the work to be done. The employer has to decide if a "job" is to be created, not the worker, so it's the employer's purpose which is the proper function served by the job.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)