Why do we need to create jobs? (Page 2)

Lumpenproletariat:

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Malvado:

|||| "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’?" ||||

That is their personal problem, not society's. I agree that it's good to help someone who is starving, but that's a tiny minority in any developed country.

I reject your premise that we must find something "to do with the excess population" that's unemployed. Why do we have to find something "to do with" them? Just because something out there exists doesn't mean we have to find something "to do with" it.

Are you saying these "excess" ones are an eyesore that we have to remove? something unsightly? something unpleasant, like a public nuisance? like an old dumpy car parked someplace where it should not be?

Of course if there is a need for some of them, to perform needed work, then it's good to try to get them where they are needed. But in that case it's not a need to "create jobs" but a need to get someone to the jobs already waiting and which are unfilled. And actually there are many such needs to be met, and it's true that there is a waste of human lives who are needed. But this is not a need to "create jobs" but simply to get needed work done which is not getting done.



|||| "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."||||

Something about that needs to change. What you call "work" is being eliminated, as some of the jobs become outmoded, or obsolete, and it is bad for society to preserve something obsolete only in order to provide babysitting slots for the unemployed or laid-off.

If "job creation" could definitely eliminate the babysitting element, and the preservation of obsolete jobs, etc., maybe it could become a legitimate concept. But right now it means preserving unnecessary factory jobs, excluding or restricting immigrant workers and foreign imports, and other crybaby measures to protect against competition for jobs. And it's always wrong, or harmful to the economy, to restrict competition in any form.

Something has to change about the "work is necessary for an income" flaw in our economy. It's not a totally invalid idea, as those who produce are entitled to be rewarded for their contribution, but it has become an obstacle to wealth creation because it's distorted to exclude competition and more wealth being created. We need the work to get done no matter what it takes, and it should get done most efficiently, at lowest cost, which sometimes means ELIMINATING JOBS or replacing the more costly workers with less costly ones.

This principle: replacing more costly workers with less costly ones, or replacing high-paid workers with machines which do it cheaper -- overrides the sentiment of pity toward the unemployed who need a "job" in order to gain an income.

GETTING THE WEALTH PRODUCED at lower cost is more important than feeling sorry for someone demanding an income. It's better to worry about getting the public needs met (or consumer demands), however they can be met, and getting the needed potential producers to where they are needed. This principle should be what directs all the job-creation and investment (private and public) in future production. Feeling sorry for the unemployed and finding babysitting slots for them should not be the guiding principle of the future, as it has been.

GETTING NEED/DEMAND MET must be the guiding principle.



|||| "Take that away and you will have to introduce some social programmes to distribute finances to the excess of unemployed persons." ||||

If "distribute finances" means providing some minimum survival level of income, this might be legitimate. This whole issue needs great deliberation today in the developed countries. Something in this direction is necessary. By contrast, it is perverse to distort the economy, create phony "jobs" as babysitting slots for the unemployed, such as Donald Trump and Joe Biden and all the Republicans and Democrats have been doing. The new economy must open up entirely to global competition, to everything to make the production more efficient and beneficial to consumers, and totally put an end to all economic disruption ("stimulus" and corporate welfare etc.) based on pity toward the unemployed.

The unemployed can be viewed as A RESOURCE TO BE EXPLOITED for the good of society/consumers but which is currently going to waste. In that sense there might be some place for the idea of "job creation" -- but we don't have that yet. As long as we have Trump's (and Biden's) China-bashing vision of "job creation" for crybabies demanding a high-paying job entitlement, it means only economic loss and net national degeneration.

Work and production is done in order to create wealth or get the needed benefits for society, not to provide babysitting job slots for crybabies as we are doing now because we react only to certain select high-profile victim groups (such as steel workers and others) and their entitlement-demanding crusaders (like labor unions and "Made in America" fanatics) whose only asset is their aggressiveness and demagoguery.

Tell these crybabies and crybaby-panderers that the only function of the work is to get the wealth produced, or the public needs met, not to provide their crybabies with an income; tell them we'll hire whoever will give us the best deal, whoever will do it for less, because the consumers and the public are entitled to shop for the lowest-cost production available, even if it's from Mars, or another galaxy somewhere.


|||| "The only economic structure I can think of that will cater to that will be a form of socialism." ||||

We already have some "form of socialism" and it will change, possibly become even more socialistic. This is a huge topic, beyond the present. But do not adopt a form of "socialism" which makes the worker and his feelings the purpose of the job. No, the purpose is to get the needed work done, however it can be done most efficiently and least costly for society, which means that the worker can be replaced by anyone or anything which can do the job at lower cost.

Make that the new form of socialism, and maybe "socialism" isn't necessarily bad. Reward the best producers by letting them become rich if they're more productive, but also taxing them higher and higher while they become richer and richer (after taxes). Make it a "socialism" which rewards those more competitive and lets the less competitive get poorer, and all are held accountable and only merit counts, never entitlement and privilege and labor union membership and charismatic ability to give speeches manipulating mindless masses demanding their entitlements -- we don't need that "form of socialism."


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

WHlSKY:
{Your statement: “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…”}

—I stated it as one function, which is to gain an income and from an income an individual can generate wealth. This is not two functions, as a job does not directly give wealth. It is the income that is used to generate the wealth and hence why I made that distinction.

There is nothing erroneous in the statement. Income can be used for other means and not just as a focus to generate wealth. It can branch off even to “paying bills”. The statement I made was specific.

Keep in mind my response was to your statement: “OK. But the function of jobs in society is not to distribute wealth”

I made my statement to show how wealth is generated from the income gained by jobs. Also, that jobs do not fit one function but several functions, in addition to the function you stated.

On the difference between wealth and income in the link provided [1]

——————

{On your statement: “ Of course you could say that the worker does the job in order to gain the income….”}


—Yes, hence why I did.


{Your statement: ….just like that's the goal of the bank robber.”}

—No, see the definition of what an income is, I found one for you in the link [2]. A bank robber has not gained an income.


{On your statement:… 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..”}

—You are equating society to an employer. It is not, society consists of the worker, the employer and many others. So that ‘society’s goal’ will consists also of the goals of the workers included. And I think this is where we differ as I am pointing things out to include the views of the workers and you appear to focus only on that of the employer.

Society is a large group of people interacting in a defined territory, sharing a common culture [taken from the sociology dictionary]

——————

{On your statement: “ 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… ”}

— As stated before, a person may volunteer for also the function of ‘inner satisfaction’, and on getting a job done. Even in this case there is the repetition that you are arguing against. Rather than being beneficial there are studies which shows that it can have negative impacts.

However, on volunteerism, I ask again, which individual can volunteer without having a side job which takes care of their financial needs/wants?

——————
{ On your statement: “ 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. ”}

— The only individuals who can work completely (no side jobs), without pay is someone who has inherited a fortune. As this money is present and cares for their needs/wants.

From the workers perspective, the importance is on being paid. Noone works at Mc Donalds with the inspiration that they need to get ‘work done’. Although, I get what you are referring to, you have not looked at this holistically.



Reference.
[1] https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-income-and-wealth.html

[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income.asp

WHlSKY:
I wanted make this separately as it encompasses the perspective you are looking at the situation from.


In your view, I notice that you separate the workers from under the tent of society.

I’m not sure why you speak of workers as separate entities as these are a vital part of ‘society’.

The role of the workers, is not only to ‘work’, but keep in mind we are also the ones with the purchasing power.

So even from the economic view, there is more importance than getting ‘work done’, but also having enough individuals in society with purchasing power. Individuals who are heavily from the “workers”. And that is very important as supply meets demand.

Having enough individuals with purchasing power (used mainly from their income) fuels the necessity of getting the majority of ‘work done’. Only jobs that are very basic to our needs as a society will be the exception of this and in a capitalist society, those ‘needs’ are smaller in comparison to the demand of ‘wants’.

So talk all you want on employers, without the demand, employers will have what products to offer and to whom?

WHlSKY:
{On your statement: “ That is their personal problem, not society's. I agree that it's good to help someone who is starving, but that's a tiny minority in any developed country.”

— Take away more jobs and that ‘tiny minority’ grows and it is society’s problem as even these are part of society. The social issues that results from high unemployment speaks for itself.

Take that “let them eat cake” approach if you wish. My premise is the importance of employment, not as ‘finding stuff for people to do” or “keeping busy”, but as a means for the majority of individuals to gain an income, raise their standard of living through that, etc.

Your position is to get ride of unnecessary jobs. I say create not only jobs but specifically to provide meaningful job. And at the moment to propose job cuts is detached from reality. It is not on ‘babysitting’ or ‘keeping occupied’ , but on getting finances.

WHlSKY:
{On your statement: “ This principle: replacing more costly workers with less costly ones, or replacing high-paid workers with machines which do it cheaper -- overrides the sentiment of pity toward the unemployed who need a "job" in order to gain an income.”

—There are no ‘less costly workers’, there are workers who are paid below the minimum wage or exploited.

And this has nothing to do with pity but on practicality. As already stated, there will be less individuals to create a demand for products produced when they have no income/ money to purchase. This will result in a decline in production with persons focusing mainly on their needs.

The majority of society are workers. If you propose job cuts, you will by extension be proposing cutting down the demand. It is cheaper to have everyone employed and with purchasing power, where the profits are gained, than to cut down on production and push prices to compensate for that loss. At least from the perspective of those who will gain from these profits. Who tend to be the minority at the very top.

We already know the effects of unemployment and the cost of that to society, not only financial costs but social too. Not to mention the cost of ‘unemployment benefits’. So it is to be weighed which will cost less: job creation or job cuts.
And cost less not just to the employer but to the rest of society.

WHlSKY:
I noticed that you used the description: “crybabies”.

A strange concept to me. Seems as an emotionally charged term, that’s not fixed. I think it gave some insight into the message you wish to send.

I have found that societies that focus on creating an overall contented life via proper social structures tend to thrive better. As oppose to societies with structure more focused on economic gains at the expense of those who make up that society.

My view was in looking at the Nordic Model. It is not enough to cut unnecessary jobs and carry out any creative destruction but vital to include safety net for those who will be left unemployed via social programmes.

There are countries that this structure will not work due to the culture of their society (example the US).

This structure also does not facilitate the view of sourcing foreign cheap labour or a survival of the fittest competitive mentality.

From a lay-man perspective, balance is key, both on focusing on maintaining an effective economic structure and on addressing the emotional/ social impacts.

Lumpenproletariat:

Our question is: What is the point of work? or the function served by "jobs" in society? Or: Why is it good for people to work, or for them to do "jobs"?

And the reason for asking this is to answer the question: Why is there a need to "create" jobs? Or IS there any such need? What is this need?

We must have some starting point. Do we at least agree that no one should do a "job" which can easily be done by a machine at much lower cost? Do we agree that the Luddites were wrong to destroy the machines and demand that they personally do jobs which could more easily be done by the machines? They were wrong, were they not? Wasn't it better to have the machines do it as long as this was much easier and cheaper than hiring humans to do it?

So then, what is the point of having humans do "jobs"? It's to get something done, some wealth created which machines don't yet do and which we need to have done. To get needed work done, right?

If it's to generate "income," this must mean getting something accomplished which someone wants and is willing to pay for, right?



Malvado:

||||"—I stated it as one function, which is to gain an income and from an income an individual can generate wealth."||||


So the function of a "job" in society is that someone wants to gain an income from which he can generate wealth.

And that's what a "job" is for?

No, the "gain an income" refers to the money paid to the worker, and this is paid for a reason by the employer who is the one who decides that the "job" is to exist. He pays this in order to get needed work done, not in order for someone to gain income to generate some wealth.

The only reason for the "job" is to get work done which the employer wants done. Without that need someone has for the work to be done, there is no job.

The "income" paid to the worker is only an enticement to the job-seeker to get him to do the needed work. It's that needed work that is the function of the job, not the income paid to the worker. The pay to the worker is a means in order to accomplish what is basic, which is to get some needed work done, or something produced, or wealth created by having that work done.

The purpose is not the income paid to the worker -- that's only a means to the end.

It's the employer who decides that a job is to exist and makes the decision to hire someone. And the employer decides this in order to get some work accomplished -- and that work getting done is the whole point of the job. The point is not for the worker to gain an income, but for the needed work to be done somehow. Hiring the worker is the means to getting the work done.

The basic point of it all is not for a worker to gain an income, but for that needed work to get done.

In some cases a job can be done for free -- VOLUNTEER WORK, which is also a job. It's up to the worker to decide what terms he requires, and the employer has to decide how much to sacrifice or pay out in order to get the desired work done, and when the 2 can agree on those terms, then the "job" can become realized.

The "employer" in some cases just ends up doing the job himself, because there's no agreement on the price. Even then it's still a "job" or work done. It's always about needed work getting done, whatever it takes to get it done. It might require payment or income to a worker as necessary to get it done.

You could call the needed work "income" or "wealth generated" or other terminology. But whatever you call it, this work getting done is the point of it, not the income paid to the worker. The worker did not decide to create the job that he's hired to do. It's the one who creates the job who decides whether it shall exist and why and how much value it has that he's willing to pay for.



Malvado:


||||"This is not two functions, as a job does not directly give wealth."||||


Yes it does. Doing the work creates wealth, or accomplishes something of value which the employer wants to have done. Creating that job and getting the work done creates a benefit = wealth which the employer wants.

It also generates income for the worker, assuming it's not volunteer work. But that income to the worker is not the purpose of the job, but only the reward to the worker as an incentive to get him to do the work. It's getting that work done, or creating that wealth, which is the whole function served by that job. Without that wealth production or needed work getting done, there is no purpose for the job to exist.




M:

||||"It is the income that is used to generate the wealth and hence why I made that distinction."||||

No, the income paid to the worker is not what generates the wealth. It's the work done by the worker which creates the wealth. And in return for this the worker is paid an income as a reward for doing that service or performing what was wanted.




M:

||||"There is nothing erroneous in the statement. Income can be used for other means and not just as a focus to generate wealth. It can branch off even to “paying bills”. The statement I made was specific."||||


Of course the worker can spend his reward any way he wants. But the purpose of the job he did was not to provide him with that income. Its purpose was to get something done which the employer wanted. And the income paid to the worker was nothing but a lure to get him to do that work. Getting that needed work done (or wealth created) was the only purpose. Without that need for particular work to be done, there would have been no job. No job exists except for the purpose of getting some particular needed work done.

The point of that job is not to generate "income" for a worker. That's the worker's goal in taking the job, but that's not the reason why the job exists.



M:

||||"Keep in mind my response was to your statement: 'OK. But the function of jobs in society is not to distribute wealth'

I made my statement to show how wealth is generated from the income gained by jobs."||||


i.e., "income" paid to the worker, yes, but what about VOLUNTEER jobs, in which case there is no income to the worker?

Usually the worker is paid, but even when they work for free it's still a "job" getting done. "Work" can be done for free. And yet it's still "work" or a "job" being done.

Its purpose is to get something done which is needed by society, by an employer, by someone wanting that action to be done. That's the point of it, or the purpose of the job. The point is not the income paid to the worker. Payment (income) to the worker is only a means to the end, not the end. I.e., not the point or purpose of the job.



M:

||||"Also, that jobs do not fit one function but several functions, in addition to the function you stated."||||

No, there's only one function, which is to get needed work done. A huge and vast function. But the purpose of all work, or all "jobs" can be summed up in that one phrase.

You can't name any "job" which does not exist in order to get needed work done. What else can a "job" be for, except to get needed work done?

Of course the worker's motive is to get the reward, the income, or payment. But what is the point of paying it to the worker? There is only one purpose for paying the worker, which is to motivate him to do the needed work. So the needed work getting done is the whole point. Without this, you cannot explain what point is served by any "job" in society.




M:

||||"{On your statement: “ Of course you could say that the worker does the job in order to gain the income….”}

—Yes, hence why I did."|||


We agree that this is the worker's motive. But this is not why the job exists. The only point of the job even existing is in order to get the needed work done, not in order to provide income to a worker.





M:

||||"{Your statement: ….just like that's the goal of the bank robber.”}

—No, see the definition of what an income is, I found one for you in the link [2]. A bank robber has not gained an income."||||



Don't be ridiculous. Of course the successful bank robber has gained for himself an income, just like an honest worker does. An "income" can be dishonest and criminal, or it can be legal.

If you gain money, wealth, goods in any way, no matter what, it's still an "income" to you personally, regardless what damage it did to anyone else. Your personal "income" is just your personal gain, regardless what you did to gain it.

You can't say that's not an "income" -- it doesn't matter what your "source" tells you. You can't change the meanings of words just by citing some alleged "source" which says 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.




M:

||||"{On your statement:… 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..”}

—You are equating society to an employer. It is not, . . ."||||


Whichever. In some cases it's the government who hires the worker, in which case it's for "society" -- or it can also be an organization, a university, a church, a foundation, etc. So it's OK to refer to "society" as the employer in those cases. It's for the general good of everyone, or most of us, rather than just one individual or family.

Let's not get into unnecessary semantic quibbles. Regardless who the "employer" is --- private company, society, individual, group. That employer is the one wanting the work to be done and who decides to create the job. So that employer decides what the PURPOSE of the job is. Without that employer deciding it, there would be no job.




M:

||||". . . society consists of the worker, the employer and many others. So that ‘society’s goal’ will consists also of the goals of the workers included."||||

No, the workers and the employers are 2 separate entities. Obviously the workers are part of society, or of groups which might also be the employer in those cases of a group employer.

But the worker and employer are 2 separate entities in terms of the economics. It's only the employer who wants this particular work done, not the worker. The worker wants the reward, the paycheck, the income paid as a reward.

Each one of us is a consumer and a producer. Each is separate, though each person does both roles in the economy. This playing both roles doesn't change the fact that you're a consumer separately from being a producer. And likewise you're a worker separately from also being an employer, in cases where we're both.

Both have separate interests, in their separate roles. When you buy at the store (consumer), you want lower prices. But when you do your work (producer) you want higher prices from those paying you. There is no contradiction in saying that the worker is interested only in getting the reward, the payment, while the employer is interested only in getting the work done.




M:

||||"And I think this is where we differ as I am pointing things out to include the views of the workers and you appear to focus only on that of the employer."||||


No, we agree that the views of both are equally important.

But it's the employer who decides if a job is to exist, and so therefore it's only the employer who determines the purpose of the job, while it's the worker who decides for himself what terms to accept as a condition to do the job. If an employer finds no worker willing to accept his terms, then the job won't exist.

In the case of VOLUNTEER work, perhaps the worker and employer have a similar interest, or are united in their thinking about the value of the job.




M:

||||"Society is a large group of people interacting in a defined territory, sharing a common culture [taken from the sociology dictionary]"||||


Yes, but a worker for the state in that society has a different interest than the society. That worker wants the payment to himself to be higher than the society generally wants it. In fact, society would be happy to get the work done by volunteers doing it for free. And actually some public work is done for free (or near-zero pay).

——————








M:

||||"{On your statement: “ 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… ”}

— As stated before, a person may volunteer for also the function of ‘inner satisfaction’, and on getting a job done. Even in this case there is the repetition that you are arguing against."||||


The point is that in this case there is no "income" to the worker. So in this case "income" to the worker is obviously not the purpose of the work.

But GETTING THE NEEDED WORK DONE is always the purpose of any job. So that's the function of a "job" --- not generating the worker's income, but getting the needed work done. While the income to the worker is a means to this end.




M:

||||"Rather than being beneficial there are studies which shows that it can have negative impacts."||||

"There are studies" which show anything you want to promulgate. No doubt some "jobs" are bad for society -- paid jobs as well as volunteer jobs. Some of the volunteers who go out on the street and riot and loot and burn down shops probably have negative impact. But bank robbers also get paid for their negative impacts. So both paid and unpaid jobs can have negative impact.





M:

||||"However, on volunteerism, I ask again, which individual can volunteer without having a side job which takes care of their financial needs/wants?"||||

That's up to each individual to worry about. Obviously there are some rich people who do volunteer work. Maybe something they enjoy doing. The best rule for society is to leave it up to each individual to worry about what to do to make themselves happy, or what to do in order to survive.

There are in fact some poor people who volunteer or contribute to society in ways which they enjoy. There are no "studies" which can dictate such choices to us.

——————




M:

||||"{ On your statement: “ 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. ”}||||

— The only individuals who can work completely (no side jobs), without pay is someone who has inherited a fortune."

Again, that's an issue for each individual to worry about. The point is that volunteer work is real work and is a real job. Which proves that the purpose of a "job" is not to generate income to the worker, but to get needed work done. If the function of a "job" in society was to generate income to the worker, then volunteer work is not a "job" -- which is false. Volunteer work is also a job. Some jobs are paid very low, and even zero in this case.

But what is basic to all jobs is -- GETTING NEEDED WORK DONE. That's the point, not the income to workers. That's the means to the end, not the end.




M:

||||"As this money is present and cares for their needs/wants."||||

Which is everyone's personal problem, not society's. However, if your point is that society should do something to prevent poor people from starving, then yes it should. But that's not what "jobs" are for. The purpose of jobs is to get needed work done, not to provide incomes to poor people.





M:

||||"From the workers perspective, the importance is on being paid."||||

Yes, that is the worker's motivation. But that's not the purpose of the job. The role of jobs in society is to get needed work done. To get the production done to serve all consumers, which includes the poor.

If instead we turn jobs into some kind of welfare to poor victims rather than getting needed work done, or a source of income to pay their bills, then the production itself will be compromised and less will get produced for all consumers, and society overall will be made worse, for everyone.




M:

||||"No one works at Mc Donalds with the inspiration that they need to get ‘work done’."||||

Maybe not, and yet the company might try to "inspire" them with "pep talk" to condition them psychologically. Maybe the workers submit to such conditioning and understand that the social purpose they're serving is to get the needed work done, and that their income is just the means to that end.

It's up to the employer to make sure that the work gets done, as a condition to paying the workers. And it's best if the workers understand that the function in society for their job is that the needed work gets done.




M:

||||"Although, I get what you are referring to, you have not looked at this holistically."||||

And you have not answered why we need to create jobs. Which is the topic.

There is no more unmet need to "create" jobs than there is to destroy jobs. And employers do both every day. They destroy the jobs which need to be destroyed (because they're obsolete etc.) and they create all the jobs which need to be created. Any jobs which are not created are ones which don't need to be created, which is why they're not created, and so it is nonsense to say there is a need to create jobs. I.e., unmet need.

No one has answered how the holistic "jobs! jobs! jobs!" blabber of Donald Trump and others is anything but demagoguery for idiots.

WHlSKY:
I’m not interested in going in loops.

If you do not wish to acknowledge that jobs have various functions and meanings then I see no point in continuing a discussion. You have set the restrictions solely because it is not in line with your view, when these things are already predefined and acknowledged [1]

I also suggest you review what is meant by ‘wealth’ and ‘individual wealth’, as I did not state it in a colloquial sense. I have also posted source links to the definition for there to be less misunderstandings. It is very obvious that I was referring to jobs not giving direct wealth (Wealth as is an accumulated store of possessions and financial claims) to the workers and mentioned income as their hope/means of acquiring wealth.

Less lecture and more on actually understanding the position taken will help you have more meaningful discussions.

There are fixed terms for a reason, like ‘income’, ‘individual wealth’, etc and I prefer to have these foundations set in any discussion because it will just be a case of ‘take what I say this or that to mean’.

Income: Income is a net total of the flow of payments received in a given time period. [2] Robbing a bank did not give that bank robber any ‘income’ by definition of the word.

I am not going to pretend I’m inventing new ideas when this topic has been covered and flushed out.

You say: “ Let's not get into unnecessary semantic quibbles.” I view things differently when discussing. When fixed terms are used, they have fixed meanings and this is what leads to understanding in a discussion. Throwing terms around erroneously serves what purpose? To impress? The point of any discussion is for mutual understanding even if there is a disagreement. So in future, I can suggest you do not misuse terms and just straightforwardly say what you mean.

You have your mind made up and good on you. Not sure why you are asking the question if you have figured it out. Perhaps you asked in a rhetorical sense.

Kudos.

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2088325
[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/income

WHlSKY:
Society will not function if all jobs were done voluntarily. A flow of money / resources is necessary. Especially to workers so that they will be equipped with purchasing power. It feeds into itself.

In a capitalist society this is key, in another society perhaps it is not.

It is not all about the employer view as he is just one part of the economic system and one part of society. He does not dictate, but merely plays a role. As much as the worker plays a role.

To argue that jobs are solely for getting work done and serves no other purpose is as saying eating food is solely to get nutrients. Ignoring that many eat not out for getting nutrients or to fill a hunger need, but as comfort, for taste, for socialising etc.

More can be said but, I think we have different styles in communicating.

Lumpenproletariat:

MaIvado:

||||"I wanted to make this separately as it encompasses the perspective you are looking at the situation from.

In your view, I notice that you separate the workers from under the tent of society.

I’m not sure why you speak of workers as separate entities as these are a vital part of ‘society’."||||


We're all part of society, equally. But each of us, or each group, can be analyzed separately, as a part of the whole, but not identical to the whole. An individual is not the whole society, and one group, small or large, is not the whole society. And each part has its place in the economy, performing its separate part.

In this sense, it is the employer who determines if the job is to exist, meaning its purpose is to get whatever work done which that employer desires to have done. So this purpose is not to generate income for the worker, but to get that needed work done.

While the worker's purpose is different than the employer's.

In the case of a small private employer, then maybe "society" also has a purpose, which is that all the decisions be made freely by the buyers and sellers, or employers and workers, and it's socially good for these transactions to happen freely so that wealth is produced, and usually this serves everyone, or the public, or the consumers generally.

So a "society" purpose may also be present, which is not to generate income to workers, but to just let all the buyers and sellers and consumers engage in free transactions to the greatest possible benefit to all, working for each other freely. So, let wealth be created, let work be done, let everyone engage in trade according to their individual choices. This has a utilitarian outcome -- greatest good for the greatest number. The "society" purpose is not to promote profit per se, but to allow maximum free choices for everyone, sort of maximum "profit" to everyone, as much as is practical, to create more wealth for all, and promoting incentives (reward) to everyone to be as productive as they can be to the benefit of all.




M:

||||"The role of the workers, is not only to ‘work’, but keep in mind we are also the ones with the purchasing power."||||

Everyone has purchasing power, not any one special group.




M:

||||"So even from the economic view, there is more importance than getting ‘work done’, but also having enough individuals in society with purchasing power."||||

But there is no need to create any "purchasing power" for anyone. There is no need to create DEMAND for products. The demand is automatic, without any need to try to create additional demand, or purchasing power.

The only need is for producers to meet the demand. The demand is automatic, while the production is not.





M:

||||"Individuals who are heavily from the “workers”. And that is very important as supply meets demand."||||

No, it doesn't matter where the demand comes from. There is no need to boost any demand or purchasing power of anyone. The only need is for supply to satisfy the existing demand.

I.e., if demand goes up, we need more supply. But if SUPPLY goes up, there is no need to increase the demand to absorb the extra supply.




M:

||||"Having enough individuals with purchasing power (used mainly from their income) fuels the necessity of getting the majority of ‘work done’."||||

If that's code language for: We need to drive up wages in order increase purchasing power of all workers ---- no we don't need any such thing.

Workers should be paid according to supply-and-demand only, and it's best for society if all production costs are kept as low as possible, for the benefit of all consumers, which is why all competition is good, to keep down costs.

But if you mean it would be good to distribute purchasing power to all the very poorest, the bottom 5 or 10%, there might be merit in that, or some form of it. But it's bad for society to distort wages under the guise of creating more purchasing power to create more demand. There is no such need to promote purchasing power or drive up demand.

And the only need is to produce what people want, not to get people to spend in order to provide demand for what someone produced.






M:

||||"Only jobs that are very basic to our needs as a society will be the exception of this and in a capitalist society, those ‘needs’ are smaller in comparison to the demand of ‘wants’.

So talk all you want on employers, without the demand, employers will have what products to offer and to whom?"||||

Not sure I can untangle this.

I have no argument with it, as long as it does not mean: we need to drive up wages artificially in order to pump up demand, as if producers have some need for more demand for their products, and somehow the only source of demand is higher wages they must pay to workers.

As long as it doesn't mean any such bullshit, maybe it's OK.

DIAMONDfire: its a very complicated question with complicated answers, but one thing i do know is education creates jobs.

DIAMONDfire: so i suppose we need to create jobs to educate ourselves.

Atotalstranger: Presumably, creating jobs creates a broader entry into the middle class, a larger tax base, decreases entitlement payments and associated debt, and increases the wealth of society in general, at the macro level. At the micro level, job creation is a safety net that increases personal income, decreases dependency on our vanishing welfare system (which is a societal cost) and might (no guarantee, I admit) provide access to medical benefit plans.

freedomfirst1797: Everyone agrees, jobs are a good thing. And well paying jobs are even better.

But how do you "create jobs?" Unless there is a demand for something that people are willing to pay for you can never have the sort of jobs that increase general wealth. You can create "temporary jobs" by subsidizing employers, or by giving them tax incentives, but this comes at a cost. And those jobs often disappear when the subsidy ends. They don't create wealth, they just shuffle it around.

And IF there is a demand for something that people are willing to pay for, then you don't have to do anything. The market will create those jobs.

Whenever a politician promises to create jobs, they are lying to you. Because they cannot do it. All they can do is spend taxpayer money to create temporary jobs, or hire more people for the post office or the teacher's union, or some other government agency that doesn't need to make a profit to exist.

WHlSKY:
When a politician promises jobs, it is typically that they are either revamping a previously closed industry or a new one, increasing more building projects or infrastructure maintenance etc. It varies, as some countries have found new resources (as oil, etc) within their area.

People do not care on profit. The focus is on moving from being unemployed to now gaining an income. It’s the only purpose a politicians make that promise and the only reason people want it. Identifying what the root desire/need of the people are, is important as another solution can be presented.

Creating jobs is a good thing, the only issue here is creating useful jobs. Another alternative some are trying is to promote entrepreneurism and STEM fields.