Both parties have misleading rhetoric about it.
Yes, the purpose of a business is not to create jobs. As he notes, a business that thinks it is is unlikely to succeed. Jobs are a fortuitous side effect of letting the economy grow in a free market.
8 thoughts on “Job “Creation””
Comments are closed.
Judging by (among other things) the segment on CBS Sunday Morning, with their loyal Hivester Martha Teichner doing the “reporting” and crediting the findings of the State’s court economist Robert Reich (tied with Thomas Frank for the title, “the Linda Lovelace of State fellators”), the Hive is mobilized to push the minium wage even higher. There’s a way to create jobs! Raise the price of labor!
As Instapundit likes to quote (and as I’m sure President Cloward-Piven secretly agrees), “They want to turn us all into beggars, ’cause beggars are easy to please.”
Organizing For America is looking for unpaid interns to advocate for raising the minimum wage, undercutting the labor market for minimum-wage advocates. How can a young person with student debts make a living as a mindless advocate if they’re undercut by unpaid volunteers? I think the OFA workers should unionize and go on strike to force Obama to pay them a living wage.
Fen’s Law. Just like their take on equal pay for women while paying women less themselves.
A business exists (if you have any confusion) to make a profit. It makes a profit in a healthy market by selling goods or services of value. It has good or services to sell by employing people.
Food for thought: Undermining business undermines options for people to sell their labor services (aka “jobs”), leaving fewer and generally poorer options for those selling labor.
There are 400 Million Americans, THe US Economy is 15 Trillion in GDP.
That’s about $30,000/head in goods,services, economic value.
About 100 Million are Under 18 (Not really working), About 100 Million
are approaching retirment age and stopping working. So
some 200 million people are the pool to provide work force, care for
children, elderly.
Suppose business came up with some way to double work force
productivity. and could lay off half the workers in America.
So we go from some 12 million officially unemployed and some
50 Million not in the work force, to some 75 Million officially
unemployed and some 125 million not in the work force.
What then?
Business is doing exactly what they need to do. Make profit,
sell goods, improve productivity.
So what happens to the 75-125 million unemployed people?
Business is doing exactly what they need to do. Make profit,
sell goods, improve productivity.
So what happens to the 75-125 million unemployed people?
They create new businesses which also employ people or the old businesses grow to employ those people. That’s what happened since the 70s which saw a similar number of jobs shifted. This can of course be prevented by punishing businesses for employing people, such as was done in the US with Social Security, minimum wage, or Obamacare.
” the old businesses grow to employ those people.”
you assume GDP grows faster then productivity.
Productivity has been outgrowing GDP since 2001.
Labor intensive work has been going to China and Mexico.
High skill work has been going to India.
What happens when GDP doesn’t grow fast enough?
“So what happens to the 75-125 million unemployed people?”
Do you ever read? Ever?
This answer to this was demonstrated hundreds of years ago.
Your question is the kind of question Luddites, dolts, economic illiterates, and un-reconstructed Marxists put out……..
With that kind of productivity plus invention, vast wealth is created which results in new products and services being created and the market expands and people are put to work at new jobs generated by new products and services.. Those unemployed people have vast new opportunities for work.
The pie gets bigger.
Your question was precisely the question put out by the Luddites when power looms were introduced to textile manufacturing in the late 1700’s/ early 1800’s. It’s just as stupid a question now as it was then.
Well actually it’s stupider now because back then they didn’t have the benefit of their future experience and not everyone could read economic books.
You?
You have no excuse to be THAT stupid.