Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by ChipM, Jan 25, 2011.
Governments never create they only consume.
I disagree with such black and white assessments. While each government job can pay the employee only with the what it collects from the taxpayers, it is untrue that their activities can't create additional opportunity for job creation.
The examples in this column describe exactly that.
On the state and local level, there are examples too numerous to name of companies which added jobs in a location due to government efforts. In each case, there is a financial analysis done to show whether or not those actions were ultimately beneficial to the community.
I'd be happy to see a rebuttal.
Government also creates legitimate jobs for folks like SheriffOconee and Legacy who help restrain evil such that we can focus on our lives and occupations with some level of peace.
Did government "create" their job, or did the people of Georgia way back in the day create a constitution that delegates power to them to see that the laws that they recognized and created were enforced?
The same question could be asked of just about any government job I can think of.
You are wrong. For a rebuttal, I direct you to the following readings. Thomas Sowell gives an excellent rebuttal in "Basic Economics" and Milton Friedman does a great job in "Free to Choose". When you are done, come back for more.
"restrictions" not restorations....stupid spell check thing.
That's not creating a job though. It's just fostering an environment (ie lowering taxes, less regulations or loosening restorations) where private industries move in and actually create jobs.
Good point. We should not confuse Government inactivity with government activity. Sure Government can remove its self from an environment creating a Free Market. It is illogical to conclude Government created growth in a Government free environment.
This is the same thought process as tax breaks costing the Government money. Everything we have does not belong to the Government!
Yes, you are correct.
I understand the basic economic theory, but we do not now nor will ever likely live in a purely free-market economy.
I'm referring to examples such as the Kia assembly plant and associated suppliers, and the NCR relocation of the HQ, customer service, and manufacturing operations. Absent government intervention, would the thousands of Georgians employed at those companies have had the opportunity to apply for that job?
When the government decides it needs a new B-2 bomber, how many jobs are created to build it? hint: thousands
When the government decided to buy fewer tanks planes and ships after the end of the cold war. A lot of people lost their jobs.
When the government decided that we needed to be safe when we flew on an airplane, and they created the TSA, were jobs not created?
How many jobs were STOLEN from other sectors to fund those programs?
Your reasoning -- and that of anyone arguing that government can "create" jobs -- is based on a logical fallacy that can best be expressed by the Parable of the Broken window*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... ken_window
That type of reasoning is the hallmark of Keynesian economics, government spenders, and neoconservatives. It is flawed economically and it has no moral basis in a free society where one is entitled to the sweat of his own brow. To "create" jobs, you must steal them from somewhere else. Money spent by the government doesn't magically create more jobs than money spent by the free market. Government cannot create wealth -- it can only transfer it.
*a French guy (Bastiat) figured this out a couple hundred years ago, and Henry Hazlitt wrote a great book exploring a couple dozen examples of this fallacy in public policy called "economics in one lesson". An absolute must-read.
BAAAAAHHHHHHH BAAAAAAAHHHHHH BAAAAAAAHHHHHH.
Sure the GOV "created" jobs with all these projects. Then the companies did their books and found out that they couldnt afford to keep the extra bodies on with the company so those EXTRA JOBS went ot the unemployeement line just like the rest of them. Wanna give a rebuttal for that? I have a friend WHO OWNS a construction company that will explain to you the entire deal if ya want sir? The GOV put all these infrastructure jobs on the market for companies to bid on them. Know who won majority of GA's? CWM did. He hired a lot of extra help to do the jobs and quite honestly I wouldnt be surprised if alot werent illegals. THEN after 400 was finished and as these projects are completed he doesnt have the growth to hold the extra bodies so he ends up letting them go. Notice I didn't say fire them? A lot of them were temp employees hired through agencies, my neighbor is one of them.
you do realize construction bottomed out? How do you expect companies that were chosen for these contracts to keep the extra bodies on after the project/s was over? Sorry bro not going to pull the wool over my eyes.
Perhaps we'd all be happier with private police forces, perhaps with a contract to get paid for every suspect they arrested. Maybe we could have judges that are paid by private jailers for every conviction?
Perhaps we'd like to see private fire departments. Maybe ones that membership dues.
Maybe we'd prefer private contractors to run internal security. The constitution says that the government can't infringe on your rights, but private contractors like blackwater would be a lot more effective giving us the security we all desire, right?
How about we go with private armies? It seems to be working out well for Mexico.
Perhaps we should only educate the people that can afford private education. It would certainly be helpful to have large numbers of uneducated and unskilled laborers.
Would private firms created the interstate highways, or would they have focused only on the most profitable routes?
This is all hyperbole. Of course government creates jobs when they perform functions we want them to. This is just a bit of posturing.
No. In none of the examples you listed did government "Create jobs".
There are certainly government actions that should be done in the context of a community benefit (roads, courts, police, etc) but those things are necessary evils to establish a framework within which society can thrive. In every example, jobs are still TAKEN from elsewhere in the economy and TRANSFERRED -- not created -- into government jobs.
Example: Every dollar that I would spend on hiring Chuck Norris and Arnold Schwarzenegger on my as my personal bodyguards/drinking buddies instead goes to Sheriff Oconee and Legacy. That's OK with me, but it doesn't mean that the government materialized their jobs out of thin air -- they were transferred away from where I would have spent money in the first place: on personal protection.
If those transfers of wealth and jobs are done at the local level, without using income tax, and remain small enough that the citizens can maintain effective oversight over their money, then such community expenditures are probably a good thing, and a reasonable compromise for freedom and a good infrastructure. But it still doesn't mean that government created jobs.
We don't know. I doubt they would have the opportunity to apply for that job, in GA, at that plant but, that is not the argument. Just because a job appears in a particular place due to Gov actions does not mean the Government created a job. That one job likely cost several jobs and at a minimum was a net negative economic impact.
It is illogical to believe an entity (any entity) can take money, operate at a high operating cost, and redistribute that money more efficiently than 300 million individual consumers acting in their own best interest.
I find it hard to believe that you read any of the books I listed and still argue that a command economy is efficient.
In the 1960s Mac Abercrombie was the sheriff of Douglas county. There were three deputies total. The county jail sat attached to the sheriff's house.
There are a hell of a lot more employees than that now. The sheriff's office now has well over 100 employees in deputies and administrative staff. Where did these employees come from if the jobs weren't "created?"
So when Washington contracted with Lockheed to build aircraft in Marietta, such as the c-130, and jobs were created to build those planes. Then waffle house decided to open a few restaurants in the area. The a few construction companies decided to build housing for those employees. Then the county realized they had to build schools in the area for the employees kids. Then walmart decided to build a superstore to sell stuff to the people that work at Lockheed, Waffle house, the schools, and all those construction workers. The county decided to hire more police and firefighters to serve this growing population. Macy's decides to anchor a new mall built in the area, etc, etc., etc.
So the private sector creates these jobs, but would they have been created without the initial defense contract?
The idea that jobs are transferred to the public sector is simply semantics. When a government agency hires someone, they spend that money like anyone else. It is that consumerism that drives the economy regardless of what 'sector' the consumers come from.
So if you'd prefer to live in a country with private judges, private security firms, private jails, private armies, private firefighting agencies, every road has a toll, and private tax collectors work on commission, then be my guest.
Please take your thought process all the way to the end.
Yes, they just would have been created elsewhere. Meaning the government didn't CREATE them -- it moved them.
Ask the people whose income was stolen to pay for the contract what they would've spent the money on. You will then have your answer. Here's a hint: anything they would've spent money on would've "created" jobs. If they bought clothes with that money, they would've created clothing jobs. If they bought cars, they would've created automaker jobs. If they invested their money, they would've created innumerable jobs as companies got more capital to grow and expand.
Example: If you buy a car today, and I go to your house tonight and steal it and drive it to John's house and give it to him, have I "bought" a car for John? Or did I just transfer the car that YOU bought to someone else? Why on earth should I get credit for buying people cars when all I'm doing is stealing them from one person and giving them to someone else? I'm not adding anything to society -- I'm just shifting resources around.
No one is arguing for that in this thread. Read my post above yours.
You are seriously confusing a public good with wealth and job creation. Just because something has community benefits does not mean it creates jobs. Nor does it mean that every thing must be 100% privatized. I'm not sure how you're making that logical leap, but you should rethink it.
Nothing anyone is saying negates the possibility of some small role for government to support basic infrastructure in the form of roads, police, firefighters, etc. But they are still not "creating" those jobs -- they are taking them from somewhere else. It may be more practical, in some limited circumstances, to have government handle those things with community benefits, but that does not change the fact that government cannot create wealth or jobs.
That's ok. Spit on the next soldier, police officer, teacher, fireman you see. We should fire of every single one of them. Tell the soldier when he's coming home, his efforts are not patriotic but a waste of your money. He/she is complicit in destroying the private economy. Send them home as the government leaches they are. We would be better off if we privatized everything. Let's close every public school immediately. Send all the kids home. If their parents can't afford private education, let them get a job.