There are just some jobs in the world that shouldn’t be created.
Cancer is a job creator. I have seen war do its fair share. Prisons, death camps, and poison gas producers also produce jobs. Not to mention, constructing a massive boundary wall along a bordering neighbor can also be an excellent piece of employment generator!
And having pendejo American spring-breakers chanting 'Build that wall' is a disgrace and dishonor for both gringos and Mexicans (I will address a poor education system in the future. Too much to cover there.)
But, which must be obvious by 2017, the fact that anything that generates jobs doesn't suggest it is worth doing the work.
I could employ a squadron of British manservant to end doe-eyed puppies in a miserable death for my enjoyment to diversify cute kitten videos on youtube, and if I am a spectacularly wealthy gentleman, I've developed a good number of jobs killing cute puppies for likes and comments. I am now also a horrible human being who is driving the entire world to a cruel madness on youtube into thinking I would do such a thing, but my imaginary manservant Bosley has a job, a skilled worker, has a 401K and house in the burbs.
Even conventional economists understand very well, the statement that something doesn't necessarily become worth doing just because it generates jobs.
The 19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat famously argued from the naturally desirable proven fact that windows were a sound monetary plan since it held glass glaziers employed... Bastiat remarked that you couldn’t only look at one consequence of activity, you were to look at them all. Which means seeing not merely at that which you spend money on, but additionally on everything you didn’t. In his little tale about broken windows, Bastiat served to develop the present day idea of opportunity cost.
But while everyone understands that job design isn’t alone a dispositive justification for doing something but basically, mentioning that my new 'health plan' will generate a significant number of new careers for morticians... well the voting public may rightly be wary of its government's judgment and my regime of manservant Bosleys.
The rhetoric of job development is indeed so strong a topic these days that it often prevents a sober-minded assessment of all that it effects, including human/environmental price and opportunity cost.
I'm convinced, for instance, that constructing an enormous border wall will create quite a few jobs (mostly for Mexican laborers). It’s still just a colossal waste of concrete, human labor, and time. Every ounce of human energy spent on jobs that destroy human lives is being redirected away from improved humanity as a whole. No bueno.
As a veteran of the U.S Army, wars and militaries are a waste for a similar reason. Every ounce of human energy spent on careers that destroy human lives is diverted away from bettering them, meaning that the consequences of war are actually far worse than their observable destruction; they also comprise all of the construction that would have happened in their own absence. For those that stood peacefully at Standing Rock with me, they also saw the men and women hired to stand on their ancestors burial site with guns, sound grenades and tear gas to make sure lines were not crossed for GDP. Some of their eyes told a story of duty and honor they didn't respect. They are human but being Bosley pays the bills.
It’s constantly going to be difficult to reply to job development arguments, which is why unions are signing on to fast-track pipeline-building jobs to Trump’s illegal plan.
No Bueno, but how can anyone say NO to jobs? No one wants to say that job creation is lousy. "They'll scream individuals who don't have occupations frequently need trades!"
True. Although what they actually need is money, occupations being the thing we make them do to allow them to have some green paper to believe in something. Even with the unemployment rate is very low right now; it doesn’t mean anything to people that are unemployed... If you were offered a gig to gather wood for your own funeral, some would be forced to take it up and make a very shitty deal. I haven't read Mr. Trump's The Tale of the Deal. Rumi is more my deal. Better tweets.
The world is better off without some sorts of jobs.
The quality of occupations matters as well. Barack Obama’s presidency found the restoration of the lowering of the unemployment rate and also millions of jobs. But many of these jobs were temporary or places with highly variable hours and very few gains. If a political act by any administrate creates employment for the public but reduces workers’ bargaining power and caliber of life, then the occupations are an illusory gain.
Folks on the left haven’t actually found an excellent means of countering job-creation rhetoric. After all, an optimal world doesn’t have these jobs; they’re filthy and dangerous, outsourced and we want a future predicated on clean energy that doesn’t contribute to climate calamity.
But because, well, people genuinely like having occupations, SOS Clinton's pitch didn't go down as well as expected. So unless you’re offering better work (which Clinton was trying to say she'd do), you’re going to have a tough time against a pro-jobs puppet president playing with... legos and nuke codes... I didn't say what you are now thinking :P
The question is: what if an unpredictable president comes along offering to create millions of jobs? And what if the promise is genuine? So please imagine they're going to build millions of more jobs into your economy, but the occupations will be, as we are currently witnessing:
(1) military occupations, i.e. ruining human civilization
(2) Wall building and patrol work, i.e. erecting useless impediments to limit free human movement.
(3) Coal and oil occupations i.e. destroying the earth.
We all qualify and could be hired to ruin every last shred of life on earth if we think about it. I have and continue in my fair share...How much is it worth?
Frequently, when jobs are promised by the current head of state, the answer on the left is to assert that Mr. Trump's plans won’t create many occupations whatsoever. This isn’t the primary issue! His ego will not allow this as we've seen.
The main difficulty is that fossil fuel occupations are a deal with the Devil or blacksnake, as my Native American friends at Standing Rock, ND have always believed and continue to do so across America with many of their human rights and treaties in violation.
And it’s crucial for Democrats and liberals to find a method to carry this information without appearing not to care about people’s employment possibilities and less focus on polling numbers. Talk to Bernie more! Grandpa's got some new tricks.
The reality is that a perfect world has fewer jobs in it. The more jobs which can be achieved by automation advancement, the betterment of people to use time to explore more elevating peaceful thought and make bigger discoveries. The great news is that as automation improvements are always on the rise, and not as much need for particular kinds of dangerous work in the world. i.e. stubborn coal miners, oil exploits, and investors of primitive industrial energy consumption.
Regrettably, in a capitalist economy without a serious societal safety net; displaced workers will likely be unable to provide for themselves. It'll then be tempting to buy into job-creation schemes; which create work that is harmful or unneeded. This includes construction of a particular border wall, increasing policing recruitment bonuses or any expensive 'Need to keep up with the Joneses' pieces of military hardware.
If nobody fears becoming unemployed because medical care, education debt, housing, as well as a basic livable income are guaranteed, then it will be simpler to make the argument to move away from fossil fuels or reduce the size of the American military. Once individuals aren’t so desperately dependent on their jobs for their basic material well-being in America's consumer driven market, they'll possess the luxury to be wary of the dangerous job schemes and puppet employment being offered by its government.
Until then, This will continue under this current administration.
We don't need any more puppy-snuffing manservants named Bosley! I, as hell, dont't want to hire them. It's not a sound investment for a better future.