"Creating Jobs"

[Narz]

This phrase always has somewhat irked me.

It seems to me those who's priority it is to "create jobs" are basically encouraging industry to be as inefficent as possible. The less efficient an industry, the more jobs are created.

What about adding value? I suppose in an affluent nation creating actual value can come second to creating unnecessary jobs.

In the past when I was a bit more cynical and used to litter and leave my shoping cart in the parking lot (instead of respectfully wheeling it back to the store as I do now), if anyone (usually a friend) confronted me on it I would say, "Ah, don't critisize, I'm "creating jobs" ".

Also, does it even seem that in many, many industries, people could work half as many hours and get the same amount done? Getting paid by the hour seems to encourage employee laziness, inefficiency and low moral (not to mention fatigue). I've had quite a few retail jobs myself and I defintely felt alot more productive, efficient and happy working full-time than part-time.

One more thought before I let this brew ferment into life - wasn't technology supposed to make life easier? Or have things been delibrately designed somehow (perhaps unconsiously) to keep people even busier than ever? Do you ever think that perhaps people actually don't want (or can't handle) a large amount of free time?

A lot of questions I know, curious to see how people tie them all together.

 

[greenpeace]

Its called capatilism. In order to maintain econmic stability you need people to do meaningless unproductive work in a capatalist society. CEO's wouldn't have huge yatches and mansions if they couldn't pay people in China ten cents an hour in order to get cheap pencils.

 

[Perfection]

"Creating jobs" itself isn't neccearily a good thing, but often measures that bring more people to the workplace result in increased productivity.

 

[ainwood]

Its called capatilism. In order to maintain econmic stability you need people to do meaningless unproductive work in a capatalist society. CEO's wouldn't have huge yatches and mansions if they couldn't pay people in China ten cents an hour in order to get cheap pencils.

ah.... "no".

Its more about creating wealth. What do you think companies do when they make a profit? They try and reinvest those profits to make bigger profits. If they invest in things like expanding their production facilities, then they need more people to operate the equipment - they have 'created jobs'.

In fact, capitalists do not want *unproductive* work. Why pay people to do something that creates no value?

"Creating jobs" itself isn't neccearily a good thing, but often measures that bring more people to the workplace result in increased productivity.

Or the opposite. Reducing staff often means that the ones still working take-up the slack - increasing productivity.

 

[Perfection]

In fact, I'd contend that unions are more responsible for labor inefficeincies then the capitalistic structure.

 

[ainwood]

In fact, I'd contend that unions are more responsible for labor inefficeincies then the capitalistic structure.

COuldn't agree more - unionised workforces often have the lowest productivity. It is actually in their best interests to have low productivity, because then the employer needs to take on more staff to get the job done, which means more union members and their support base grows.

 

[Abaddon]

Gets money flowing, if people in work, they have money to spend, so shops floursh etc.

 

[MamboJoel]

In order to maintain econmic stability you need people to do meaningless unproductive work.

So to win a stable amount of money, I need to pay people to do meaningless unproductive work.
I think your argument could make a bit more sense (in the far left rhetoric) if it was about social peace : "big owners maintain social stability by occupying people with meaningless jobs"

Anyway, I wouldn't advice somebody who wants to become rich to pay people to do meaningless unproductive jobs, or to attend for them. Would you if I advised you that ?

 

[skadistic]

COuldn't agree more - unionised workforces often have the lowest productivity. It is actually in their best interests to have low productivity, because then the employer needs to take on more staff to get the job done, which means more union members and their support base grows.

So true. And this is why my company is non-union. My workers are better skilled, better equiped, better trained, faster and better paid then union peers. Unions are more about political power then work productivity or whats realy best for the worker long term. They get short term goals that sound good but end up driving companies into the ground.

I try to reinvest every penny I can back into the buisness. The more money I put in the more efficient my workers are the more work they do the more mony we make the more workers I can hire the more work can get done the more mony we cane make.......ect.....ect. No buisness creates jobs just to say "I made a new job YAY!!" IF a company did that it would defeat the most important part of capitalizism, making profit.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Simple. If you don't have a job, you'll vote for the guy who promises to "create jobs." If you do have a job, you probably dismiss that particular campaign promise without realizing that everything you buy will become more expensive as a result.

 

[greenpeace]

ah.... "no".

Its more about creating wealth. What do you think companies do when they make a profit? They try and reinvest those profits to make bigger profits. If they invest in things like expanding their production facilities, then they need more people to operate the equipment - they have 'created jobs'.

In fact, capitalists do not want *unproductive* work. Why pay people to do something that creates no value?

Let me clarify, when I say "unproductive" I am probably thinking of something completly different then you are. According to your definition it is true that it is more productive to use child labor and run plantaions since it produces more per time spent. My definition of production, on th other hand, is that the more something is productive the more it contributes to society and the advancement of humankind. In other words I don't consider the rate at which you expand your CEO's wallat, I consider something such as saving a species from going extinct productive, even if it doesn't contribute to a CEO buying a bigger yatch or adding another level to his or her mansion.
I don't measure value in terms of how many pens children working in assembly lines create, I measure it by how individuals changed the world we live in.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Creating jobs is meaningless if the buisness is inefficient. Creating worthless jobs justs adds unnecessary costs to the production and causing unnecessary inflation.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Every time another human is born, they create work. They will need to be fed, educated, given health care, et al. To meet these demands for more work, more jobs will be created.

 

[ainwood]

Let me clarify, when I say "unproductive" I am probably thinking of something completly different then you are. According to your definition it is true that it is more productive to use child labor and run plantaions since it produces more per time spent. My definition of production, on th other hand, is that the more something is productive the more it contributes to society and the advancement of humankind. In other words I don't consider the rate at which you expand your CEO's wallat, I consider something such as saving a species from going extinct productive, even if it doesn't contribute to a CEO buying a bigger yatch or adding another level to his or her mansion.
I don't measure value in terms of how many pens children working in assembly lines create, I measure it by how individuals changed the world we live in.

Seems that you must have a fairly narrow view of what is productive then.

My view is that production is about converting resources from one form to another to add value to them (be they natural resources, human resources etc). Creating wealth is not the goal, but it is the incentive. People don't tend to be interested in doing much without incentivisation.

How do you judge what 'contributes to society and the advancement of humankind'? Would a cure for cancer be productive? Because a company investing in cancer research needs to make a profit in order to fund their research.

 

[amadeus]

This phrase always has somewhat irked me.

It seems to me those who's priority it is to "create jobs" are basically encouraging industry to be as inefficent as possible. The less efficient an industry, the more jobs are created.

This is the Soviet-style model of economics, and I think we're all aware of how that experiment turned out. (For those of you unfamiliar, *KABOOM!*)

What about adding value? I suppose in an affluent nation creating actual value can come second to creating unnecessary jobs.

When efficiency (and productivity) increases, the value for the customer increases. By causing the company to hire more labor to get the same work done, the prices of the end product are hiked and fewer people are able to afford that good or service.

In the past when I was a bit more cynical and used to litter and leave my shoping cart in the parking lot (instead of respectfully wheeling it back to the store as I do now), if anyone (usually a friend) confronted me on it I would say, "Ah, don't critisize, I'm "creating jobs" ".

Actually, you were causing people to lose jobs, because leaving the cart unattended in the parking lot would require a store employee to retrieve it, thus causing him to lose valuable time doing productive work. You then in turn caused the company to hire more workers to retrieve stray carts, bringing the profits of the company down. The company was then unable to expand into new markets, create new jobs, and lower prices.

Also, does it even seem that in many, many industries, people could work half as many hours and get the same amount done? Getting paid by the hour seems to encourage employee laziness, inefficiency and low moral (not to mention fatigue). I've had quite a few retail jobs myself and I defintely felt alot more productive, efficient and happy working full-time than part-time.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to constantly monitor employee performance, so you simply have to make a judgement on the kind of value the company receives from their time. Lazy workers will generally get the lowest pay.

One more thought before I let this brew ferment into life - wasn't technology supposed to make life easier? Or have things been delibrately designed somehow (perhaps unconsiously) to keep people even busier than ever? Do you ever think that perhaps people actually don't want (or can't handle) a large amount of free time?

Visit the Amish. Lovely people with happy lives, but it isn't by any stretch of the means easier.

A lot of questions I know, curious to see how people tie them all together.

I did the best I could.

 

[Narz]

I would like to visit the Amish some day. I'm sure I could learn alot from them (though I wouldn't necessarily want to live exacatlly like them).

 

[amadeus]

My point was not about happiness, it was more about hard labor. The Amish do, by far, a lot more of that than many of could ever imagine doing.

 

[Narz]

Alot of folks without modern technology don't work nearly as hard as the Amish do. The Amish have their work ethic as a major part of their religion.

I read once that the Native Americans didn't even have a word for "work" in their language before the European invasion.

Hey, who's the guy in your av anyway? Just curious.

 

[amadeus]

Didn't you ask me that one time before? Anyway, it's Matthew Lesko.

He's the guy in the question mark suit that always goes around talking about how you can get government money for "free."

 

[Red Stranger]

I agree. Creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs is just inefficient. But creating jobs to supply a new market is a good thing.