Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Government does not create jobs

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 12:28:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How is this statement true?
It is a common saying among small/no government types, but how is this objectively true?
What is the basis for this claim? (since it sounds like something someone said once and it caught on, but the original speaker said it differently or in another context)

Sure, police could be replaced with private security firms, so that is likely null.
But, think of Social Security:
You have a bureaucracy that needs to be staffed
You have people who navigate said bureaucracy (such as lawyers or financial planners)

How is that not job creation?

Do they mean the government ought not be creating jobs, as it is not the duty of government to do so, or even that government work is less efficient with resources?
That may be true, but then people should say this.
My work here is, finally, done.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 1:16:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 12:28:41 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How is this statement true?
It is a common saying among small/no government types, but how is this objectively true?
What is the basis for this claim? (since it sounds like something someone said once and it caught on, but the original speaker said it differently or in another context)

Sure, police could be replaced with private security firms, so that is likely null.
But, think of Social Security:
You have a bureaucracy that needs to be staffed
You have people who navigate said bureaucracy (such as lawyers or financial planners)

How is that not job creation?

Do they mean the government ought not be creating jobs, as it is not the duty of government to do so, or even that government work is less efficient with resources?
That may be true, but then people should say this.

I think it is more so a reference to the creation of jobs in the private sector. For instance, the government could do this by expanding a highway, and thus creating new jobs.

The problem is that the jobs directly created by the government are funded by our taxes. They don't have a positive benefit for the economy, like a totally private entity would.

At least, that's how I understand it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 1:43:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How about this common scenario.

Governor of state X says .. Hay company Y, come to my state and employ 1000 people and you will get 10 years of tax free operation.

Technically, didn't the government initiate the creation of those jobs?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 6:29:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 1:16:32 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 12:28:41 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How is this statement true?
It is a common saying among small/no government types, but how is this objectively true?
What is the basis for this claim? (since it sounds like something someone said once and it caught on, but the original speaker said it differently or in another context)

Sure, police could be replaced with private security firms, so that is likely null.
But, think of Social Security:
You have a bureaucracy that needs to be staffed
You have people who navigate said bureaucracy (such as lawyers or financial planners)

How is that not job creation?

Do they mean the government ought not be creating jobs, as it is not the duty of government to do so, or even that government work is less efficient with resources?
That may be true, but then people should say this.

I think it is more so a reference to the creation of jobs in the private sector. For instance, the government could do this by expanding a highway, and thus creating new jobs.

The problem is that the jobs directly created by the government are funded by our taxes. They don't have a positive benefit for the economy, like a totally private entity would.

At least, that's how I understand it.

I don't see the difference in paying the government to do something and paying a private company to do something in terms of the economy.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 11:18:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 11:21:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 1:43:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
How about this common scenario.

Governor of state X says .. Hay company Y, come to my state and employ 1000 people and you will get 10 years of tax free operation.

Technically, didn't the government initiate the creation of those jobs?

No. Technically, the company created the jobs. The government just got out of the way.

If the government wasn't there, the jobs would be created. It's because of the government's taxes that the government destroys jobs. What you have is a negation of a negation, not an affirmation.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 11:28:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 6:29:36 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I don't see the difference in paying the government to do something and paying a private company to do something in terms of the economy.

You might have a point there.

A lot of companies are built around ruggedly individualist bullying. They're managed by pragmatists who treat workers like garbage. The government can be a counterbalance to this by pushing the private sector back...

...but all companies aren't that way, and all government doesn't counterbalance. It just pushes in the first place.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 6:24:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 11:28:51 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/14/2014 6:29:36 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I don't see the difference in paying the government to do something and paying a private company to do something in terms of the economy.

You might have a point there.

A lot of companies are built around ruggedly individualist bullying. They're managed by pragmatists who treat workers like garbage. The government can be a counterbalance to this by pushing the private sector back...

...but all companies aren't that way, and all government doesn't counterbalance. It just pushes in the first place.

What the hell are you talking about? Furthermore:

Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.

Are you trying to say that if the government was there, the same jobs would have been created anyway?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:45:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 11:18:37 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.

And what is a crew going from one franchise to another to evaluate compliance called?
The larger the anything, the larger the bureaucracy.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 8:48:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 11:21:51 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/14/2014 1:43:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
How about this common scenario.

Governor of state X says .. Hay company Y, come to my state and employ 1000 people and you will get 10 years of tax free operation.

Technically, didn't the government initiate the creation of those jobs?

No. Technically, the company created the jobs. The government just got out of the way.

If the government wasn't there, the jobs would be created. It's because of the government's taxes that the government destroys jobs. What you have is a negation of a negation, not an affirmation.

That is not entirely true. Businesses are competitive. The absence of subsidies for many means they will not start a business.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. Elected politicians who have expertise in community organizing are picking and choosing the supply for the economy in an unpredictable way (like Stalin's 5 year plan). That is to say, for example, the government gave Martco, a plywood company (where I worked long ago), great incentives to expand on the Louisiana lumber industry. http://washingtonexaminer.com...

But if you look at this list http://www.thomasnet.com... there are already a ton of suppliers in Louisiana.

As a matter of fact, employees had to take a huge salary cut when the tax subsidies ran out because the competition was driving the prices (profits) down.

But there is no denying that that business would NEVER had decided on it's own if every OTHER plywood company had the exact same subsidy (or taxbreaks) to build a plant in Chopin. That is to say, if the government got out of the way of all of the other producers of plywood, Martco would NOT have added an additional plant in Chopin. The demand just wasn't there to support it.

This is clearly a case of the government creating jobs in the private sector. It happens all the time!
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 11:35:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 6:24:30 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/14/2014 11:28:51 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/14/2014 6:29:36 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I don't see the difference in paying the government to do something and paying a private company to do something in terms of the economy.

You might have a point there.

A lot of companies are built around ruggedly individualist bullying. They're managed by pragmatists who treat workers like garbage. The government can be a counterbalance to this by pushing the private sector back...

...but all companies aren't that way, and all government doesn't counterbalance. It just pushes in the first place.

What the hell are you talking about? Furthermore:

Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.

Are you trying to say that if the government was there, the same jobs would have been created anyway?

I don't talk with people who are passive-aggressively sarcastic. Ciao.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 11:38:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:45:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/14/2014 11:18:37 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.

And what is a crew going from one franchise to another to evaluate compliance called?
The larger the anything, the larger the bureaucracy.

That's just called due diligence to make sure people are doing their jobs.

I mean don't get me wrong. There is value in regulation since we can't always expect businesses to evaluate themselves...

...but there's a difference between efficient regulation versus bloated bureaucracy or public works. Those government jobs which ought to exist don't exist just to create jobs. They exist because they're making sure we live in a civic responsible society.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 11:51:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 8:48:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/14/2014 11:21:51 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/14/2014 1:43:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
How about this common scenario.

Governor of state X says .. Hay company Y, come to my state and employ 1000 people and you will get 10 years of tax free operation.

Technically, didn't the government initiate the creation of those jobs?

No. Technically, the company created the jobs. The government just got out of the way.

If the government wasn't there, the jobs would be created. It's because of the government's taxes that the government destroys jobs. What you have is a negation of a negation, not an affirmation.

That is not entirely true. Businesses are competitive. The absence of subsidies for many means they will not start a business.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. Elected politicians who have expertise in community organizing are picking and choosing the supply for the economy in an unpredictable way (like Stalin's 5 year plan). That is to say, for example, the government gave Martco, a plywood company (where I worked long ago), great incentives to expand on the Louisiana lumber industry. http://washingtonexaminer.com...

But if you look at this list http://www.thomasnet.com... there are already a ton of suppliers in Louisiana.

As a matter of fact, employees had to take a huge salary cut when the tax subsidies ran out because the competition was driving the prices (profits) down.

But there is no denying that that business would NEVER had decided on it's own if every OTHER plywood company had the exact same subsidy (or taxbreaks) to build a plant in Chopin. That is to say, if the government got out of the way of all of the other producers of plywood, Martco would NOT have added an additional plant in Chopin. The demand just wasn't there to support it.

This is clearly a case of the government creating jobs in the private sector. It happens all the time!

Subsidies come from taxes, debt, or inflating the value of currency though. Again, all you have is a negation of a negation, not an affirmation.

"Elected politicians who have expertise in community organizing" are just jerks too. You're talking about charming, charismatic, intimidating, wise guys, lazy bums, and spoiled brats who lie, cheat, and steal from the people in order to turn them against one another. You're talking about people who herd others into appealing to folk community common sense while discriminating against the diversity of human nature.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 11:59:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 11:51:18 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Subsidies come from taxes, debt, or inflating the value of currency though. Again, all you have is a negation of a negation, not an affirmation.

"Elected politicians who have expertise in community organizing" are just jerks too. You're talking about charming, charismatic, intimidating, wise guys, lazy bums, and spoiled brats who lie, cheat, and steal from the people in order to turn them against one another. You're talking about people who herd others into appealing to folk community common sense while discriminating against the diversity of human nature.

But there is no denying that that business would NEVER had decided on it's own if every OTHER plywood company had the exact same taxbreak to build a plant in Chopin. That is to say, if the government got out of the way of all of the other producers of plywood, Martco would NOT have added an additional plant in Chopin. The demand just wasn't there to support it.

Were it not for the government's grant of taxfreedom, that business would never have existed.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:03:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well yea sure, but that doesn't deal with the big picture. You're talking about special interests where politicians are prejudiced to some before others.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:05:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:03:14 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Well yea sure, but that doesn't deal with the big picture. You're talking about special interests where politicians are prejudiced to some before others.

Of course it doesn't deal with the big picture, but the tack is not to deny that the government creates private sector jobs, but that it is incredibly inefficient at it.

Just look at Obama's clean energy subsidy fiascos.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:09:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 11:38:09 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:45:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/14/2014 11:18:37 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.

And what is a crew going from one franchise to another to evaluate compliance called?
The larger the anything, the larger the bureaucracy.

That's just called due diligence to make sure people are doing their jobs.

I mean don't get me wrong. There is value in regulation since we can't always expect businesses to evaluate themselves...

...but there's a difference between efficient regulation versus bloated bureaucracy or public works. Those government jobs which ought to exist don't exist just to create jobs. They exist because they're making sure we live in a civic responsible society.

So, we are in agreement that government does create jobs.
The issue is if they should be, or if those jobs are worthwhile.

So, what do you say to people who respond to something you say as "government doesn't create jobs". It is a false platitude.
My work here is, finally, done.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:12:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:05:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:03:14 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Well yea sure, but that doesn't deal with the big picture. You're talking about special interests where politicians are prejudiced to some before others.

Of course it doesn't deal with the big picture, but the tack is not to deny that the government creates private sector jobs, but that it is incredibly inefficient at it.

Just look at Obama's clean energy subsidy fiascos.

Exactly. Government jobs aren't supposed to be economically focused. They're supposed to be socially focused in making sure we live in a civic responsible society, not to socially engineer that society through central planning.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:16:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:09:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/15/2014 11:38:09 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:45:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/14/2014 11:18:37 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.

And what is a crew going from one franchise to another to evaluate compliance called?
The larger the anything, the larger the bureaucracy.

That's just called due diligence to make sure people are doing their jobs.

I mean don't get me wrong. There is value in regulation since we can't always expect businesses to evaluate themselves...

...but there's a difference between efficient regulation versus bloated bureaucracy or public works. Those government jobs which ought to exist don't exist just to create jobs. They exist because they're making sure we live in a civic responsible society.

So, we are in agreement that government does create jobs.
The issue is if they should be, or if those jobs are worthwhile.

So, what do you say to people who respond to something you say as "government doesn't create jobs". It is a false platitude.

Well the point is that when someone mentions "jobs" before anything else, someone seems to be economically focused. Someone isn't setting up premises for those jobs. Someone is just referring to more jobs.

Those who don't believe in that are going to contest that economic focus.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:18:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:12:19 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:05:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:03:14 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Well yea sure, but that doesn't deal with the big picture. You're talking about special interests where politicians are prejudiced to some before others.

Of course it doesn't deal with the big picture, but the tack is not to deny that the government creates private sector jobs, but that it is incredibly inefficient at it.

Just look at Obama's clean energy subsidy fiascos.

Exactly. Government jobs aren't supposed to be economically focused. They're supposed to be socially focused in making sure we live in a civic responsible society, not to socially engineer that society through central planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(Soviet_Union)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:20:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:16:38 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:09:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/15/2014 11:38:09 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/15/2014 8:45:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/14/2014 11:18:37 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.

And what is a crew going from one franchise to another to evaluate compliance called?
The larger the anything, the larger the bureaucracy.

That's just called due diligence to make sure people are doing their jobs.

I mean don't get me wrong. There is value in regulation since we can't always expect businesses to evaluate themselves...

...but there's a difference between efficient regulation versus bloated bureaucracy or public works. Those government jobs which ought to exist don't exist just to create jobs. They exist because they're making sure we live in a civic responsible society.

So, we are in agreement that government does create jobs.
The issue is if they should be, or if those jobs are worthwhile.

So, what do you say to people who respond to something you say as "government doesn't create jobs". It is a false platitude.

Well the point is that when someone mentions "jobs" before anything else, someone seems to be economically focused. Someone isn't setting up premises for those jobs. Someone is just referring to more jobs.

Those who don't believe in that are going to contest that economic focus.

My point is tea party/anarchist/libertarian types will oft say "government doesn't create jobs", which is a lie. They should be saying "government created pointless jobs" or "government crowded out private jobs", but they don't. That is my issue, and the purpose of the OP.

It's just more advocates for X, which hurt the cause for X.
It's amazing that people don't realize the zealous sheep they pander too actually hurt their cause.
My work here is, finally, done.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:26:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:18:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:12:19 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:05:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:03:14 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Well yea sure, but that doesn't deal with the big picture. You're talking about special interests where politicians are prejudiced to some before others.

Of course it doesn't deal with the big picture, but the tack is not to deny that the government creates private sector jobs, but that it is incredibly inefficient at it.

Just look at Obama's clean energy subsidy fiascos.

Exactly. Government jobs aren't supposed to be economically focused. They're supposed to be socially focused in making sure we live in a civic responsible society, not to socially engineer that society through central planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(Soviet_Union)

Pretty much, but you don't need a Stalinist dictatorship to do that. You can also have a democratic clique that uses popularity contests to discriminate against those they don't like by making their lifestyles a pain in the neck.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:31:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:20:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
My point is tea party/anarchist/libertarian types will oft say "government doesn't create jobs", which is a lie. They should be saying "government created pointless jobs" or "government crowded out private jobs", but they don't. That is my issue, and the purpose of the OP.

It's just more advocates for X, which hurt the cause for X.
It's amazing that people don't realize the zealous sheep they pander too actually hurt their cause.

Eh... that's a very basic take on politics.

Libertarians make the case they do because of Occam's Razor and trying to distinguish themselves from anti-intellectual conservatives.

The thing is those who create economically focused jobs are using Occam's Razor to create a simplified economy where people are sufficiently taken care of. In response, they use Occam's Razor back by focusing on the simple point of how jobs are primarily economic before anything else.

Likewise, if they focused on "pointless" jobs, then they would have to get into the argument of what qualifies as a point. The problem here is libertarians are socially liberal. Many people believe what qualifies is a matter of opinion, so it would expose them to looking like hypocrites since liberalism is about recognizing the diversity of people's opinions.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 6:03:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Governments can create jobs, but jobs don't necessarily create prosperity. What we want is more prosperity, ie. more resources available per person, because that is what helps us survive and makes our lives better. The government could employ 100% of the population by putting everyone in the military, but since those soldiers would not be growing food, building houses, etc., those jobs would not do any good. Since resources in our environment are limited, we want the system that best rewards people who find ways to sustainably produce more resources. There are only so many ways to do that, and governments can only do so many things that private companies aren't already doing. The capitalist nations of the US and western Europe have been more successful at that than the communist USSR and China, and part of that is because of the difference between how markets work and how governments work.

In a market, your survival is determined by how much money you can make. Without government, your only source of income is your customers/employer, which means in order to make money you have to provide your customers/your employer's customers with things they want and need enough to give you money for them. Since the people who are best at providing things to others end up with more money, you end up with a reciprocal system where people do good things for people who do good things for people.

In a democratically elected government, a politician's survival is determined by how many votes they can get. How many votes they can get are at least partly dependent on how much good they can do for people. However, since each vote is equal, their survival merely depends on the sheer number of people they can get to support them, not on whether the people supporting them are actually contributing something to the survival and wellbeing of the rest of the population.

While there are problems with marketplaces that can potentially be helped by government intervention, governments have their own problems that affect their ability to positively intervene, and those problems get worse the bigger they get. When the US Constitution was first written, the federal government, the states, and local governments each had a few strictly defined things they were in charge of, so when you voted for a politician, you were voting on those few issues specifically. Today, governments have dozens of new tasks they're expected to take care of, many of which overlap at different levels of government. If you want to tell the government what its educational policies should be, you have to vote for someone at the local level, someone at the state level, and someone at the federal level, because all of them have a say in education policy. Two of those three people also have a say in things like gay rights and abortion that are hot button issues, and many people vote for someone with bad ideas or too little experience on important things but who believes the right thing on something else. The less any individual branch of government is doing, the easier it is to ensure that branch of government is acting in the people's best interest.

tl;dr: Sure, governments can create jobs, but creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs does no good, and markets are usually better at creating actual prosperity than governments.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 9:01:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 11:35:23 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/15/2014 6:24:30 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/14/2014 11:28:51 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 7/14/2014 6:29:36 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I don't see the difference in paying the government to do something and paying a private company to do something in terms of the economy.

You might have a point there.

A lot of companies are built around ruggedly individualist bullying. They're managed by pragmatists who treat workers like garbage. The government can be a counterbalance to this by pushing the private sector back...

...but all companies aren't that way, and all government doesn't counterbalance. It just pushes in the first place.

What the hell are you talking about? Furthermore:

Government is funded by taxes and creates bureaucracy. Those taxes need to come from somewhere, and that bureaucracy needs to bureaucratize over something.

In and of itself, government doesn't create jobs. It creates jobs about jobs.

Are you trying to say that if the government was there, the same jobs would have been created anyway?

I don't talk with people who are passive-aggressively sarcastic. Ciao.

I really don't see how asking you to clarify what it is that you believe could be an example of passive-aggressive sarcasm. It's a pity because I enjoy talking to narcissistic conservatives, i.e. almost everyone around here.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 3:18:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 1:43:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
How about this common scenario.

Governor of state X says .. Hay company Y, come to my state and employ 1000 people and you will get 10 years of tax free operation.

Technically, didn't the government initiate the creation of those jobs?

That's outside what the quote is saying. That's how you create jobs... Convincing the private sector to expand. The quote is talking about the government directly trying to subsidize jobs.

The quote may not be objectively true for all cases, but it's poor conduct to take a generalized quote and over-extend it to everything and all things in hopes of find those few cases where it doesn't fit, and using them to disprove the quote.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 7:36:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 12:28:41 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How is this statement true?
This is what the democrats said to refute the outrageous statement that "Obama isn't creating jobs"
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 4:20:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sure, the government can create jobs. All they have to do is pay a bunch of people to grab a shovel and dig a giant hole, then pay another group of people to come in and fill it up, then repeat ad infinitum. Voila! Jobs.

What the government doesn't do is create wealth. All it can do is either redistribute it or destroy it, which is what always happens when the government says they created jobs. Wealth comes from the private sector.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 6:10:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 4:20:10 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Sure, the government can create jobs. All they have to do is pay a bunch of people to grab a shovel and dig a giant hole, then pay another group of people to come in and fill it up, then repeat ad infinitum. Voila! Jobs.

What the government doesn't do is create wealth. All it can do is either redistribute it or destroy it, which is what always happens when the government says they created jobs. Wealth comes from the private sector.

Replace wealth with sustainable prosperity and we pretty much have the same opinion. Governments are good at creating economic activity, they can increase your GDP a lot and create all kinds of jobs, but the more they manipulate monetary policy, the less accurate GDP becomes as a measure of prosperity, and government doesn't have any more options for ways they can generate prosperity than the private sector.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 12:47:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Government creates its own jobs, but growth is more important and the private sector has been proven at doing it better than socialist economies. Take Britain in the 1970s for example when it was declining vs. after.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...