People don't just create jobs, it's not that simple

People don't just create jobs, it's not that simple

A lot of people seem to think that people make jobs. That wherever people are, jobs will be created. It's not that simple.

You can see that wage levels are much higher in some areas than other areas.
So there is something else going on.

It's not just wages for the lowest paid workers either. There's just more money in some areas.
More middle class opportunity in some areas but not so much others. (And not just talking about somewhere out in the middle of nowhere with low population)

Why does this matter? There are several reasons.
One of them might be the connection between economics and immigration. Just adding more people isn't necessarily going to automatically increase economic output in proportion to number of people.

Also, if we could figure out why some areas are more rich and others poor, if we could have a better understanding of why that is, it might be possible for the government to be able to much more efficiently implement policies that could help bring prosperity, and spread it out. Right now, with economic opportunities so concentrated into some areas it's contributing to housing shortage problems, due to lack of available space.

 

with AI and Foreign outsourcing, it's gonna get much worse

 

Well, at this point I think they've already outsourced all the jobs they can and want to. (I may be wrong about that)

But the thing is, as the people in society get poorer and there are less prosperous middle and upper middle class consumers, that's going to create even more pressure on companies to turn to foreign outsourcing to cut costs. When your consumers have less money to spend, profit margins go down, and you start having to worry more about business expenses (per customer costs) to be able to make a profit. Perhaps outsourcing will mean that some aspects of the quality of the products and services might go down, but your customers may not be able to afford better if they each do not have much money.

And sadly, I think a lot of what is preventing even more outsourcing than there already is is inefficiencies in the corporate structure. The mid-upper level management wants to have workers in the office to actually justify their jobs and leadership.
Ironically it's the better paying middle class office jobs that are most easily outsourced to remote foreign workers, or replaced by artificial intelligence computer algorithms. Most of the jobs were people have to be physically present seem to pay less.

The society was warned about this in the early 1990s, that there would likely be unintended effects to converting the economy to be based primarily on the service industries.
It's unrealistic to expect everyone to become dentists, doctors and lawyers (and in any case there are arguably too many lawyers already).
And you'll notice that most of the few last remaining good paying jobs are protected from foreign competition by government laws or stringent licensing requirements. (The pharmaceutical industry is one example)

 

much outsourcing still happening, but you're right, the less money people have, the less they buy, the less taxes are paid, ect.... without debt, that means the US goes BK

 

another thread:
Retail space disappearing, giving way to more residential (July 30, 2020 )

Isn't it interesting? Retail and office businesses have been closing down and disappearing, yet all the time more high-density housing keeps getting built in many of these same areas; there are housing shortages, none of these homes are empty.

Some will try to blame online shopping and remote working, which indeed are a small part of the explanation, but I believe those are mostly just red herrings. More people does not mean more money.

 

over population and no jobs.... bad combination....

Excessive imports, excessive foreign outsourcing, excessive use of AI... all gonna mean the end of Capitalism as we know it

 

It's not hard to see where things are heading...

Unemployment near crisis levels in South Africa

 

Where did you get that idea? All the statistics I have seen indicate that substantial numbers of homes are empty. I live in one of the most unaffordable cities in the world, and I see empty homes on almost every block.

 

There do exist many empty homes, but most of these empty homes are not in the high cost of housing areas.
For example, coastal Southern California, the surrounding San Francisco Bay Area, all along the Puget sound around Seattle, the entire metropolis stretching all the way from Boston to Washington D.C., and definitely including New York City. The surrounding Chicago area. All around the three biggest cities in Texas. And many other cities like Denver. In these areas, the percent of vacant homes are low. Empty homes are not the problem causing the housing shortage.

Now, if you were referring to some other parts of the United States, I might be open to considering your claim. Give some examples of areas that you had in mind.

I am aware of some vacant apartment buildings in NYC, but those are because of stupid laws that make it unprofitable and prevent landlords from renting those apartments out. Where there is a rent cap but the owner can't afford to fix and update the building to pass inspection. I assume you are not referring to this.

 

Obviously most are not, but it's still far from "none" in the high-cost areas.

Empty homes and the housing shortage are both caused by the exorbitant over-subsidization of idle landowning.

Right. There are lots of absurd laws that prevent property owners from offering accommodation. Most such laws are intended to force prices up, and are quite effective in doing so.

 

I was watching a documentary about Egypt. There is a problem of overcrowding in Cairo, so the government spent a large amount of money building a city with infrastructure out in the desert. The government built many apartment buildings. But today these apartment buildings are only 20 percent occupied. It's not a bad city, but people say there are not enough jobs in this city.

This was despite the fact that some wealthier people established a small area within the city, with small mansions surrounded by tall fences.

So simply moving people to an area will not necessarily create jobs. Even when government builds cities and buildings.

This proves that people do not simply create jobs. Things do not actually work that way.


Here's an excerpt from a report that gives more detail on the situation:

There is a clear mismatch at the regional or governorate level between government housing supply and housing need. ... new housing schemes may be located in awkward, remote, or otherwise undesirable locations. As can be seen in Table A-4, significantly higher than average concentrations of government housing (as expressed in units built per 1996 resident household) are found in the frontier governorates and in Port Said, Ismailia, Suez, and Damietta.

For those governorates which have publicly-owned hinterlands, major land tracts allocated for subsidized housing are located mainly in desert sites which are usually far from existing densely populated agglomerations. Decades of urban expansion through supply-side State land policies have already used up or locked out those near-fringe desert lands which would be best suited for public housing, and there is an ever increasing centripetal search for new sites, usually accompanied by stiff competition among different State entities.8 As pointed out elsewhere,9 within and around Egypt’s urban agglomerations residential location is of crucial importance, especially for the poorer segments of urban populations to which subsidized housing programs are theoretically targeted. Distance creates a serious direct (and rising) transport cost to all members of a family, and there are a host of indirect costs (especially loss of time, hassles, lack of social networks, lack of informal business opportunities etc.) associated with living in remote housing estates. It is no wonder that vacancies in these projects exceed 50 percent of all units recently built. There is already a serious transport crisis faced by the vast majority of residents in new towns and those in far-flung housing projects in the governorates who do not own cars.10 In these estates, government public transport is practically non-existent and the private micro-bus system cannot provide convenient service due to a lack of the necessary critical mass of customers. And heavily subsidized fuel prices, which until 2006 have kept micro-bus fares affordable (at least for shorter distances) cannot be expected to continue forever. There are various schemes to improve public transportation to the new towns (rapid light rail is being proposed to link both 10th of Ramadan and Sixth of October with Cairo proper),11 but either fares will be completely unaffordable or the State will have to structure massive subsidies to make these new modes attractive. Experience has shown that government housing estates which are remote and badly located (in terms of access from major towns and transport corridors and in terms of proximity to popular and dense urban areas) tend to remain largely vacant and depressed for years, regardless of the success in distributing units.​

US Aid - Review of Egyptian Subsidized Housing Programs and Lessons Learned, 2007
publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for
International Development, prepared by David Sims


transcript from video:

But are the government "New Towns" the solution, or an even bigger problem?

"With unemployment skyrocketing and unrest everywhere, these poor neighborhoods are the first to be radicalized. Even in the best of times foreigners are not welcome here. In an effort to solve the city's growing population the government has zoned eight new towns outside of Cairo, smack in the middle of the desert. Here the roads are wide, and smooth. There's no traffic, and plenty of parking. There's even a tree or two. The government already put in all the infrastructure: sewage, electricity, and water. At incredible expense. And then built tens of thousands of apartments. Most of which have been standing empty for so long, they're falling apart. Some of Cairo's new towns have only 20 percent occupancy. It's because there are so few jobs out here. And no public transportation. But a few areas have become wealthy enclaves. Luxurious gated communities, hidden behind walls of manicured greenery. With swimming pools, water-intensive lawns, and lots and lots of flowers. People to trim your hedges, collect your garbage, and country club membership. And most importantly, malls. Filled with American franchises."​

gko92589yow - TikTok
https://www.tiktok.com/@gko92589yow...1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7258393194194667050

"Cairo: Chaotic Construction, Close-knit Communities", Our Human Planet

Cairo is one of the densest cities in the world. Wander through its crowded streets and it looks like there's no room to shoehorn in even one more apartment. But are the government "New Towns" the solution, or an even bigger problem?

Our Human Planet
Explore a side of our human planet that few outsiders have ever seen. For twenty years, award-winning National Geographic filmmaker Karin Muller has traveled world alone.

 

True: people with no purchasing power, and no access to opportunities to earn any, don't create jobs. You can see this in any large refugee camp.

 

Explain to us precisely why refugees in a refugee camp can't create jobs.

It sounds like you are saying that just people alone cannot really create "opportunities" for other people. So it is about more than just people.

And "purchasing power" just sounds like a vague way of beating around the bush. We all know even if we gave all those people some artificial currency to use amongst only themselves as a means of exchange, it probably wouldn't really change anything.

 

They have nothing to pay employees with. Duh.

Right: people need access to opportunity. At a minimum, they have to have some way of accessing or creating purchasing power. Otherwise, they are like the proverbial Irish women who made a precarious living taking in each other's washing.

It just means something that can be exchanged for desired goods and services.

What would the artificial currency be based on? Why would anyone want it enough to work for it?

 

Many do understand why. Unfortunately, this isn't a majority of the population to include yourself. Why do you identify this as a problem? Why is your kneejerk assumption this is something best ameliorated by government intervention? I can assure you this is almost NEVER the best solution, even if it were correctly perceived as a problem in need of redress. In this case it isn't a problem.

 

JOBS ARE WITHOUT LIMIT!!!

If you work on improving your yard do you ever finish? You mow, you edge, perhaps put in new sod. Maybe add some flower beds and brick line around the trees. Do the hedges, replace the fence, etc. Can you ever say there is nothing left to be done which could improve your yard? What about adding a new pool or solar panels? The potential list is endless. There is no such thing as a lack of jobs or work to do.

The issue is, "Is the incentive to do those jobs worth the cost in labor and scarce resources." At some point you will say there is nothing more WORTH DOING.

If you are competing with unskilled immigrant labor I suspect Biden's border policy will limit your prospects for wage growth as the wages available may fall below your valuation of the efforts to do the work (like you said). The reasons for economic prospects in any particular area or occupational field are almost countless. For instance Seattle has a 15$/hour minimum wage (soon to be 30$/hour). Low wage employment is therefore quite scarce. There are many making 15$/hour, but most were jobs making 15$/hour or damn near that before they increased the minimum wage. The jobs which used to make 7.5$/hour have been drastically curtailed. Same goes for many regions. Farming opportunities in the Saudi Desert are quite scarce. It is much cheaper to grow food in Kansas. Work drilling for oil in the Himalayas is likely scarce. New York is perfectly situated as a port city. As is long beech California. Texas has lots of oil very near the refineries and Galveston port. Each is strategically situated to provide valuable scarce products.

Again, fight the kneejerk reaction to look to the government for a solution. Why do you even see this as a problem? Does every town or citizen in America have to have equal pay? Equal wage prospects? Some people prefer to live in Montana in the fresh air and countryside. If a particularly prosperous and economically situated area has enticed people to relocate there, they each freely make that decision and have reasons you and I couldn't begin to know about. Perhaps their elderly mother lives nearby. Therefore, we needn't interfere or 2nd-guess their reasoning as we certainly don't understand the factors. As population densities increase housing prices do tend to rise. But they know that. I'm sure they take that into their decision making process. They obviously find this better suited to their life choices. Perhaps it is just straight up greed and they are gravitating towards the highest bidder in their chosen occupational field. The companies offering the employment know the cost of labor in the city and may decide to raise wages in more expensive areas because "that is where the oil is (or whatever)". Businesses will leave high crime areas or areas where minimum wage laws eliminate any potential for profit. Some will instead decide to automate and eliminate the need for expensive unskilled workers as this becomes the cheaper and more competitive alternative. As businesses move out and taxes are increased, this too will cause an exodus.

Why is it everybody and everywhere has to have equal opportunity in your eyes. You don't have the omnipotent capability to even evaluate what is equal and what is not. Furthermore, in most cases where such decisions are well established you will find their ARE NO perfect solutions. Government is likely the last entity to find them on the rare occasion they do exist. Government invariably just screws it up and makes it worse because, like you, they have no hope of understanding why all the countless free citizens and free-enterprises do what they do. What you will find as you grow older an get more familiar with some of those reasons you will begin to realize the rare occasion where there is a perfect solution it will already have been put into action. For the remaining 99.9% of the decisions there are trade-offs. Doing one which may improve some facet of our lives invariably has impacts which are detrimental. "Food is getting expensive. Let's hand out free coupons to everybody. Uh oh! Grocery stores aren't getting paid and refuse to stock the shelves so the poor neighborhood is starving. Let's reimburse the stores with taxpayer money. Uh oh gotta raise taxes. Uh oh taxes too high we will borrow. Uh oh inflation through the roof. Uh oh food consumption has doubled since it is now free and farmers can't supply the demand. Uh oh food prices triple. Uh oh now everyone is having even more trouble affording food at the prices and level of taxation. On and on. Government is NOT the solution and most everything in life involves trade-offs. There is no such thing as a free-lunch. Government doesn't have the capability or information to decide better than The People. Even if you possessed God-like powers to immediately make everything "FAIR and EQUAL" in your eyes every person you know would walk up after you and identify countless errors in your well meaning but fatally flawed decisions which they deem fairer and more equal (whatever that is). My idea of happiness is living in a cave with a warm campfire out in the countryside with a good piece of venison. Everyone must live according to my idea of equality. Oh but I want limits on other people hunting too much of my venison so we have to limit populations. No formication before age 45 (men or women). Gays are free to do as they please since they can't have children that way (I'm pretty sure). If they figure out a way they can't do that either until 45.

Stop assuming there are solutions to everything. All the worlds problems as you see them can't be fixed by government institutions or even corporations.
There are always tradeoffs which no one person can properly value. Those tradeoffs don't affect you and aren't really your business. Leave the decisions as to where people live and how much they earn to the people affected by those decisions. They have the pertinent information as to the values of each trade-off.

We do the best we can. Some people decide shooting up heroin is their preferred lifestyle. In such cases where the rationales are viewed almost universally as lacking cognitive judgement we have laws about compelling them to get assistance. These too have tradeoffs. We collectively decide to provide some limited interference and counseling. If they refuse should we force them? Tradeoffs there too. This isn't communist China... yet.

 

It really comes down to what it means to be an American. We live in the most wonderful country ever formed. It used to be why people immigrated here. Our founding fathers were a rare breed at the most opportune moment in history. They have blessed us and our children with the most wonderful gift. We have a heavy burden ensuring it is passed down to our youth. We have stumbled in this regard. Most of our youth haven't even been taught the purpose of the US Constitution, let alone its contents. But they know how to stuff fake dollar bills into a drag queen's panties by 2nd grade. Something completely beyond the mandate of the department of public education. They are not tasked with social engineering. We reside above a charter (the US Constitution). It is the charter which gives legitimacy to the US government UNDER the stewardship of We The People. It not only constrains the powers We The People have delegated to the government, it defines how it will operate. It is also our solemn oath to each and every other American to offer any and all manner of sacrifice necessary to insure their rights, guaranteed within, are upheld. Too be a real American is a rare breed. It means constant vigilance and the ability to respect the rights of others, as they do ours, allowing them to make the decisions which affect their lives. It means acceptance of the fact we aren't always right and don't have all the answers. An acceptance even the FF were well aware. Nowhere in the Constitution does it delegate the authority to usurp the right of the people to decide what their version of happiness must be. Some decide to live in crowded cities, pay high rents, earn the local wages at whatever their choice of profession might be. Some are young and realize they have yet to acquire the training needed to command a higher salary at the moment. Some are older and command those higher salaries now. Some open successful or failed businesses. It is well beyond the mandate in that charter for the government to dictate those decisions based on what it or someone else (including yourself) might deem more equal based on an ill-informed assessment of the results of their decisions.

 

But it's not so simple as that.
What you are referring to holds true only for basic service jobs.

That is an important part of the economy, to be sure, but a large part of the economy also consists of things that are outside that category.

 

How so? It is true for all types or levels of work. It is only the level of incentive which impacts the employment rate. Prices/wages are signals to the public sent out by the economy as to the costs and values in scarce resources of any particular item or job you can imagine. It is one of the fundamental flaws of planned economies (i.e. socialism/communism). It is the reason socialism is not a viable form of economics. Socialism is inefficient and does not provide for the needs of the people. Even moderate doses of socialism diminish the welfare of the people. "Capitalism works best, why try anything else"? Given the information on-hand, capitalism is as efficient as it can get. The further you stray towards socialism or fascism the worse off society will be as a whole. At the heart of capitalism the fundamental premise is essentially property rights. Reading Jefferson, property rights were foremost in the minds of the founding fathers. More vital even than freedom of religion and speech.

 

Perhaps if we extend it a bit? Instead of you doing the landscaping on your own yard you decide to pay someone. You have an idea in your head as to what each improvement is worth to you. The landscaper gives you a list of prices for each item. For arguments sake the total comes to 1000$. You look through the list and check off all the items and agree to the terms. Now the government raises taxes from 0% to 25% of your income. The landscaper no longer feels it is worth his time for just 1000$. Now he would have to work almost 5 hours to make the same return instead of 4. So now he tells you he will have to charge you 1250$. You too reassess the deal. You make 25$/hour. Previously, in your head, when you imagined the value of 1000 it was a weeks work. That seemed worth it to you in order to have your lawn improvements. However now you realize the price has not only increased by 250$, some of your pay is taken. Now in order to clear the 1250 it won't be a weeks work, it is equivalent to more than 60 hours of work to receive this amount of pay. You look at the list again and realize many of the items on the list are no longer worth the cost. You either decide to forego many of the improvements, or perhaps all of them, or do the improvements yourself (which will likely also cost you more than if you had done it yourself without the increase in tax since the store's costs have gone up too.

Stanley of Morgan Stanley was worth like a Billion$ or something incredible back in the days of the depression. At 70 he was up on his roof replacing his shingles. A friend stopped by and asked him what he was doing. Stanley replied, "Well obviously I'm replacing my shingles"? His friend seemed puzzled, "With all your money"? Stanley replied, "Well the cost to replace my roof is now $10,000... up from $500 just a short time ago. But now Roosevelt has increased the tax rate to 95%. I would be willing to pay $500. I might even begrudgingly have paid $10,000 6 months ago. But do you have any idea how much I must now earn to keep $10,000? My own untaxed sweat is now worth the costs to cover the repair". And he was right. He would have had to earn $200,000 in order to keep $10,000 to cover a roof repair that was recently $500. Is it any wonder that commerce and opportunities to work for someone else vanished overnight? Look it up, Roosevelt increased the tax rate to 95%. It was likely the CAUSE of the Great Depression. He got elected due to a market crash. In all likelihood it would have just caused a recession. But with a 95% tax rate who is going to work or pay anyone else to work for them? Better off to stand in a soup line.

 

How about availability of land near desirable locations where good job opportunities exist?

Like I mentioned, there are some places that have good job opportunities, and other places that do not have good job opportunities, even many places in the U.S. that have lots of old houses that are crumbling and falling apart, because people don't want to live there, and the people that do live there do not have enough money to upkeep the houses and make repairs.
Why is that? You really need to think about that. Because what you are saying is not the full story.

 

The land is owned by someone. At least if it is in the US. It is owned by a person or corporation. It is SOMEONE's property. Even the government is a corporation so whatever land you are referring to it might be government owned. Regardless, local job opportunities are only one reason people might find the property desirable. For the sake of argument, we can assume job opportunity is the only driving demand.

Pretty much all land is for sale for a large enough price. Even when it is government owned, for a large enough price even the GSA will decide to sell it. The reason some land is worth more is because there is a demand (here we assume demand driven by relatively high local wages). People WANT to live there. The reasons for people wanting to live there are likely as long as there are people. The more desirable the location/land the price will go up. This is because it is a limited scarce resource. If you want to be the one to live there instead of someone else then you will pay the price. The owner of the property has an incentive for selling his property for as much as he can. If the demand is high enough, it may make sense for the owner to build a multi-story building if he believes he can recoup the cost to build through rent to multiple buyers. In every case it is the prices which send the signals to all the interested parties. For example if the property owner decides to sell to a single family he might get $1 Million for a prime piece of real estate. He looks into it and discovers if he builds a multi-story building (at a cost of $3,000,000) he can rent out to 100 tenants and net $2000 in profit per month per tenant. Doing the math he realizes this will bring in (200,000/month)(12 month/year) = 2,400,000/year. He weighs the $1,000,000 for selling it as a single family plot "as is" against $2,400,000/year and a 3,000,000 mortgage on the building. Seems pretty likely he should build the building. But it goes further. The cost to build the building was also a result of many smaller aggregate costs. Building materials, construction workers wages, etc. If the interest on the $3,000,000 he would need to borrow is too high this could also result in constructing the building becoming economically infeasible. The interest rates are also a measure of the price of borrowing and determined by the scarcity of available capital. What about the risk of having vacant apartments?

The property owner is the one who profits or suffers loss. No government official or individual has his motivation to collect the best information and make the best decision. If his decision is good he gest rewarded. Incidentally, if his decision is good society gets rewarded too. If the multi-story building is the correct choice then we are rewarded by having additional housing for less in rent than it would have cost elsewhere. If the owner makes the wrong decision he will lose money or make less than he otherwise might have. But society is still rewarded when his decision was wrong because those who make poor decisions are pushed out and their reduction in wealth makes future decisions on their part much less significant. If he goes bankrupt his options for wasting our scarce resources in the future are eliminated altogether. For example if he builds the multi-story apartments and it ends up being the wrong decision, it doesn't mean we pay for his mistake. We still end up paying the price determined by the intersection of the supply & demand curves. It just means we would have been even better off if he had sold it as is. Even if it was just poor choices he made as to the decor. But the consumer always pays what it is worth to the consumer, never more. If it isn't worth the price we move elsewhere since we evidently don't value the apartment as much as someone else.

Understand, the consumer benefits from this system as a rule. Everyday, you hire and fire people without so much as a 2nd thought. When you walk into a convenience store and decide to buy a Butterfinger instead of a Snickers you are essentially looking at the resulting work product arrived at through countless decisions before you even entered the store. The wages paid to the workers are one aspect, but peanut purchases and recipes etc. all contribute to the price. That price sends a signal to you indicating what it cost our society to make those two candy bars, including profits or losses to those who invested. If it turns out the aggregate choices made by everyone in society happens to favor the Butterfinger, they will be rewarded while those decision makers and workers at the Snickers factory will suffer. But you as the consumer feel much rewarded when you pay less or take a bite out of your preferred bar. You get to see the result of their efforts and investments AFTER THE FACT and decide who you think provided the largest satisfaction/dollar.

 

It seems like you have lost track of the point.

 

I believe the point was there is not enough available land near desirable locations where good job opportunities exist. If you mean some place like New York (which is an island) then you will have to speak to God about that. There is only so much land on an island until you run into water. But even in New York there is land "available" for the right price. Or is it that you desire "land availability near desirable locations where good job opportunities exist" for little to no money? Now that you can't have.

Why? Because in the US everyone enjoys the right to property. You cannot just go somewhere and set up on someone else's property without compensating them. It is their property and they get to decide what transpires on their property. Your stipulation that the land be desirable and near a place with good job opportunities almost by definition means what you must pay to live there will be higher than a less desirable place like the middle of the painted desert, or in a crumbling city like perhaps Detroit.

 

Which means that if someone wants to access the job opportunities that are accessible from a given location, they have to pay the landowner full market value just for permission to do so -- and as the market price is set at the margin, by the people who are willing to pay the most, a lot of workers will not be able to meet the landowners' demands.

That's not a good assumption. Demand for land is driven by three factors: the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities (which includes but is by no means limited to jobs) and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. You may note the absence from that list of anything the landowner provides.

Right. The supply of land is fixed and is not affected by price. Although there are often legal barriers to purchase, the amount that exists does not change in response to market conditions.

More accurately, it is fixed. The economic implications of that fact can be quite counterintuitive.

You are conflating the owner with the user. While they are usually the same person (or company) for obvious reasons of convenience, their economic roles are completely different: the user charges tenants (or customers, or other sub-users) for the value he provides, while the landowner charges the user for the value government, the community and nature provide.

No, the user. The owner just charges the user the unimproved rental value of the land, and cannot really suffer a loss. If one user doesn't pay the rent, another will.

Again, try to keep the economic roles straight: the landowner qua landowner just collects the location's unimproved market rent from the user (the high bidder). In principle he has no decision to make, no responsibility, and makes no contribution.

Yes, and that is exactly how the market allocates access to jobs: only the high bidders for the locations that confer access to jobs get permission from landowners to have those jobs. And everyone who can't afford to meet the landowners' demand for the market rent has to make do without those jobs. That is why we have unemployment, and why land in markets with the best job opportunities costs so much:

“Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Smith's Invisible Hand. Right.