The idea of creating jobs is fundamentally ridiculous

A job is the status of being assigned a certain problem to solve, be it "we need someone to maintain our power infrastructure" or "someone puked on the floor and it needs to be mopped up".

Creating jobs is creating more problems to solve. We create these problems so that we can give people tokens of value to exchange for resources for solving them. The actual amounts of resources are unchanging. There's enough for everyone. We just refuse to give them to people unless we come up with more unnecessary problems.

Why does nobody ever question this?

 

But you are talking about service related jobs ...
How about manufacturing jobs?
The resources you are referring to are raw resources.
So we need factories, bakeries, agriculture, fishing.

 

I attempted to explain the Theory of Under-consumptionism in one of my campaigns.

What do you think of this idea?

www.BankingSystemFlaws.blogspot.ca/

 

I have read many silly arguments here this is top of the list. Jobs exist because labor of some sort needs to be performed and it requires some one to do it. If no one gets paid to do that job it will only get done if there is some one with a whip or a gun standing over the person doing it. A salary represents a given amount of labor performed at a given task, the amount of that salary is commiserate with the rarity of the skill set necessary to perform that task. Until the invention of the Airplane there were no airplane mechanics. Until the invention of the CNC lathe their were no CNC lathe programmers. Modern societies create and destroy jobs with frequency. With the invention of the truck, and the car the death knell of the job of teamster ceased to be. to It was replaced by the job of truck driver. Mechanics replace cart wrights there are hundreds more besides coming and going and many others whose job description change though the job title did not.

 

The thing about that is just about every one of your examples are becoming automated, and automation will weed out any need to hire an actual person to do the job.

 

Therefore using your implied definition manufacturing a product is really a problem. ha ha So is manufacturing the same as creating a problem ?

 

Very true. But there is a way around it.

Automation would indeed lessen the labor cost by many times - let's say you would need 1 worker instead of 7.

So this means we would need to move most of the manufacturing into the U.S. to compensate for that.
When we used to have 1 factory we would need 3.

And such jobs would require more skill to maintain the automation.

This means that the low skill labor would be in low demand. And the American workers never liked such jobs anyway. That was why we had illegal labor who would take any job.

And now that the illegal immigration would be addressed as well, the few low skill labor jobs we would have remaining would be taken by the few Americans who want them.


1. Bring the jobs back in mass quantities to compensate for the automation.
2. Drop the "college" charade and instead promote short term courses for people to learn skills - automation operator, computer operator, plumber, electrician ...
3. Stop illegal labor to give the few remaining low skilled jobs to the Americans who want them.

Of course, one needs some great managementr to accomplish such a task.

Thanks,
Ed

 

Sounds like "central planning" . Where have I heard that phrase.....

 

Why?

What do you think NAFTA was, not central planning?
1. Allow jobs to go over the borders.
2. Ignore illegal immigration for cheap labor.
3. Introduce war-for-profit approach to maintain our economy.

So, we can reverse it ...
1. Bring the jobs back.
2. Curb illegal immigration.
3. Enough of foreign wars as means of profit and maintain our economy though manufacturing work ... the way it used to be.

 

CENTRAL PLANNING:

A system of extensive central government control of an economy, including organizing production and making allocation decisions. This was the popular method of allocating resources and answering the three basic questions of allocation under communism and socialism economic systems of the Soviet Union, China, and others during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

 

I know what it is ... communists often had 5 year plans to accomplish their goals.
The progress was tremendous, you would agree ... but that is not the point.

Bringing the jobs back has nothing to do with Communism but with adjusting NAFTA ... the North American Free Trade Agreement as well as the half a trillion trade deficit we have with China.
Nothing to do with Communism.

Thanks,
Ed

 

The problem is that someone needs a product and there isn't enough to supply them.

 

because you are wrong that's why.

more resources are being created. You are right that jobs are problems to be solved, but in most cases the "problem" is simply "bob wants a new car, or a house, or a new whatever". and when you create that new thing, you have created wealth.