Why Politicians Shouldn't Create Or Save Jobs

In this economy, politicians talk about how theywithin the space of our own airports. Not only has
have created or saved jobs for their constituents,outbound luggage screening been relegated to
but what does that mean, exactly, and in whatwhat used to be the front-end of our airports,
context would that be good for us? There arebut we've now also installed agents in the larger,
several examples of how they might go aboutmore frequently-travelled foreign airports, to
performing such feats, and upon more carefulscreen passengers before they get onto their
examination, I'm not sure any of them areinbound flights.
actually to our benefit.Whereas we used to have some number of
Just to be sure we're on the same page, let'sinternational airports in this country, each staffed
begin with a definition of these two concepts.with federal agents for security enforcement,
think about how many foreign countries there are
1. To "create" a new job means to do somethingand how many international airports each of them
that causes someone to be hired for a positionhas. I shudder to think about the number of
that isn't already held by someone else. Iffederal agents we must now employ to facilitate
someone else is being fired or replaced in order tothis paradigm. The other countries don't do this,
hire the new person, it's a pre-existing job, not aso we're either being overcautious or they've
"new" job.figured out how to do it another way. Oh, and
2. To "save" a job means to do something thatalthough you've probably guessed, for sake of
prevents an existing position from becomingcompleteness, let me point out that the employed
eliminated, transferred, or outsourced. If antaxpayers are the ones paying for these jobs the
employee simply isn't working out and apoliticians have created.
replacement employee is hired, while the originalWhen politicians talk about creating jobs, I'm not
individual has "lost" his or her job, the job itselfrelieved; I'm incensed - it means they've hired
continues to exist.people with my tax money to perform some
With these definitions in mind, let's explore possiblefunction that I probably wasn't missing before,
ways that someone might create or save a job.rather than do something with my money that I'd
Before we begin the exploration of this topic,really want done, like hire contractors to pave the
however, let's keep one important concept inroads. I'd prefer that they keep their meddling
mind: a politician represents all of his or herhands off and just let the economy take care of
constituents in government, and should act withitself. When they "create" jobs, we pay the bill,
their common best interests in mind; an individualand if these created jobs were truly necessary
without a job is just one of the politician'sand important, don't you think someone else
constituents, and serving him or her should not bewould have hired someone else to do them long
at the expense of the common good. Lastly, letago?
me caution you in advance that the examplesWhat about "saving jobs?" These are
provided herein will be instructional, but severelypredominantly jobs that are being paid for by
over-simplified.something other than my tax revenue, so saving
Long, long ago, in a savannah far, far away,them must be good, right? Probably not. If you've
before Internet shopping, before grocery stores,followed stocks at all, when companies announce
and before even tribes, there was a period whenlayoffs the price of their stock typically rises.
each of our living ancestors of the day wasWhen a company decides to relocate a division to
responsible for obtaining his or her own food. Ifa tax-advantaged state or to outsource a
you've ever camped, hunted, or fished, and if youdepartment to another country where labor costs
try very hard to imagine feeding yourself withouta fraction of what it does here, the price of their
the benefit of a rifle, bow and arrow, or rod andstock rises. Why, if jobs are being lost would
reel, you may begin to recognize that a sizeableinvestors bid up the price of such companies?
chunk of your day is expended just to find andThose investors know that the layoff will not be
overcome prey for yourself. My memories ofrandom, but will predominantly be of the
camping always circle back to the fact thatless-productive employees; the work will still all get
seemingly-vast quantities of firewood burn indone - just more efficiently. They know that the
much less time than it takes to collect themmove to a state willing to provide tax concessions
Although I've never hunted or seriously fished, Iwill reduce the company's expenses, making it
can't imagine those efforts are more productivemore productive. They know that while
than collecting firewood, especially whenmanagement and the executives will be retained,
performed without tools. Further, withoutthe move of the company to a less expensive
refrigeration, even a large kill wouldn't last long. So,country will save a wad on labor and benefits
back in those days, all living people had jobs: tocosts, allowing the company to either invest more
find and provide food for themselves. Those whoback into itself or pay out larger dividends to the
didn't perform well at this job didn't feedshareholders. In short, they know that such
themselves and died. Employment=100%, but Iactions will be good for the business, and for
doubt any of us would want to return to that era.them if they own the business.
Fast forward a few generations, and at someHow would a politician "save" those jobs? One
point, someone discovered agriculture andway or another, he has to make up to the
domestication of livestock. Instead of wonderingcompany what they would be getting if they
where the next meal might come from, peoplewent ahead with their job-cutting plans. Guess
knew - it would come from the farmer orwho's paying for that? Whereas I could pay less
rancher. The fruits and vegetables were growing,to buy my car if the manufacturer were able to
the chickens were laying eggs in their cages, thebuild it cheaper somewhere else, now, someone
cows could be milked at will, and the pigs andelse will get the benefit of the cheaper car while
lambs could be slaughtered as needed. While killingmy tax money goes to make it "cheaper" for
animals, picking produce, and preparing meals stillthat manufacturer, right here. Their employees will
required a little time, the bulk of the time thatbe happier because they'll still have jobs, but who
used to be required to track, stalk, find, trap, andis really paying for those "saved" jobs? It's not
carry food back to feed oneself was no longer athe employer, and it's not the people reaping the
factor. In fact, farming and domestication ofbenefit of the "cheaper" finished goods; it's the
livestock made food acquisition so much morelocal tax-payer, while his or her money is used to
productive that it no longer required 100%entice that company to keep those jobs here. His
employment in order to feed the population.taxes will either increase or the services he
While a comparatively-small group of peoplereceives for his tax payments will be reduced to
continued to be involved in the food-producingcover the new job-saving expenses.
vocations, many were freed up to pursue otherCreating and saving jobs are just two of the
interests. Some built the facilities in which the foodlatest euphemisms for redistributing the wealth.
production was performed or the machines thatYes, as I mentioned before, I know that some
performed the food production more efficientlypeople will be unemployed without such measures.
and some became security guards for thoseI also know that unemployment insurance is just
facilities. Besides those directly or indirectlyanother method of redistributing the wealth, so
involved in food production, trades wereeven if our politicians don't create or save jobs
established as some became cobblers,for these people, I know that those of us with
blacksmiths, fletchers, bowyers, tanners, builders,taxable incomes will still be paying to support the
and shipwrights. While one cannot subsist on a dietunemployed. The difference, however, is that the
of shoes, since the farmers could produce morecreation or salvation of a job has a more
than enough food for themselves, they couldpermanent connotation to it, whereas
trade their surplus food for the cobblers' surplusunemployment insurance has a less permanent
shoes, and as a result, all parties involved enjoyedconnotation. Salary is thought of as being
a higher standard of living. Whereas peopleindefinite, but insurance is thought of as paying
spending most of their day stalking prey mightout a benefit and then being exhausted until
not have time to make good footwear, clothing,additional premiums are paid in.
homes, or tools, now, with most of the populationThe problem with the system is not that we
freed up by technological advances, there wereneed to invent jobs for people and not that we
opportunities for them to enjoy all of this andneed to encourage jobs to stay here rather than
more.move to places where they can be performed
When we talk about creating jobs, this is whatmore economically or more efficiently (which
one might imagine as the shining example of jobsaves us all money on purchasing the fruits of
creation: a technological improvement in one areathat labor). The problem is that we need the
that permits people to pursue other areas ofunemployed hunter-gatherers to retrain as
interest, making the whole of civilization richer ascobblers. Anyone can still go hunt for his or her
a result. Upon more careful examination, though,own food, but not nearly as economically and
this really isn't job creation at all, but it's actuallyefficiently as big business can do it. This frees us
job attrition. 100% of people were employed inup to pursue other endeavors, but we must find
providing their own food, and then a hugeones that are profitable so we can earn enough
percentage of them were laid off, made obsoleterevenue to buy that food from its producers.
by technological advances. OK - they weren'tShould the government have saved every
really laid off - they could have continued doingbuggy-whip manufacturer so that those jobs
what they were doing yesterday, and providedwould be secure despite the fact that we no
food for themselves (just as you could forlonger use horse-drawn buggies? Think about who
yourself), but systemization of the industry madewould be paying for that.
them so ridiculously inefficient compared to theWhen I was "in between jobs" a bunch of years
alternative that they preferred to pursue otherago, I briefly collected unemployment insurance.
interests (just as you probably have).My experience with the system was that it was
So what do politicians mean when they sayexactly backwards. Rather than encourage the
they've created jobs? Is it something along theseunemployed to find work or to train for new
lines? Is it something by which they are freeing uppositions, it encouraged laziness and passivity, and
swaths of population from dull, unproductive,in-fact discouraged employment and education. A
menial jobs to permit them to enrich society withminimum-wage job would have paid less than
art, poetry, and music? Probably not. When FDRunemployment insurance was paying me to sit on
did it, he hired people to build dams and bridges,my couch, and couch-sitting isn't quite as difficult
to build rock walls on property lines, and toand thankless a job as those that pay minimum
engage in parks and conservancy projects. Whilewage. Unemployment benefits, however, are only
these may seem like admirable projects andavailable to people who are ready and willing to
efficient use of otherwise unemployed laborwork; those in school are predisposed, and are
capacity, why had the projects been put off untilthus ineligible (at least that's how it worked at the
then, and when he hired those unemployed peopletime).
to perform such work, what happened to theI was similarly discouraged from putting time or
employees of the viable construction companieseffort into my fledgling business; whether it
he didn't hire?earned a meager income that day or not, if I
Furthermore, these jobs weren't magicallyworked at it for a minute, calling prospects or
created - not only did he engage labor to do workreading bid documents, I was ineligible to claim
that wasn't important enough to do earlier, andbenefits for the day. Unemployment insurance
not only did he hire the unemployed labor from ashould operate on a declining rate; every week
section of the market that had been displaced bythe benefit should go down. At some point it will
other better-run companies instead of hiring thosemake those minimum-wage jobs start looking
better-run companies, but he paid for it with publicpretty good, and as if by magic, the unemployed
money. This meant that the people who stillwill find work. Unemployment services should not
managed to earn a taxable income during thoseonly provide job retraining, but it should require it -
tough times were compelled to pay for projectson any day of claiming benefits, the claimant
that either weren't necessary or weren'tshould be required to attend a few hours of
economical, and that hired laborers who must onclasses on resume writing, interviewing skills,
average have been less productive than thegeneral education (math, English, foreign language,
laborers that weren't out of work, rather thanetc), or specific job skills, such as basic computer
reward the well-run companies that were still inusage, typing, sorting & filing, or telephone
business and were still paying salaries to people.etiquette. Such classes could be offered in the
OK, so extreme situations may require extrememornings, afternoons, and evenings, to permit
measures, but the mindset persists still today.time for beneficiaries to still apply for jobs and
President George W Bush created a lot of jobs,attend interviews.
too. The Department of Homeland Security thatI don't want the government creating or saving
he created has ballooned into a behemoth. Injobs - there's no shortage of work to be done
addition to all the US Customs, Immigration, andalready. Instead, encourage the population to
USDA agents that always used to be present atadvance their skills, experience, and education, and
every US international airport and seaport, weto retrain or relocate themselves as necessary to
now also have an army of TSA agents. If you'vefind work. To hire them with my tax money or
travelled internationally recently, you may alsoto encourage some business to hire them with
have noticed that there are so many flights intoconcessions paid for by my tax money only
this country from around the world that we canmakes us all less productive on average.
no longer even provide security for all of them