Killing the Economy to Create Jobs


Any job created for the sake of employment is as bad as having some people dig holes, while others fill those holes back in...no matter how pretty the description given.

Neither the government, nor any business in the private sector, should be specifically trying to “create jobs”.

That is like noticing that a healthy, fit man’s heartbeat is slower than a fat, sick man’s heartbeat, and therefore going around giving people drugs to slow their hearts: You are treating the symptom, but aggravating the problem.

Job creation must always be a natural symptom of a healthy economy.  Anyone trying to create a job for the sake of employing someone is only increasing inefficiency, leading to more lost jobs in the long run.

That is the sort of “stimulus” that got us into this mess in 2008, and exactly what is keeping us in it.

Makework jobs kill the economy the same way drugging fat, infected people to slow their hearts would kill human beings.

The Anti-Jobs Bill: Tax Breaks for Welfare Jobs


If government could "create" jobs, it could simply pay half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment.

If government could "create" jobs, it could simply pay half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment.

Drug mega-giant Pfizer recently dealt with its bloated payroll in St Louis, Missouri, by laying off over 600 employees.

It had hired them in order to gain reduced tax punishment from the local government. It was given a “break” of almost seven million dollars on the massive property tax, in return for hiring over one thousand employees…apparently more than it would otherwise have chosen to hire, or else the “break” would have been a meaningless loss of revenue for a money-strapped government.

Maintaining make-work welfare jobs, of course, was just a needless burden on the company. Eventually, such government coercion contributed enough to its woes that Pfizer actually found it necessary to lay off over half of its staff. In all likelihood, this backlash resulted in fewer jobs left-over than if it hadn’t over-hired to begin with.

When the government “encourages” hiring, it creates an employment bubble, just like when it encouraged home ownership, it created a housing bubble. When the bubble bursts, the net result is more harm than good, just as with housing.

Government “stimulating jobs” causes even more job loss, in the long run.

And yet Congress is about to pass a “jobs bill” that involves tax breaks for make-work hiring. Companies will be pushed to employ people they wouldn’t have otherwise chosen to do, essentially being forced to live beyond their means. In the long run, as with the housing boom and with Pfizer, this will backfire and cause MORE unemployment.

When the government “creates” a job, it’s just engaging in another form of welfare. A job “created” where one wasn’t actually needed has no honor, and causes harm. It is a burden on society…one that will come back to haunt, just the way the stimulus spending, bailouts, and other government busybody behavior will do.

The way to create jobs is not to “create” them directly, any more than you make sickly person healthy by giving him cocaine to create energy. Jobs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They work because people work to create more wealth than their job pays, justifying its existence. What we need is more wealth creation, and then the jobs will come naturally. And what is stifling job creation, already, is massive government regulation and interference, including the “stimulus” spending that out-competes healthy private ventures.

Bunning (Almost) Fights Unemployment


When you subsidize anything, you get more of that thing. Including unemployment.
I have a friend who got fed up with his job, and gave it up because he felt collecting unemployment was a better option. This, alone, is evidence of how unemployment benefits increase unemployment…but it gets worse:

He eventually got tired of not working at all, and got a job one day a week, just low enough not to cut into his unemployment benefit.

Here comes the “worse” part.

His employer liked him, and kept begging him to work full time…but he planned to kick back and relax until unemployment ran out. That’s right, benefits not only caused him to CHOOSE to be unemployed, but to refuse to take a full-time job, keeping him on the unemployment roles. But at least it would eventually run out…right?

  • Then Bush and Congress decided to extend it.
  • Then, when it was about to run out (again), Obama and Congress extended it once more. My friend has ended up living off the taxpayers, indefinitely, while his employer dreams of GIVING him full time work.
  • Then Jim Bunning decided my friend must go back to work. His employer must have been thrilled.

Not that Bunning is a principled Conservative, who believes in not subsidizing unemployment. No, he is just a partisan RiNO grandstanding against unfunded government spending…now that Bush isn’t the one spearheading it.

Which may be why he caved in, just a short time later. My friend gets to remain a burden on society, unemployment gets to remain artificially high.

Ever wonder how much of the 10% unemployment is simply people who CHOOSE not to work, because the government subsidizes not working?

What we need is more people in Congress who are actually like Jim Bunning was pretending, for a few hours, to be.

%d bloggers like this: