Skip to main content

Who Creates Jobs? Not Who You Think- Perhaps.

We often read endless debate about who creates jobs.

Depending upon a particular agenda many factions claim credit for job creation. Typically, the rich, entrepreneurs or even governments lay claim to the phenomena of job creation, each usually cries for support or additional personal advantage because of their claimed "contribution" in the matter of job creation.

In these cases the job creation claims are nonsensical and in fact may be fraudulent claims if leveraged to obtain funding from the public purse.

The fact is... non of these claimants creates jobs, it is more probable these factions contribute more to job loss, not job creation.

Who or what then REALLY creates employment opportunity?

Simply, demand for products or services does.

If you wanted to ascribe job-creation credit to a faction it would be to the consumer faction--a collective of ordinary people who want or need specific goods and services. If a product, good or service is in demand the producer of it is motivated into a mode of expansion to meet demand.

This demand is the driver of job creation--period!

The job opportunities resulting from higher demand for the item can be direct or indirect. Direct in that workers are needed to increase volumes, indirect in that additional resource or infrastructure is needed in the expansion phase.

As more folks avail of the created jobs another key component is expanded, the addition of more individual consumers who have disposable income to spend into the consumer arena. This could be described as the job creation cycle.

As much as rich individuals claim to create jobs, the fact is their contribution as consumers is only marginally greater than an ordinary citizen--they do not usually consume much more than anyone else. Corporations are not in business to create jobs, in fact they are always more interested in reducing the labour component of their costs. Entrepreneurs are interested in starting businesses but then selling them of to corporations.

Governments giving corporations tax payer money does not create jobs--corporations only take on employees when demand exceeds their capacity to supply. The funds do not create jobs--consumer demand does. Jobs created within government are simply the mechanism to enact the thousands of laws and legislation to the advantage of the government, these jobs contribute nothing to the productivity of a country and usually compete unfairly in the job market.

The government as an employer--they claw back a substantial portion of the wages paid in the form of income taxes--the epitome of cheap labour practices. It is certain that the ability to take back a large portion of wages paid distorts all other economic factors and unfairly competes for skill set against the private sector. Imagine a corporation where the employee has to give back a large portion of their paycheck to the employer--surely that practice is illegal.

The point is though, Anyone, especially politicians who claim they create jobs is selling you a bill of goods and should be challenged on their claim.

Stay tuned...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Austerity-A Fancy Word for Destitute.

The reason for this post is not for the folks who have been caught in the first wave of personal economic hard reality, but the next wave. Regardless of the optimism espoused by grinning leaders and sycophant press, we are entering the final stage of global economic collapse. It began in 2008 and was forestalled for five years with fudge putty, but the weight of global indebtedness cannot be propped any longer and the final crunch is imminent. Austerity measures herald the final throes.  Indications of coming austerity.   Austerity measures are the final last ditch effort, futile or not! Back in the day many of us old-timers went through periods of "hard-times". In retrospect I realize there is no comparison to yesteryear hard times and today's version. Back then, expectations were never very high for the working class, there were no sophisticated systems or conveniences anyway. In fact the difference between being "set" or not was about having treats or not. Si...
Post a Comment
Read more

Terrifying Arctic methane levels

A peak methane level of 3026 ppb was recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 469 mb on December 11, 2021 am. This follows a peak methane level of  3644 ppb  recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 367 mb on November 21, 2021, pm. A peak methane level of 2716 ppb was recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 586 mb on December 11, 2021, pm, as above image shows. This image is possibly even more terrifying than the image at the top, as above image shows that at 586 mb, i.e. much closer to sea level, almost all methane shows up over sea, rather than over land, supporting the possibility of large methane eruptions from the seafloor, especially in the Arctic.  Also, the image was recorded later than the image at the top with the 3026 ppb peak, indicating that even more methane may be on the way. This appears to be confirmed by the Copernicus forecast for December 12, 2021, 03 UTC, as illustrated by the image below, which shows methane at 500 hPa (equivalent to 500 mb). Furthermore, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Women and children overboard

It's the  Catch-22  of clinical trials: to protect pregnant women and children from the risks of untested drugs....we don't test drugs adequately for them. In the last few decades , we've been more concerned about the harms of research than of inadequately tested treatments for everyone, in fact. But for "vulnerable populations,"  like pregnant women and children, the default was to exclude them. And just in case any women might be, or might become, pregnant, it was often easier just to exclude us all from trials. It got so bad, that by the late 1990s, the FDA realized regulations and more for pregnant women - and women generally - had to change. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) took action too. And so few drugs had enough safety and efficacy information for children that, even in official circles, children were being called "therapeutic orphans."  Action began on that, too. There is still a long way to go. But this month there was a sign that ...
Post a Comment
Read more