• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can government create jobs?

Is government capable of creating jobs?

  • Total voters
    42
Jucon said:
Legitimate question. I had a feeling it would be brought up.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the alternatives to the government stimulus. Most people were cutting jobs and cutting spending. I do not believe a tax break alone would have picked the economy back up anywhere near how quickly we came back with the stimulus. Yes, unemployment is high and the economy is still slow to recover, but we needed some way to stop the bleeding, and quickly. A reduction in taxes would have been slow and unreliable (not to mention it would have increased our deficit and debt just as much). How would we know jobs would have been created in the areas where jobs were needed? How would we even know that the people and businesses would have spent the money they saved or recieved when the economy was looking the way it was? Even now we have businesses sitting on trillions of dollars.

The stimulus spending created jobs. Jobs that would not have been there otherwise. Through projects that in some cases will lead to other jobs being created. Yes, the stimulus wasn't perfect... you have politicians, both locally and on the federal level, to blame for that. But I don't believe the stimulus was a complete failure.
Click to expand...

I agree. Though we could have done better, the stimulus was not a complete failure. To many, though, it looked suspiciously like a handout/payback/bribe to unions -- and much of it was.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I just got to say that anyone that selected No really needs to get educated..or maybe they couldn't because the government didn't create enough jobs in their area to allow free public schooling? Any kind of job that has to do with keeping the peace, infrastructure, education, etc including permanent jobs such as the law or teachers probably made its way passed a vote at one point...

Now is the government going to give us all jobs? No. Seriously though 8 of you? Come on people.
Click to expand...

The government cannot create jobs without destroying jobs in the private sector. It ends up being a net loss on jobs. The money that the government uses to pay people for those jobs comes from the productive members of the private sector and redistributes it to the these new government employees. In effect, the government has not created new wealth nor has it created new net jobs. The only thing the government can do is take away existing wealth and private sector jobs. See the Broken Window Fallacy.
 
The Governor cannot create jobs only destroy them either through trade protectionism, taxes, overbearing regulations, war, government spending among others. The governments function in the market is supposed to be a referee.
 
Jucon said:
I'm sure you value the road outside where you live. And you paid for it through your tax dollars.

Would you prefer paying a toll every time you came out of your driveway to get to work?

That road helps make you more wealthy by making it easier for you to get to work. Not to mention it gave access to your plot of land so you could build a house on it. Without that road you likely wouldn't be living there.

And what if you can't afford to send your child to a private school? Would you or your wife/girlfriend be able to afford not working in order to give them an education? Would you be able to get a private teacher? I'm sure you'd value the public school system.

What if you don't have a car? Or can't find a parking spot ever? How will you get to work? Thank God there are buses and subway systems. Taxis are way too expensive to be using every day.

And I don't know about you but I certainly value the fire department, police, and military.

The government doesn't gain a profit... we do. The government has no profit because it spends it's incoming tax dollars back on the public. You need to pay people to make government work.

Remember the saying, "of the people, by the people, for the people"?
Click to expand...

What has the government created in your examples? The government does not see a profit (strictly speaking financially) in any of the things you listed. Our public schools are poor and yet take up a huge amount of taxpayer money. Roads, subways, etc can be privatized and possibly gain a profit. PA was considering privatizing a highway for that very reason.

A good example is the post office. It loses billions of dollars every year. Does it create wealth? It provides jobs, but those jobs come at the expense of the taxpayer.

By wealth I mean a strictly financial sense. Of course there are some jobs best left to the government, but I wouldn't expect their bottom line to be anything but in the red.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I suggest anyone look at the Hoover Dam, the Interstate freeway system as aspects of the government creating jobs
Click to expand...

I guess communism is the way to go, right? :roll:
 
Government can create temporary employment, but they cannot create jobs. Jobs and careers are created by the private sector.
 
Jucon said:
Legitimate question. I had a feeling it would be brought up.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the alternatives to the government stimulus. Most people were cutting jobs and cutting spending. I do not believe a tax break alone would have picked the economy back up anywhere near how quickly we came back with the stimulus. Yes, unemployment is high and the economy is still slow to recover, but we needed some way to stop the bleeding, and quickly. A reduction in taxes would have been slow and unreliable (not to mention it would have increased our deficit and debt just as much). How would we know jobs would have been created in the areas where jobs were needed? How would we even know that the people and businesses would have spent the money they saved or recieved when the economy was looking the way it was? Even now we have businesses sitting on trillions of dollars.

The stimulus spending created jobs. Jobs that would not have been there otherwise. Through projects that in some cases will lead to other jobs being created. Yes, the stimulus wasn't perfect... you have politicians, both locally and on the federal level, to blame for that. But I don't believe the stimulus was a complete failure.
Click to expand...

A lot of the stimulus spending was politically aimed and not specifically done to really create jobs.

A far better approach would have been to give $5k-$10k to low income people.
The point of stimulus is to spur demand and increase the flow of money.
Doing that would create such results.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A lot of the stimulus spending was politically aimed and not specifically done to really create jobs.

A far better approach would have been to give $5k-$10k to low income people.
The point of stimulus is to spur demand and increase the flow of money.
Doing that would create such results.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me. Give $5K to $10K to low-income people? What does that do? Honestly, is the only way we know how to fix a broken economy to hand out bucks??? What about freaking jobs???
 
MaggieD said:
You have got to be kidding me. Give $5K to $10K to low-income people? What does that do? Honestly, is the only way we know how to fix a broken economy to hand out bucks??? What about freaking jobs???
Click to expand...

All the jobs created were largely politically motivated.
Handing out money spurs demand, especially when you give it to low income people.
They don't save money, by and large.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
All the jobs created were largely politically motivated.
Handing out money spurs demand, especially when you give it to low income people.
They don't save money, by and large.
Click to expand...

To spur demand, people have got to SPEND the money, not pay off old bills....which is EGZAKLY what low-income people would do with that money. Give ME $5,000; I'll spend it on hard goods in a heartbeat. Giving away cash isn't the solution. It's the PROBLEM.

I agree with you that the stimulus money was politically motivated.
 
MaggieD said:
To spur demand, people have got to SPEND the money, not pay off old bills....which is EGZAKLY what low-income people would do with that money. Give ME $5,000; I'll spend it on hard goods in a heartbeat. Giving away cash isn't the solution. It's the PROBLEM.

I agree with you that the stimulus money was politically motivated.
Click to expand...

They'll spend it on consumer goods and services, which will flow throughout the entire economy.
I don't like things like that, but we have formed our economy to the point where actions like that are required, unless we want to take a big hit to reform the entire system.

Low income folks blow the money, quickly.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A lot of the stimulus spending was politically aimed and not specifically done to really create jobs.

A far better approach would have been to give $5k-$10k to low income people.
The point of stimulus is to spur demand and increase the flow of money.
Doing that would create such results.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer the government paid people through the stimulus program by giving people jobs rather than handing out thousands of dollars to poor individuals for doing nothing.

If everyone got the same amount or if everyone got back an equal percentage of their paid taxes I'd be OK with that, but giving someone that much money just because they are poor would be a perfect example of redistributing the wealth.
 
Can they? Yes, the government can create jobs. Bureaucracy rarely gets smaller.
 
Ikari said:
Can they? Yes, the government can create jobs. Bureaucracy rarely gets smaller.
Click to expand...

By jobs you're meaning "government jobs". Yes, they do tend to create more government jobs to add to the bureaucracy.... I didn't think of that one when I posted.
 
Of course government can create jobs. The interstate highway system during the Eisenhower admin., space travel - the moon, the internet, atomic energy, military industrial complex, etc. etc.
 
Ockham said:
Government can create temporary employment, but they cannot create jobs. Jobs and careers are created by the private sector.
Click to expand...

Better schools and educations lead to Americans being more internationally desired
Better roads lead to improved transportation costs
Better ports lead to an ability to import and export more goods
More and better metro systems decreases traffic leading to better transportation times
Building industrial parks open up areas for large businesses
And obviously cutting taxes means people will be able to spend more and create jobs that way


How does having an improved infrastructure not lead to jobs being created? Even in the private sector

Look at the Transcontinental Railroad

Look at the interstate highway system

Look at the internet


And look at government investments in technologies that are improved upon by the private sector and later adopted by the public

Jet engines anyone?

Nuclear power?

Radar?

Computers?

How about all the things that have come from the NASA program?

Curiosity "10 NASA Inventions You Might Use Every Day"

Though NASA did not directly invent these things, they provided the demand and capital for these products to be improved upon and later released to the public for different uses.


Jobs and careers may be created by the private sector, but without investors those jobs would not exist. And government is capable of investing in programs they recognize as being good ideas.
 
Obviously, the thing is cooperation between government, business, and the people.
We did not always have this, and I believe it can be done better.
Open-ness, honesty,fairness are paramount.
Respect is the key.
This is the one for our public servants to learn.....and BP...and our media.
 
The darling of the tea bagging conservatives has never heard of the Manhatten Project??
Does she know of "cooperation"?
Does she know anything other than what Glen, Rush, and Fox have drummed into her head?
 
Ockham said:
Government can create temporary employment, but they cannot create jobs. Jobs and careers are created by the private sector.
Click to expand...

Wait. So all of the career military people are really just filling temp jobs? :confused:

I guess Colin Powell's long military career was just a temp job. You people crack me up.
 
MaggieD said:
You have got to be kidding me.
Click to expand...

He's not.

Give $5K to $10K to low-income people?
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea, if done in small increments. The poor have greater marginal propensity to spend. The problem with much of the Bush tax cuts was that the rich who received the majority of them saved them. Sure they did go into investment and banks, but not exactly the same kind of stimulus that consumer demand in the rest of the economy would produce. Giving a $10k check would be a bad idea. But every week giving them $100 wouldn't be a bad idea.

What does that do?
Click to expand...

Boosts consumer spending. Just like welfare benefits did. Despite market saturation, Walmart has been posting absurdly good returns for the period of the recession. And who shops at Walmart? Poor and middle class.

Honestly, is the only way we know how to fix a broken economy to hand out bucks??? What about freaking jobs???
Click to expand...

You do understand the correlation between consumer spending and jobs no?
 
obvious Child said:
What jobs did the government destroy when they created the entire nuclear power industry?
Click to expand...

Private companies that could have expanded the domestic workforce in other areas like coal power generation and manufacturing.
 
obvious Child said:
Wait. So all of the career military people are really just filling temp jobs? :confused:

I guess Colin Powell's long military career was just a temp job. You people crack me up.
Click to expand...

A career military person is one less person in the private sector creating a job in other industries that actually create wealth. When was the last time the military actually made wealth?
 
The_Patriot said:
Private companies that could have expanded the domestic workforce in other areas like coal power generation and manufacturing.
Click to expand...

I dont know how nuclear energy impedes the manufacturing of anything and of course the domestic workforce is working at the nuclear plant already. Also nuclear employees structurally require training and education and the systems require infrastructure and support more complex than coal most likely.
 
The_Patriot said:
Private companies that could have expanded the domestic workforce in other areas like coal power generation and manufacturing.
Click to expand...

You assume that. The problem with opportunity cost arguments is that you must prove a counter factual. Good luck with that. Furthermore, the origin of the nuclear power industry was set in a period of time where coal generation wasn't looking to expand any more then it was already doing.

So, I repeat my question,

What jobs did the government destroy when they created the entire nuclear power industry?

A career military person is one less person in the private sector creating a job in other industries that actually create wealth. When was the last time the military actually made wealth?
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that military person would be more of an asset in the private sector?

Created wealth? Lots.

Tactical to Practical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you believe that nothing the military uses or has created has commercial applications? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom