Options
Jobs or Snow Jobs?
· Tuesday, December 8, 2009
President Obama keeps talking about the jobs his administration is "creating" but there are more people unemployed now than before he took office. How can there be more unemployment after so many jobs have been "created"?
Let's go back to square one. What does it take to create a job? It takes wealth to pay someone who is hired, not to mention additional wealth to buy the material that person will use.
But government creates no wealth. Ignoring that plain and simple fact enables politicians to claim to be able to do all sorts of miraculous things that they cannot do in fact. Without creating wealth, how can they create jobs? By taking wealth from others, whether by taxation, selling bonds or imposing mandates.
However it is done, transferring wealth is not creating wealth. When government uses transferred wealth to hire people, it is essentially transferring jobs from the private sector, not adding to the net number of jobs in the economy.
If that was all that was involved, it would be a simple verbal fraud, with no gain of jobs and no net loss. In reality, many other things that politicians do reduce the number of jobs.
Politicians who mandate various benefits that employers must provide for workers gain politically by seeming to give people something for nothing. But making workers more expensive means that fewer are likely to be hired.
During an economic recovery, employers can respond to an increased demand for their companies' products by hiring more workers-- creating more jobs-- or they can work their existing employees overtime. Since workers have to be paid time-and-a-half for overtime, it might seem as if it would always be cheaper to hire more workers. But that was before politicians began mandating more benefits per worker.
When you get more hours of work from the existing employees, you don't need to pay for additional mandates, as you would have to when you get more hours of work by hiring new people. For many employers, that makes it cheaper to pay for overtime. The data show that overtime hours have been increasing in the economy while more people have been laid off.
There is another way of reducing the cost of government-imposed mandates. That is by hiring temporary workers, to whom the mandates do not apply.
The number of temporary workers hired has increased for the fourth consecutive month, even though there are millions of unemployed people who could be hired for regular jobs, if it were not for the mandates that politicians have imposed.
Economists have long been saying that there is no free lunch, but politicians get elected by seeming to give free lunches, in one form or another. Yet there are no magic wands in Washington to make costs disappear, whether with workers or with medical care. We just pay in a different way, often a more costly way.
Nor can these costs all be simply dumped on "the rich," because there are just not enough of them. Often people who are far from rich pay the biggest price in lost opportunities. A classic example is the minimum wage law.
Minimum wage laws appear to give low-income workers something for nothing-- and appearances are what count in politics. Realities can be left to others, so long as appearances get votes.
People with low skills or little experience usually get paid low wages. Passing a minimum wage law does not make them any more valuable. At a higher wage, it can just make them expendable. Raising the minimum wage in the midst of a recession was guaranteed to increase unemployment among the young-- and it has.
None of this is peculiar to the current administration. The Roosevelt administration created huge numbers of government jobs during the 1930s-- and yet unemployment remained in double digits throughout FDR's first two terms.
Constant government experiments with new bright ideas is another common feature of Obama's "change" and FDR's New Deal. The uncertainty that this unpredictable experimentation generates makes employers reluctant to hire. Destroying some jobs while creating other jobs does not get you very far, except politically. But politically is what matters to politicians, even if their policies needlessly prolong a recession or depression.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey: "Simply put, The Patriot Post cuts through the clutter and delivers timely, accurate, and colorful accounts of the week's most important news and policy issues. It's a mandatory read." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Ward Griffith
This article should be required reading for every politician in Washington except the politicians know this fact. Dr. Sowell has reported that politicians care only for the effect before the election, after the election the politicain can expect the problems caused not to be tied to the politician's ruse.
A copy of this article should be sent to every voter who voted in the last election. The voter should have to report three salient points from this article before he can vote in the next election.
Posted December 8, 2009 at 7:49:05 AM
Howard Last
Wade, you are assuming politicians can read! Actually most politicians know it, but believe the uneducated masses (some of those that attended publik skools) will fall for it. It works, how else do democraps and RINO's get elected?
Posted December 8, 2009 at 1:01:08 PM
MichaelSSEC
Not only is the minimum wage a con for those who appear to benefit (temporarily) from it, it's also a con for those who earn a higher-than-minimum wage. When you're making $15/hr (approx what the average Postal worker earns for instance) and the minimum wage jumps from $7 to $10, your wage doesn't go up proportionately.
But all this wage tampering nonsense just means businesses' costs went up, so their prices must go up to compensate (or they have to lay off workers, although in the long term a price hike is likely their only option). When prices go up, the minimum wage earner sees inflation eat up most if not all of his "higher" wage.
And so does the guy making $15/hr except he never got a raise to be eaten up by inflation. He has to pay the higher prices with the same old salary. So his effective wage went DOWN because his money is now worth less than it was before the minimum wage was raised. Thank you, Liberals.
Another way to look at this is, let's make the minimum wage the basic unit of currency. We'll call it $1. Some politician raises it to $2, but whatever the number is, it's still the basic unit because it's still the minimum wage. So now $2 becomes exactly as valuable as $1 used to be. In other words, your money has just dropped 50% of its value. Anyone not making minimum wage experiences the same inflationary drop in value, but they didn't get the "raise" to compensate. So the minimum wage hike is wage REDUCTION for everyone else.
Try and explain that to a Liberal and watch the expression on his face. It's a riot ;)
Posted December 8, 2009 at 4:18:29 PM
ILEANA
Dr. Sowell, can you explain to us what a "saved or created job" is? The president is adding this term to the economic nomenclature and since he is going to use it until the end of his presidency, could you enlighten us?
I am sure the millions of unemployed or discouraged workers created (pun intended) by his economic policies would like to know as well where they can apply for these "saved or created jobs."
Posted December 8, 2009 at 11:59:31 PM