.....the fiscal cost of “creating or saving” jobs in the private sector should equal $0 because true job creation should add value to the employer’s bottom line. In fact, if creating a job was ever a net cost to the employer, a rational employer wouldn’t be hiring anyone — how could his enterprise remain healthy?
Further (from me) if a employee in the private sector does turn out to be a cost (eg an investment failure) the cost is born by that business. The lost opportunity stays within that business. It isn't socialised out across every other business or tax-paying individual as happens when governments get involved in job creation.
(Hat-tip FFF)
4 comments:
The article itself is silly. Manufacturers use finance to take on additional workers to fill orders all the time.
Anon, you're missing the point.
Lindsay, the simple fact is that NO politician and NO government program has ever createde (or saved) a single job in the real economy. The only thing a politician can do is destroy more jobs, or less jobs. Even the most job-creatingest, economy-stimulatingest leaders in the history of the Western world (Reagan, Thatcher, Richardson) have not created a single job. They have merely gotten government out of the way, and limited the number of jobs destroyed.
I think that we as a society have this whole "jobs" thing all wrong.
This is what I mean....waiting for someone to give you a job is similar to accepting welfare in that you are heavily reliant on something or someone outside of you to change your circumstances.
The way to prosper in any economy is to find a way of serving others, or adding value. This is almost a cliche in my world, but true nonetheless. Unemployed can find an income stream (which is the REAL objective isn't it?) by doing this.
Feigning helplessness at the hands of the government or the private sector isn't a personality trait I want to encourage.
Our tax system is highly favourable towards businesses and this is what we should encourage with our welfare recipients where possible.
Post a Comment