3 ms·

It's still being written because Jim Davis's chief motivation in starting Garfield was to do something about the struggling economy in his home town of Muncie,

It's still being written because Jim Davis's chief motivation in starting Garfield was to do something about the struggling economy in his home town of Muncie, Indiana. The strip's mediocrity is a secure source of income for two dozen people in a struggling town, and thus also a source of income for everyone who pumps their gas, buses their diner tables et cetera.

Bromskloss 10y ago
> and thus also a source of income for everyone who pumps their gas, buses their diner tables et cetera. I'm not sure, and I have other things to think about right now, but this smells of a broken-window fallacy.
- ssalazar 10y ago
  This is pretty much the basis of any discussion on jobs creation. In this case there is no destruction of property stimulating economic activity, which to my understanding is the crux of the broken window fallacy.
  - Bromskloss 10y ago
    > In this case there is no destruction of property stimulating economic activity, which to my understanding is the crux of the broken window fallacy. You have a point there. I think what I'm getting hung up on is that it's not so much a creation of value as a redistribution of value (from the comic strip workers to the gas station attendants, and to the government collecting taxes). Of course, there should be _some_ creation of value involved for the buyers and sellers of the gas pumping service, other wise they would abstain from it, and maybe it is this value that the parent comment referred to, and all is well. > This is pretty much the basis of any discussion on jobs creation. Actually, I'm uncomfortable with many discussions of "job creation". It often seems that the number of people hired, i.e. the number of "jobs created", is all that is considered, even if the work done is not useful, meaning that a job-creating action is seen as a success even if it comes at a cost greater than that of just gifting the same people the money and leaving them available for useful work.
- draw_down 10y ago
  Well gee, there's a solid argument.
  - Bromskloss 10y ago
    It's meant like "do you guys also feel the weird smell in here?".
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Its a town of 100,000+ people with a 6% unemployment rate and a $40,000 gdp per capita. While certainly those extra jobs are nice and that economy is nothing to brag about, I doubt they're making some economy changing effect you seem to be suggesting they are. For comparison, blacks on Chicago's south side have a 25% unemployment rate and a median income sometimes far below average. A south side neighborhood called Armour Square has a $10,000 median household income. That's $28 a day in income.
- smcl 10y ago
  It's possible he just cares about those specific dozen or so people

Bromskloss 10y ago

> and thus also a source of income for everyone who pumps their gas, buses their diner tables et cetera. I'm not sure, and I have other things to think about right now, but this smells of a broken-window fallacy.

ssalazar 10y ago
This is pretty much the basis of any discussion on jobs creation. In this case there is no destruction of property stimulating economic activity, which to my understanding is the crux of the broken window fallacy.
- Bromskloss 10y ago
  > In this case there is no destruction of property stimulating economic activity, which to my understanding is the crux of the broken window fallacy. You have a point there. I think what I'm getting hung up on is that it's not so much a creation of value as a redistribution of value (from the comic strip workers to the gas station attendants, and to the government collecting taxes). Of course, there should be _some_ creation of value involved for the buyers and sellers of the gas pumping service, other wise they would abstain from it, and maybe it is this value that the parent comment referred to, and all is well. > This is pretty much the basis of any discussion on jobs creation. Actually, I'm uncomfortable with many discussions of "job creation". It often seems that the number of people hired, i.e. the number of "jobs created", is all that is considered, even if the work done is not useful, meaning that a job-creating action is seen as a success even if it comes at a cost greater than that of just gifting the same people the money and leaving them available for useful work.
draw_down 10y ago
Well gee, there's a solid argument.
- Bromskloss 10y ago
  It's meant like "do you guys also feel the weird smell in here?".

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Its a town of 100,000+ people with a 6% unemployment rate and a $40,000 gdp per capita. While certainly those extra jobs are nice and that economy is nothing to brag about, I doubt they're making some economy changing effect you seem to be suggesting they are. For comparison, blacks on Chicago's south side have a 25% unemployment rate and a median income sometimes far below average. A south side neighborhood called Armour Square has a $10,000 median household income. That's $28 a day in income.

smcl 10y ago
It's possible he just cares about those specific dozen or so people