4 ms·

1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the la

1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the last month. Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. People are freaking crazy.

mhluongo 8y ago
> Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. Unless there's a labor shortage?
- AznHisoka 8y ago
  True but the narrative is always about the possibility of a recession and companies being afraid to invest in their businesses. Rarely do I see this point being made.
- nradov 8y ago
  Labor shortages are basically a myth. They only exist when governments impose artificial wage limits.
xondono 8y ago
It’s a known phenomenon in economy. The modern name is “make-work bias”.
Retric 8y ago
US population is growing. So the steady state employment rate requires ~190,000 net jobs to be added every month. If the number is below that the a lower percentage of population is employed this month than last month.
- AznHisoka 8y ago
  Hmm is this growth in population predominantly in the working age group? If more babies are being born, then they cant exactly work yet. Furthermore, what about people retiring?
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Yes. Most of the growth is immigration. People don't immigrate to retire. They immigrate to work.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - AznHisoka 8y ago
      are most of these people qualified for most job openings?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hopler 8y ago
Jobs are a proxy for both productivity and for citizens' share of value. Productivity without jobs is inequality, in a capitalist economy. If we had a socialist economy with a citizens dividend, we'd care more about productivity than jobs. Even so, a human is untapped potential, and jobs tap that potential.
- UnpossibleJim 8y ago
  The problem comes in that these systems of government only ever work on paper. People lay out Communism, socialism and capitalism as though they're these absolutes and forget that they have to exist in the real world run by real people, warts and all. People will find cracks in the system, exploit them and widen them to make them better for their particular group. Whatever "ism" you conjure is no panacea for whatever ails you. The grass is always greener on the other side, is all.
  - orthecreedence 8y ago
    Right, agreed. The problem with our current system in the US is the "cracks" are being exploited by those who have massive amounts of capital, and they've engineered the system so they continuously control a growing amount of it. So wealth is being siphoned out of the economy at an alarming rate and we now essentially have an economic plutocracy. But, gee, that's fine because those people earned that money...nevermind that's it's economically ineffective. We either need more radical forms of wealth (re)distribution or we need to give everyone a share in the productive forces. Yes, there will be cracks in the system, but I guarantee we'll be better off than we are now.
    - UnpossibleJim 8y ago
      I'm curious. Did you take my post as pro capitalism? Or pro status quo? And out of curiosity, what exactly was it that pointed to that conclusion? It really wasn't my intention, is all and that's why I'm curious and you seem pretty bent out of shape, or am I misreading the, "But, gee, that's fine because those people earned that money...nevermind that's it's economically ineffective."

mhluongo 8y ago

> Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. Unless there's a labor shortage?

AznHisoka 8y ago
True but the narrative is always about the possibility of a recession and companies being afraid to invest in their businesses. Rarely do I see this point being made.
nradov 8y ago
Labor shortages are basically a myth. They only exist when governments impose artificial wage limits.

xondono 8y ago

It’s a known phenomenon in economy. The modern name is “make-work bias”.

Retric 8y ago

US population is growing. So the steady state employment rate requires ~190,000 net jobs to be added every month. If the number is below that the a lower percentage of population is employed this month than last month.

AznHisoka 8y ago
Hmm is this growth in population predominantly in the working age group? If more babies are being born, then they cant exactly work yet. Furthermore, what about people retiring?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Yes. Most of the growth is immigration. People don't immigrate to retire. They immigrate to work.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - AznHisoka 8y ago
    are most of these people qualified for most job openings?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hopler 8y ago

Jobs are a proxy for both productivity and for citizens' share of value. Productivity without jobs is inequality, in a capitalist economy. If we had a socialist economy with a citizens dividend, we'd care more about productivity than jobs. Even so, a human is untapped potential, and jobs tap that potential.

UnpossibleJim 8y ago
The problem comes in that these systems of government only ever work on paper. People lay out Communism, socialism and capitalism as though they're these absolutes and forget that they have to exist in the real world run by real people, warts and all. People will find cracks in the system, exploit them and widen them to make them better for their particular group. Whatever "ism" you conjure is no panacea for whatever ails you. The grass is always greener on the other side, is all.
- orthecreedence 8y ago
  Right, agreed. The problem with our current system in the US is the "cracks" are being exploited by those who have massive amounts of capital, and they've engineered the system so they continuously control a growing amount of it. So wealth is being siphoned out of the economy at an alarming rate and we now essentially have an economic plutocracy. But, gee, that's fine because those people earned that money...nevermind that's it's economically ineffective. We either need more radical forms of wealth (re)distribution or we need to give everyone a share in the productive forces. Yes, there will be cracks in the system, but I guarantee we'll be better off than we are now.
  - UnpossibleJim 8y ago
    I'm curious. Did you take my post as pro capitalism? Or pro status quo? And out of curiosity, what exactly was it that pointed to that conclusion? It really wasn't my intention, is all and that's why I'm curious and you seem pretty bent out of shape, or am I misreading the, "But, gee, that's fine because those people earned that money...nevermind that's it's economically ineffective."