3 ms·

>And all those extra workers that have been hired? Well, they came from working on other things. Things that aren't getting done anymore How can you be so sure

>And all those extra workers that have been hired? Well, they came from working on other things. Things that aren't getting done anymore How can you be so sure? What if they came out of schools into their first job? Now those people get training, and some skills in their resume for the future. Honestly, your entire comment reads very FUDy and lacking in proof/substance.

crazygringo 3y ago
It's by definition. They would have gone to another job instead, where they would have gotten similar training and skills, on average. Arms production isn't hiring a ton of people who would be unemployed otherwise. US unemployment is at around a historic low. Every extra job added there is basically being taken away from somewhere else. That's just how the economy works.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >They would have gone to another job instead So why didn't they go to those other jobs instead? You're making it sound like they got roped into slavery against their will.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > You're making it sound like they got roped into slavery against their will. Of course I'm not. It's great for them. But it still means there's another job left unfilled. If they're making weapons, something else is not getting made/done. That's all I'm saying. Hope it's clear now.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      > But it still means there's another job left unfilled. Then it's their fault for being less competitive employers than those other military jobs. Welcome to the free market. You are not owed employees just because you have a job opening, you need to compete for them. If you're an unattractive employer, tough shit mate. Git gud.
      - xcv123 3y ago
        You are completely missing the point here.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        Please, arrive at the point.
        xcv123 3y ago
        The other commenters here said it better than I did. Here's an explanation of the Broken Window Fallacy https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fa...
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > Then it's their fault Nobody said anything about fault or added any moral claims. Instead it is merely that another job is unfilled. This is an argument about economics, not anything to do with who owes who, which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > You are not owed employees That's a fine response to a person complaining that specific jobs are lacking workers. The idea that as a total statistic there are fewer normal jobs getting filled is a different thing entirely.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Because money is being spent. If you spend 1 billion on salaries then you can put compete someone else for labor. The trick to understand is it isn’t companies paying 50$/hour jobs being unable to find anyone because some company is paying 51$/hour. Instead companies paying ~15$/hour who can’t entice anyone because a long chain of people ended up with slightly better paying jobs because better candidates went elsewhere. Or at least it ends up that way long term, new factories can suck up all the local welders/etc temporarily, but then people learn those in demand skills or move etc.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >Because money is being spent. Yes, and that's a feature not a bug, that's how we have record low unemployment. Because money is being spent on production, and not hoarded away for rainy days or in assets.
- jonnycomputer 3y ago
  No, not by definition. And yet, part of the reason unemployment is at historic lows--and more importantly the labor participation rate is so high--is because we are doing this.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Wrong. Again, this is just basic economic principles. And no, current unemployment rates are not due to any kind of policy like this. We are not in the middle of a massive Keynesian stimulus. To the contrary, interest rates are high to try to slow things down.

crazygringo 3y ago

It's by definition. They would have gone to another job instead, where they would have gotten similar training and skills, on average. Arms production isn't hiring a ton of people who would be unemployed otherwise. US unemployment is at around a historic low. Every extra job added there is basically being taken away from somewhere else. That's just how the economy works.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>They would have gone to another job instead So why didn't they go to those other jobs instead? You're making it sound like they got roped into slavery against their will.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > You're making it sound like they got roped into slavery against their will. Of course I'm not. It's great for them. But it still means there's another job left unfilled. If they're making weapons, something else is not getting made/done. That's all I'm saying. Hope it's clear now.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    > But it still means there's another job left unfilled. Then it's their fault for being less competitive employers than those other military jobs. Welcome to the free market. You are not owed employees just because you have a job opening, you need to compete for them. If you're an unattractive employer, tough shit mate. Git gud.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      You are completely missing the point here.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        Please, arrive at the point.
        xcv123 3y ago
        The other commenters here said it better than I did. Here's an explanation of the Broken Window Fallacy https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fa...
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > Then it's their fault Nobody said anything about fault or added any moral claims. Instead it is merely that another job is unfilled. This is an argument about economics, not anything to do with who owes who, which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      > You are not owed employees That's a fine response to a person complaining that specific jobs are lacking workers. The idea that as a total statistic there are fewer normal jobs getting filled is a different thing entirely.
- Retric 3y ago
  Because money is being spent. If you spend 1 billion on salaries then you can put compete someone else for labor. The trick to understand is it isn’t companies paying 50$/hour jobs being unable to find anyone because some company is paying 51$/hour. Instead companies paying ~15$/hour who can’t entice anyone because a long chain of people ended up with slightly better paying jobs because better candidates went elsewhere. Or at least it ends up that way long term, new factories can suck up all the local welders/etc temporarily, but then people learn those in demand skills or move etc.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Because money is being spent. Yes, and that's a feature not a bug, that's how we have record low unemployment. Because money is being spent on production, and not hoarded away for rainy days or in assets.
jonnycomputer 3y ago
No, not by definition. And yet, part of the reason unemployment is at historic lows--and more importantly the labor participation rate is so high--is because we are doing this.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Wrong. Again, this is just basic economic principles. And no, current unemployment rates are not due to any kind of policy like this. We are not in the middle of a massive Keynesian stimulus. To the contrary, interest rates are high to try to slow things down.