3 ms·

It's not employment because it doesn't generate wealth. Your warm feelings about it notwithstanding.

• protomyth 12y ago
  So, excluding all government jobs would be appropriate? No police or fire in your numbers either?
  • innguest 12y ago
    The government owes $118 trillion total (adding unfunded liabilities). When it can balance its budget than maybe we can have this discussion. Otherwise, anyone can steal $18 trillion from the masses under the pretense of using it for the public good - when really all (yes, 100%) it does is pay debt interest according to the government's own report on how tax money is spent - and "create" several jobs for you as well. So no, those shouldn't count unless you want to keep on living on fantasy land, believe government's inflation numbers (and close your eyes when you go grocery shopping), and ignore the fact those government "jobs" do not make us more competitive to other countries. You don't win in the global economy by giving everyone jobs, but by allowing people to create real jobs that compete with other countries so that we as a population become wealthier.
• wtbob 12y ago
  As protomyth notes, by your rationale neither does law enforcement, public education or firefighting, but I'll add that the same rationale also argues for exclusion of anyone working for a non-profit (and indeed, at least the public sector ideally creates an environment in which wealth creation can exist, while charity consumes wealth). Given that these are employment figures, it's odd to segregate one career from all the others.