Replies

You wrote: So Willie; set me straight over here. It's policy that creates jobs?

I wrote: Policy can effect the creation of jobs. If you do not believe that is true, then you are denying the underlying premise of supply side economics.

You wrote: will not deny that policy can - and to be sure, does - affect the creation of jobs. But, I will deny that in a free society it is the policies that are the underlying premise of supply side economics. No, it is the entrepreneurial nature of risk takers that bring their goods and services to market to meet a consumer demand (perceived or not) that creates the jobs.

While I agree that in the end, it is ultimately the entrepreneur that creates the job, government policies do have an effect on the job creation environment.

I think of it like farming. Soil conditions (or policy) greatly influence what can be grown and the bounty of the yield. Can a fart mer go against bad soil conditions and grow things in bad conditions? Of course. But more likely, that farmer will simply abandon the bad soil and put his efforts elsewhere. Thus, the policies enacted by the government are quite important for the "farming" of jobs.

One wonders if you would be minimizing the role of policy if we were discussing tort reform, environmental regulation or tax policy. It is only with free trade that policy seems to become irrelevant.

And as to the loss of phone answering jobs, which you seem to deem inconsequential, these are the type of entry level positions that once taught teens the first principles of a work ethic, allowed folks to work their way through school or allowed folks on welfare to transition into productivity.

The results of those jobs vanishing, either through out-sourcing or the in-sourcing of foreign laborers, is apparent today. Teens now turn their noses up at jobs that have had their wages pushed to an artificial low. Students get government subsidized loans. People do stay on unemployment longer. None of these results are good for fostering a strong work ethic in those who most need to learn it but instead show government as being the source of support. Support for such results is an odd form of conservatism.

While I agree that in the end, it is ultimately the entrepreneur that creates the job, government policies do have an effect on the job creation environment.

And we're disagreeing where on this one?

I think of it like farming. Soil conditions (or policy) greatly influence what can be grown and the bounty of the yield. Can a fart mer go against bad soil conditions and grow things in bad conditions? Of course. But more likely, that farmer will simply abandon the bad soil and put his efforts elsewhere. Thus, the policies enacted by the government are quite important for the "farming" of jobs.

I thought that when the farmer's soil is bad that they just ask for subsidies and protections...oops, silly me, you were making an analogy.

And as to the loss of phone answering jobs, which you seem to deem inconsequential, these are the type of entry level positions that once taught teens the first principles of a work ethic, allowed folks to work their way through school or allowed folks on welfare to transition into productivity.

I'd like to see some empirical evidence of "phone jobs" being staffed traditionally by teenagers. I don't buy this! Typically "phone jobs" were used to make sales or to answer questions (of varying complexities) about their firms products or services. This skills are not typically possessed by teens.

Teens now turn their noses up at jobs that have had their wages pushed to an artificial low.

If so, the market for labor would correct and wages would increase to attract new labor. Maybe it's older, retired Americans who are willing to perform these jobs while the youth aims a little higher by acquiring some human capital - stuff that will pay off for society down the road (as long as we don't remain so shortsighted).