Analysis of media issues, politics and current events.
Quick recap from before: I said job creators aren’t really job creators because like the Law of Thermodynamics, jobs can’t be created or destroyed. Like a vacuum of talent, business ideas and growth create dynamic shifts in jobs between business opportunity and talent needs and as a result, shits in the people to fill them. Jobs aren’t created they are re-distributed. With that in mind some might make the argument…
“What about all the business that have been created in the 20th century? Created jobs, right?”
I’d say not job creation. Job conversion. Industrial revolution and strong growth is what turned us in to what America and the world is today. But still at it’s heart, it’s a process where people traded agrarian jobs working out in the fields for jobs in the manufacturing in the cities. And the agrarian jobs vacuum were soaked up by farm machines that could do more work with less people.
All the internet businesses of the 90s. Did they create jobs? They grew in jobs, but a lot of those came at the expense of other industries. Industries like advertising, media, engineering felt the drain workers bolting their old professions to join internet startups. And economy of scale and scare expertise made them high paying jobs.
Also in line with my theory the jobs kinda follow The Law of Thermodynamics. Ever notice that when layoffs are announced, companies don’t say they “destroyed” jobs. Rather they “shed” them or “let them go.” That phrasing implies the jobs still exist. Just not with that employer. As if they are floating out the job-o-sphere waiting to be reclaimed. And they are. Waiting for the vacuum of a job opening to cause worker distribution.
Another argument for my thermodynamics of jobs. Its the competition of businesses. Jobs are the conversion of the need for work to be done. If there wasn’t a limited marketplace, companies could compete and and jobs to meet that market without limit. But it’s not. In business and industry, one company’s growth happens at the expense of another. AT&T gets bigger and add more employees while a competitor like Sprint’s market share and ability to sustain it’s level of workers suffers.
Also the job of business is not to be job creators. If so, there would be more jobs in throwing a way the automobile and selling cars that needed humans to push them. Or if you are a union and you require five people to change a lightbulb, that adds (needless) jobs. And profitable business still cut jobs in spite of increased revenue. Why?
For the business owner, the act job creation as a goal itself itself is not conducive to profits. Manpower, labor, healthcare benefits, all impact and diminish a business ultimate goal. To optimize profits. A goal that actually makes “job creation” or staff costs a necessary evil. Not goal.