• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can government create jobs?

Is government capable of creating jobs?


  • Total voters
    42

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

What say you?


I believe they can, not only in the short term but in the long term. Government creates jobs through both construction projects and hiring people to do government business. But mostly through improving the overall structure of the country.

Better schools and educations lead to Americans being more internationally desired
Better roads lead to improved transportation costs
Better ports lead to an ability to import and export more goods
More and better metro systems decreases traffic leading to better transportation times
Building industrial parks open up areas for large businesses
And obviously cutting taxes means people will be able to spend more and create jobs that way

Of course government can also kill jobs.


I will say that using the stimulus money to build parks and do nature research was stupid as hell. Those are only short term jobs and will do little in the long term. Waste of money.


Overall though, I am highly skeptical of those who say the stimulus was a complete failure, didn't improve the economy, and didn't create jobs...
Stimulus added millions of jobs in Q2 | Reuters

The massive U.S. stimulus package put millions of people to work and boosted national output by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second quarter, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.
 
Last edited:

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,045
Reaction score
8,121
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I suggest anyone look at the Hoover Dam, the Interstate freeway system as aspects of the government creating jobs
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,802
Reaction score
20,626
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of ways.

1. Regulation can create jobs, whether through compliance or whatever.
2. Infrastructure investment. Any project that creates a benefit to society that is greater than its cost will likely have had a net positive effect on job creation.
 

Helvidius

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
735
Reaction score
325
Location
Good ol' US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, government can create jobs. The issue tends to be whether or not government can create wealth. Can the government make the pie bigger? For example, if the private sector opens up a factory to produce goods it increases wealth because it gives people jobs while simultaneously creating a product that is valued. The factory workers receive paychecks from the profits the company makes in exchanging their product with customers. On the other hand, the government generally pays workers with tax money so there is no profit, but rather money is spread around.

When private enterprise wants more income, it works overtime and produces more goods. When the government wants to save money it shuts down.
-Andrew Napolitano
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,045
Reaction score
8,121
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, government can create jobs. The issue tends to be whether or not government can create wealth. Can the government make the pie bigger? For example, if the private sector opens up a factory to produce goods it increases wealth because it gives people jobs while simultaneously creating a product that is valued. The factory workers receive paychecks from the profits the company makes in exchanging their product with customers. On the other hand, the government generally pays workers with tax money so there is no profit, but rather money is spread around.

When private enterprise wants more income, it works overtime and produces more goods. When the government wants to save money it shuts down
.
-Andrew Napolitano

Andrew Napolitano should read a the business news more often

Private industry has a strong tendancy to shut down plants, cut works in order to get more income (income rather then revenues)
 

Helvidius

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
735
Reaction score
325
Location
Good ol' US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Andrew Napolitano should read a the business news more often

Private industry has a strong tendancy to shut down plants, cut works in order to get more income (income rather then revenues)
But even if private enterprise cuts some jobs it just means it has taken away some of the wealth it created. For example, if a company hires 1,000 people and a year later fires 100 workers it does not mean private enterprise doesn't create wealth. It means that company has cut back on the amount of wealth it creates, but it has still created wealth. Government does not do this. It does not expand the pie, but rather takes from one part of the pie to give to another part.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
88,905
Reaction score
19,218
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I always hated the term "creating jobs". The government does not create "jobs" unless it creates a job that has never been in existence before. What the government does it create job opportunities. The idea that the government creates jobs is basically an ad campaign for government.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,045
Reaction score
8,121
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But even if private enterprise cuts some jobs it just means it has taken away some of the wealth it created. For example, if a company hires 1,000 people and a year later fires 100 workers it does not mean private enterprise doesn't create wealth. It means that company has cut back on the amount of wealth it creates, but it has still created wealth. Government does not do this. It does not expand the pie, but rather takes from one part of the pie to give to another part.
The government can expand the pie as well

The Hoover Dam represents a huge amount of wealth, it has created a huge amount of economic activity through its power generation, recreation by having people use the reservior for boating, for irrigation, and drinking water. The interstate freeway system improved the transportation system through the US increasing effeciency of the US economy as a whole allowing for a a rather growth in the economy
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I believe they can
It doesn't matter what people believe, that fact that people clicked 'no' to this is tardernated. The government is comprised of employees already. Government also created jobs through projects in the past. Government can also affect the economy, can it 'create' jobs? Yes. Is it always of economic benefit given the side effects of the policies it would require to create rote job numbers. Maybe not. Im not an economist.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I suggest anyone look at the Hoover Dam, the Interstate freeway system as aspects of the government creating jobs
Or the military. Or the entire defense industry. Or the entire nuclear power industry. The notion that government cannot create jobs is saying that the companies who are producing artificial limbs for amputee soldiers don't have jobs.

Crazy.

When you objectively examine US military expenditures, it is little more then a command economy dictating industrial policy. The government sets out proposals with large bags of money incentivizing specific work it wants done. It then picks contractors to do specific jobs and research. Rather then let the market produce the desired effect without interference, military expenditures effectively function as a form of central planning. Are there benefits to this? Yes. But military expenditures are one of the largest job creating tools the US government has.
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
88,905
Reaction score
19,218
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure it is, that job wouldn't exist of not for the government, so therefore the government created the job.
The term "create" is what is separating us. I am viewing it as creating not the job position, but the job ... hell, maybe I'm just trying to be too clever, and you know what Yoda said about trying.
 

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, government can create jobs. The issue tends to be whether or not government can create wealth. Can the government make the pie bigger? For example, if the private sector opens up a factory to produce goods it increases wealth because it gives people jobs while simultaneously creating a product that is valued. The factory workers receive paychecks from the profits the company makes in exchanging their product with customers. On the other hand, the government generally pays workers with tax money so there is no profit, but rather money is spread around.

When private enterprise wants more income, it works overtime and produces more goods. When the government wants to save money it shuts down.
-Andrew Napolitano
I'm sure you value the road outside where you live. And you paid for it through your tax dollars.

Would you prefer paying a toll every time you came out of your driveway to get to work?

That road helps make you more wealthy by making it easier for you to get to work. Not to mention it gave access to your plot of land so you could build a house on it. Without that road you likely wouldn't be living there.

And what if you can't afford to send your child to a private school? Would you or your wife/girlfriend be able to afford not working in order to give them an education? Would you be able to get a private teacher? I'm sure you'd value the public school system.

What if you don't have a car? Or can't find a parking spot ever? How will you get to work? Thank God there are buses and subway systems. Taxis are way too expensive to be using every day.

And I don't know about you but I certainly value the fire department, police, and military.

The government doesn't gain a profit... we do. The government has no profit because it spends it's incoming tax dollars back on the public. You need to pay people to make government work.

Remember the saying, "of the people, by the people, for the people"?
 

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The term "create" is what is separating us. I am viewing it as creating not the job position, but the job ... hell, maybe I'm just trying to be too clever, and you know what Yoda said about trying.
What is the difference?
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Of course they can, they have before, and can do it again, it really isn't even a question. It's just a fact.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
32,560
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tell me this, would more jobs exist in an anarchist society or a governed society?
incorrect set of assumptions; creating the conditions for jobs to exist (rule of law, enforcement of contract, minimum violence etc) is not the same as creating a job, any more than shoveling manure is creating a tomato.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,802
Reaction score
20,626
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Sure they can, but should they, is the better question.
When it has a net positive effect on society alternative arrangements, than yes.

Of course that statement is highly subjective.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I just got to say that anyone that selected No really needs to get educated..or maybe they couldn't because the government didn't create enough jobs in their area to allow free public schooling? Any kind of job that has to do with keeping the peace, infrastructure, education, etc including permanent jobs such as the law or teachers probably made its way passed a vote at one point...

Now is the government going to give us all jobs? No. Seriously though 8 of you? Come on people.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
What say you?

I believe they can, not only in the short term but in the long term. Government creates jobs through both construction projects and hiring people to do government business. But mostly through improving the overall structure of the country.

Better schools and educations lead to Americans being more internationally desired
Better roads lead to improved transportation costs
Better ports lead to an ability to import and export more goods
More and better metro systems decreases traffic leading to better transportation times
Building industrial parks open up areas for large businesses
And obviously cutting taxes means people will be able to spend more and create jobs that way

Of course government can also kill jobs.

I will say that using the stimulus money to build parks and do nature research was stupid as hell. Those are only short term jobs and will do little in the long term. Waste of money.

Overall though, I am highly skeptical of those who say the stimulus was a complete failure, didn't improve the economy, and didn't create jobs...
The Civilian Conservation Corps employed three million young men between the ages of 17 and 35 between 1933 and 1942. "The men signed on for 6 months and were organized into crews that reforested land, undertook conservation projects in National Parks, and worked on trails and clearing growth in National Forests. They built bridges, repaired dams, built fire lookouts and fences, and did terracing to prevent erosion. They were paid $30 a month, but they had to send $22- $25 to their folks in the cities, so the parents would have money to spend to stimulate the economy. The CCC was one of the most popular and most successful of the New Deal measures."

"During the time of the CCC, volunteers planted nearly 3 billion trees to help reforest America, constructed more than 800 parks nationwide that would become the start of most state parks, developed forest fire fighting methods, a network of thousands of miles of public roadways, and constructed buildings connecting the nation's public lands." Civilian Conservation Corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A beautiful example of the government stimulating the economy!! In 1942, Congress ceased funding and the program was closed down. Yay! A Congress that actually stopped funding a program!!!!!
 

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sure they can, but should they, is the better question.
Legitimate question. I had a feeling it would be brought up.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the alternatives to the government stimulus. Most people were cutting jobs and cutting spending. I do not believe a tax break alone would have picked the economy back up anywhere near how quickly we came back with the stimulus. Yes, unemployment is high and the economy is still slow to recover, but we needed some way to stop the bleeding, and quickly. A reduction in taxes would have been slow and unreliable (not to mention it would have increased our deficit and debt just as much). How would we know jobs would have been created in the areas where jobs were needed? How would we even know that the people and businesses would have spent the money they saved or recieved when the economy was looking the way it was? Even now we have businesses sitting on trillions of dollars.

The stimulus spending created jobs. Jobs that would not have been there otherwise. Through projects that in some cases will lead to other jobs being created. Yes, the stimulus wasn't perfect... you have politicians, both locally and on the federal level, to blame for that. But I don't believe the stimulus was a complete failure.
 
Top Bottom