conservativejock saidI'm curious as to how our usually rather combative liberals on RJ see the issue of job creation. If it is within one's ability to create jobs, why would you do so in today's economy?
Having said that, let's assume job creation requires a willful act to establish a business that will employ people -- I am not suggesting jobs are created solely by demand in this thread. Furthermore, with today's rising illiteracy in America, should one be required to employ unskilled labor that is typically illiterate?
There is no reason to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. It would be ruinous and in the long term bankrupt a company (assuming there is no demand for the products of the company and hence no actual reason for the positions). However, we still need our skilled workers to be employed and ready to give skills to others. Things need to still get done in any nation.
Hence part of the reason why we have a public sector. Sometimes some things need to get done. Building roads, having a police force, teaching, etc. A public sector can employ people regardless of market conditions (we always need roads, fire safety, teachers, etc.)
This means that during down economic times, we won't go into oblivion trying to rely on the for profit sector to create jobs despite of a lack of demand. Also, it makes sure that we have skilled, safe, and (if we were like other industrialized nations) healthy workforce that would be competitive once demand ticks up and employers start hiring again.
Obviously an overzealous public sector is not good either. China is a prime example with ghost cities. The government created jobs for the sake of creating jobs and now it is facing a huge housing bubble. Obviously there are constraints to how much influence the government should have in a market based economy.
Job creation should not solely be focused on the private sector. Otherwise we would truly have a Darwinian society.