True, but jobs in the traditional American sense are a by product of industry. In the "good old days", the wealthy would create companies and factories to actually build things here in this country. That created wealth in itself as well as additional wealth from jobs which fueled consumerism. Henry Ford had the right idea when he said that every one of his factory workers needed to ear enough to be able to afford to buy his product. Now, the uber wealthy have no sense of American loyalty and export our jobs and the wealth of their enterprise outside of our borders.
That is because endless regulations, restrictions and political pandering to special interest groups like organized labor make it uncompetitive to produce things here. The US Consumer is to blame, perhaps? After all, the consumer is the person who wants things cheap.
Wealth is not created or fueled by consumerism. Consumption of ones own wealth shows that prosperity has been achieved, but it does not achieve prosperity. The tail does not wag the dog. Prosperity and wealth, rather, are achieved by a LACK of consumption. Or put another way, the ability to produce more than one consumes. If we didn't biologically require food or water, would we be worse off as a society because farmers would be out of a job?
It is neither the job itself, nor the consumption of what that job produces which creates wealth in society. If what a job produced wasn't consumed, that frees up that portion of labor to be disversified into other areas.
America has become a de facto 3`rd world nation who exports most of our natural resources and imports most of our manufactured goods. I see this in the PNW where 99% of our lumber mills have shut down. We still cut just as many trees, but we ship them over seas or up to Canada to be milled into lumber which we then import from Canada. A job still has to have a point and purpose and we all get that. Jobs (or lack there of) are an indicator or byproduct of the health of an economy.
I can't understand how you can reconcile those two statements. In one, you admit that the quality of a job is important as the job existing. The number of jobs, therefore, is irrelevant witout a context of quality. We have mobs of people sitting around performing retail sales services for products we don't make here. These don't serve to reduce the trade deficit which means they don't actually create wealth since we can't export their services to offset what we import. Japanese and Koreans aren't coming here to buy stuff from Best Buy. The only thing we export are treasury bonds.
If we could perform the same services our economy does, would it matter if half the people were employed? This goes back to effiency and efficacy.
Again, there has been an out of control upward redistribution of wealth in this country since Reagan. Before Reagan, the average CEO of a company made about 5 to 10 times what a common worker in his factory made. Today, that ratio is something like 400 to 500 times what the average worker makes.
How is this relevant? It's just an appeal to emotion. People make more or less as their salary based on their preceived value. CEO's are paid by the board of directors in publically traded corporations. They make these salaries because people continue to patronize their companies through consumption or through investment. These, despite the protests to the contrary, are votes of confidence in paying executive board members large salaries. Where do most of these votes come from? The middle/working class people who make (purportedly) 1/400th to 1/500th of his salary.
A job enables a member of society to be self reliant and contribute back into the society and economy through takes, labor and consumerism. Without jobs, there is no domestic economy.
A job may allow a person to be self-reliant, but that is not its function. But you hint at a more important concept here. If a job is something that provides something another consumes, then what is that dictates which jobs are needed by society?
No, but jobs are the byproduct of an efficient economy. If there are no jobs to be performed, that is an indicator that no actual economic activity is taking place.
If there are no jobs to be performed, or if no jobs are being performed? If four men can do the work of four, does the fourth not working matter?
A reduction in the amount of jobs would be indication of effiency. It only makes sense. Who is more efficient, a group of 5 carpenters who can frame a house in 10 days or a group of 4 who can frame a house in 10 days?
Yes and no. Certainly eliminating superfluous jobs helps maximize profits but this can go too far (and has) when you eliminate so many jobs that it kills domestic consumerism, then the system has begun to cannibalize itself. It is really all about moderation and this is something we used to get. Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) was known as the "trust buster" because he saw the damage that uncontrolled Autocracy did to democracy and in fact in the end undermined the strength of free market capitalism. (too much of a good thing perhaps?.....
Again, we can't obssess with the idea of consumption being needed to patronize production. A commonly used analogy is a small farming community that produces everything it needs. Everyone eats slightly less than they produce except for one member who eats the aggregate balance. Obviously, this means he has to consume more than he produces. If he suddenly were to be removed from the economy, would the economy fall apart because he's no longer there to provide consumption to patronize their production?