What's wrong with "job creators"

[Truthmatters]

And what would the children of dead workers have?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And what would the children of dead workers have?

an estate worth 1.5 million rather than virtually nothing which is what they get now after the liberal theft

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

"Jobs creators" is a fucked up concept because it gets the point exactly ass-backwards. In the world there are exactly two kinds of people: those who work, and those who don't. Those who don't live off the work of those who do. I may hire a team of virgins to massage my toes and feed me grapes but that doesn't make me productive. No matter how many jobs I "create" I'm still just a slob living off the work of others.

The fact of the matter is - as Adam Smith said so many years ago - the wealth of a nation is not measured by units of money, but by the productivity of its people. The US has within its power the ability to hire everyone who is willing and able to work, adding to the wealth of the nation as a whole, and it's only ignorance and the self-interest of a privileged few that prevents us from doing so.

I'm having trouble grasping exactly what you're getting at with that first paragraph. Is this a, "Physical labor is the only true form of productivity" argument, or are you just saying that make-work jobs are ultimately worthless?

Also, where is this person in paragraph 1 getting the finances to pay for the people doing superfluous make-work jobs? If I manage to put together a successful, say, construction company, then I sell it and enjoy a wealthy retirement, and during said retirement I decide to hire people to rub my feet and feed me grapes, am I a slob living off the work of others? You've left out a lot of potentially game-changing specifics in your little analogy which makes it pretty difficult to get a bead on what it is that you're getting at.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Jobs creators" is a fucked up concept because it gets the point exactly ass-backwards. In the world there are exactly two kinds of people: those who work, and those who don't. Those who don't live off the work of those who do. I may hire a team of virgins to massage my toes and feed me grapes but that doesn't make me productive. No matter how many jobs I "create" I'm still just a slob living off the work of others.

The fact of the matter is - as Adam Smith said so many years ago - the wealth of a nation is not measured by units of money, but by the productivity of its people. The US has within its power the ability to hire everyone who is willing and able to work, adding to the wealth of the nation as a whole, and it's only ignorance and the self-interest of a privileged few that prevents us from doing so.

I'm having trouble grasping exactly what you're getting at with that first paragraph. Is this a, "Physical labor is the only true form of productivity" argument, or are you just saying that make-work jobs are ultimately worthless?

Also, where is this person in paragraph 1 getting the finances to pay for the people doing superfluous make-work jobs? If I manage to put together a successful, say, construction company, then I sell it and enjoy a wealthy retirement, and during said retirement I decide to hire people to rub my feet and feed me grapes, am I a slob living off the work of others? You've left out a lot of potentially game-changing specifics in your little analogy which makes it pretty difficult to get a bead on what it is that you're getting at.

all you have to remember is, government work is make-work that impoverishes the country while private work is real work that enriches the country.