Gross Versus Net Job Creation

One of my pet peeves is when politicians trumpet their particular program as a “job creator.” In Michigan, we have the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, which is a partnership of the state government and local governments and is headed by a board of directors comprised of business people. According to their website, they “have the ability, authority and reach to serve as a one-stop resource for business retention, expansion and relocation projects.” The idea behind this project is to create jobs in Michigan.

Similarly, the Obama administration has been trumpeting “green jobs” as the jobs of the future. Government subsidies of these types of companies, the administration argues, will lead not only to a better planet, but to greater job creation.

I have no doubt that these types of initiatives create jobs. After all, Jeff Daniels tells me that the MEDC creates jobs in all of the commercials. However, this is gross job creation whereas I am concerned with net job creation. In other words, as Bastiat would argue, these programs highlight what is seen and ignore what is unseen.

To give an example, when President Obama was pushing the stimulus package, he repeatedly highlighted the fact that moving health records to an electronic form would create jobs. Of course this is true. There must be somebody who accomplishes this task. However, isn’t it also true that those who do the filing in doctor’s offices around the country will no longer be necessary. Thus, it is not clear whether this creates jobs on net. This is not to say that this policy is undesirable, but rather that the “jobs creation” justification is not entirely clear. (Also, I am not singling out the Obama administration. I chose this example because it has long been a political talking point.)

It is particularly disheartening, however, to see the same claims made by economists. For example, Paul Krugman recently made the claim that such restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions would give companies “a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity.” Again, there is little dispute that companies will have to adjust their behavior and invest in new equipment (otherwise the policy isn’t effective). However, is there any reason to believe that this type of investment is beneficial? Don Boudreaux provides an excellent response:

Technological innovations benefit society not by giving firms “a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities,” but by reducing costs – not by making resources scarcer (by artificially increasing demands for them) but by making resources go farther in their capacity to satisfy human desires.

If “a reason to invest” were sufficient to restore economic vigor, then war and natural disasters would do the trick even better than would government restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions.

Again, this is not to say that any of these programs are necessarily bad. Certainly, if one thinks that global warming is a serious threat, then perhaps a policy that limits greenhouse gas emissions is a good policy. The problem, however, is that these policies and programs are often not sold on their direct purpose or merits. Rather, politicians use arguments of economic growth and job creation.

3 responses to “Gross Versus Net Job Creation

  1. Good post..

    But it seems you are trying to remain poli-neutral to some extent. A little hard to do particularly if you parse the reality of even the last paragraph.

    “The problem, however, is that these policies and programs are often not sold on their direct purpose or merits. Rather, politicians use arguments of economic growth and job creation.”

    Touche’ And why might that be? Perhaps the “merits” are not themselves sufficient to overcome the loss of liberties, and overall wealth. There are underlying beneficiaries which drive the motivations of the politicos (who quite frankly are too stupid to exist as producers in a real free market society) which bring us crisis upon crisis.

    And it doesn’t take much to look at the historical precedent of carbon caps etc.. Spain which created one “Green Job” for each of the two it destroyed in higher energy costs and compliance.

    My Motto: “Carbon Caps = Dunce Caps”

  2. linusstephens

    If you agree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the best way to keep our economy strong is by keeping taxes low, fair and simple, please visit http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction/index.cfm?ID=42 and sign our petition.

  3. Pingback: Some 60 environmental groups wrote in a Feb. 6 letter to Kerry, “This pipe is not in our national interest – evidence shows it would discover vast levels of extra carbon that individuals cannot afford to burn up, expand our harmful addiction t

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s