Then you take your new definition that jobs are only those things which fill a “felt need” and further mutate the definition to exclude any needs you actually don’t agree with.

Thus, you’re able to again circularly proclaim that things that people do because others hired them to do them are not actually “jobs”.

Nice.

This is the last time I am going to explain this. There are people out there who operate health food stores. I don’t eat that stuff, and I don’t care who does. That does not mean it is unnecessary, or that there is no “felt need”,

OK?

Next, the government has thousands of employees doing all sorts of things from making copies to flying jet planes. Those are government jobs, (Civil Service, Military, Government contractors, what have you) These are jobs which someone feels are necessary, and for which someone sees a “felt need”.

OK?

Paying teenagers to plant trees in forest, is not necessary, nor does it fulfill anyone’s “felt need”, except perhaps some kid’s desire for a paycheck in exchange for little or no work; or a desire on a liberal’s part to feel good about himself.

OK ?

That’s the third time — three strikes and you’re out .

Telling someone you will not respond to their comment, is not normally considered a response . You are being churlish.

However, your other comment, doesn’t fulfill any felt need of mine to respond to it.

And, yet, you did. A final example of your claiming one thing while actually demonstrating the opposite.

So, yes, people have asked for it, and yes, it does fulfill a “felt need”

However, your other comment, doesn’t fulfill any felt need of mine to respond to it. Perhaps if the potential remuneration were higher?

Or suppose private industry started paying people to give political news coverage 6-12 hours a day and over double that on Sundays? That is useful, to a point, not really necessary, and no one asked for it.

So how is gov’t that different than private industry? Both create jobs. Some essential, some in response to demand, some not.

Because anyone just disagreeing with you is a personal attack, so you can never be anything other than the unsullied victim?

Or

When someone else does make a personal comment, escalating it to repeated threats of physical violence doesn’t count because the other person’s verbal jab justified any retaliation no matter how excessive?

One of those your standard, Frank? Just trying to reconcile what you’re saying now with what has actually gone before.

Can you point to any significant number of people that demanded all that coverage? I’m positive if I were to poll every person I cross paths with in even the most brief respect there wouldn’t be a one of them who would honestly claim “Yeah, I always used to think there wasn’t enough political news coverage and we really needed close to constant round-the-clock coverage.”

You’ve just undercut your own arguments. It isn’t that Washington is doing more than it used to. It’s that it’s being reported more. And that reporting wasn’t created in response to a demand, so I guess those reporters don’t really have “jobs”.

I am not referring to non-essential jobs — but you do raise an interesting point. When there is bad weather, the government say that at its agencies, only “essential personnel” have to make it in. So, everyone else is non-essential?

But I digress.

Let me try the simplest, clarifying example I can imagine:

Your sidewalks and driveway are covered with snow. You dread the idea of doing all that shovelling, and then cleaning off the car.

Just then , a young boy comes to the door, and says, “Hey, Mister! For $10 I’ll shovel your sidewalk and your driveway.”

You give boy $5 now, and $5 when done.

Later, he tells you he’s done, you look outside , it’s all clean, you give him the other $5 and two bucks extra .

That was a job that fulfilled a felt need .

Now, suppose the government starts paying kids to shovel the snow off people’s lawns. That is useful, to a point, not really necessary, and no one asked for it.

That is “make work”, and not ‘job creation’. Now, if you don’t understand the difference now, I give up.

Frank, how does the government not create jobs?

Yes, but the latter two aren’t “made and sold to profit the producer”.

My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone.

And my link provides evidence to the contrary, IN THE SAME ARTICLE.

You seem to be familiar with them

You don’t watch alot of TV, do you? Nah, you probably get your entertainment by telegraph.

does not make you an economist.

Still hell of a lot better at it than you.

My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone. [see above]

You never fail to entertain me , Zython

abanterer: You try to reply to four or five people twisting your words , saying you really meant something else, and pretending you said something else, and you’ll see how confusing it gets for me.

I repeat, civil service jobs are jobs, the CCC and WPA were make work … If you don’t know the difference , I can help you no further.

Zython “exclusive goods, public good, and common goods” all fulfill a “felt need of a consumer”. Throwing around a few terms from Economics 101 — do they teach that at DeVry? You seem to be familiar with them — does not make you an economist.

So…if the government creates jobs to satisfy a demand, that’s not creating jobs, but…

The Works Progress Administration and the CCC did work that no one needed or wanted.

If they do it to NOT satisfy a pre-existing demand, that’s not creating jobs either. You’ve gone out of your way to frame the debate such that you can’t lose. That’s juvenile at best.

My record still stands – I have never instigated or initiated a personal attack against anyone.

Uh…

we learned that products are made and sold to profit the producer, while fulfilling a felt need of the consumer.

I guess you then tuned out everything about exclusive goods, public good, and common goods.

and graduated Magna cum laude

Let me guess, DeVry, right?

Look, I’m saying that the government creates jobs all the time. It fulfills a demand for a number of jobs that the private sector has either been unwilling to move into, or been unable to perform effectively. The government created the Internet and developed the process of atomic fission; these weren’t these done by fairies, but people on the government dime.

I’m not trying to chide you here, but you’re using a really weird definition for employment. I put it to you that the government does employ people in positions that are demanded by citizens who pay taxes for this to be done, and that these are jobs. Tell me how they aren’t.

What do you think “popular demand” means?

You can suggest all you want, but the demand for a Police Department or a Fire Department always precedes its creation. It’s not like some bureaucrat woke up one day, and thought, “I have a great idea to create jobs! Let’s get a bunch of guys together, and teach them how to put out fires. We’ll pay them money, and call them – let’s see – I know! Firemen!

Please , don’t be ridiculous!

The Water Company is not a project set up to create employment. Sanitation workers were not created by some ancient version of the New Deal.

No one said, “Wouldn’t it be great to build a bridge from Manhattan to Brooklyn , so we could emply a bunch of people ?”

When you’re totally wrapped up in the “Government can accomplish anything” mentality, it is hard for you to understand that things can, and do, occur separately from Government.

Even I am old enough to remember when there wasn’t much to report from Washington on any given day, and I was born after World War II. Now, we have three cable networks reporting news from Washington somehere between 6 and 10 hours a day, and a special channel for government broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 12 – 15 hours of political discussion every Sunday. And there’s much more I haven’t included. Judging by television alone , you would think 1984 had already arrived.

Obviously, the issue is what constitutes a ‘job’. These are jobs, and the government, local, state and federal, advertise them, hire for them, pay for them and provide tools for them. How is government not making jobs?