This campaign, like every other in recent memory, produces lots of political promises about jobs. Challengers and incumbents alike earnestly pledge to create work for people.
That means one of two things: either they believe the government does actually create jobs, which it does not, or they are simply saying what they believe voters want to hear.
As to the second possibility, that’s just old style political patronizing. If a politician believes that voters are most worried about the economy, then he or she is going to talk about fixing it, as if any single politician had a magic bullet that could penetrate the complexities of a free market.
So a politician makes promises he knows full well cannot be delivered. What else is new?
The first view, however, is more troublesome.
The dramatic expansion and power of government has fostered the belief that it can do anything, including micro-manage the free market. If more people need jobs, then Charleston or Washington can pull a few levers and, voila, your job is waiting for you.
Or, jobs are created by hiring people to fill the millions of government positions, from school teachers to astronauts.
That is more or less the argument put forward by a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, which led to a reasoned counter argument by economist Robert Samuelson.
He points out the difference between government’s expansion of employment and private sector job creation.
When the government adds workers, the money to pay their salaries and benefits comes from taxes on the private sector (or borrowed money that must be paid back by the private sector). Thus, Samuelson says, the dollar to pay the government worker came from a dollar from the private sector that would have been spent in ways that expand the economy.
“People buy things they need and want,” Samuelson writes, “or businesses and private investors take risks by investing in new products, technologies and factories. All this spending, driven by self-interest and the profit motive, supports more jobs.”
Now, that’s not to diminish the importance of government jobs and services. They are essential for our republic to function, although the size and scope of these government services is debatable.
Samuelson does point out what he says is one glaring exception: stimulus spending. Government can pump money into the economy which should result in some hiring, but economists disagree on whether the benefit justifies the cost.
But during election season, politicians typically don’t want to debate economics. Instead, candidates prefer to one-up each other on which one cares more about getting you back to work.
Samuelson concludes that the refrain is repeated so often that people make a false assumption: "If government seems to create jobs, it must."
If that were so, self-serving politicians would have created a job for every constituent. This time of year there certainly is no shortage of promises.