It's not my job man

[j]

I’ve been looking for an article for a long time now that supports the vision of free trade practices, and I have finally found it. I’ll admit, I have always backed free trade, but could never put into words why. The other side on this issue has always resorted to scare tactics, a common Liberal trick.

But anyway…read on, and see if you think this makes any sense. The core issue: Capitalism.

-----------------------------------------------------------


It's not my job man (by Ralph Bristol)

I hate to break it to my producer, Skip, but I suspect there will be a time when technology renders his job unnecessary - or at least part of it.

Skip does a number of things during the Ralph Bristol Show, but the one that consumes the most time is screening phone calls. There will come a time when someone will design an automated phone screener that answers the calls, prompts the caller to answer a few simple questions, and displays the caller's name, location, and brief comments on my call-screener computer. It will be a bit more complicated for technology to take over the rest of Skip's duties, but it could be done.

Should we then lament the loss of Skip's job? No. Skip is a resilient man, capable of performing many different tasks, and he will simply have to find a more compelling need for his skills. That's how a free-market economy works - if politicians let it.

Gary Wolfram, a Professor of Political Economy at Hillsdale College, writes for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:

Senator John Kerry has suggested that companies that "take their jobs" overseas are traitors and complains that not enough jobs are being created under President Bush's tenure. Unfortunately, a candidate for President would not be making such statements unless a lot of people thought the same way, which shows how poorly understood our economic system is.

Wolfram understands something far too few others do - the purpose of business is not to create jobs, but to create goods and services. The fewer people it takes to create the product or service that others are willing to purchase, the more affordable it will be for customers to buy. That frees up more of their money to buy other goods and services that someone else creates.

Wolfram uses a somewhat nonsensical example to illustrate a perfectly sensible point. He says:

. suppose I invented a magic auto-manufacturing machine. It can create automobiles without any costly inputs, and in particular no labor. I simply set the dial for 100 automobiles and in the next hour out they come. Of course, such a machine would not create jobs. In fact it would eliminate many jobs in the automobile industry. Should I destroy my machine because of this? Would the world be better off if we had more of such machines or less?

Wolfram believes the world would be better off because the price of autos would drop dramatically, making them affordable for everyone, and everyone would have more of their income to buy other goods and services.

I can almost hear people screaming now: "But Ralph, if no one has a job producing these things, how can they afford to buy anything regardless of how cheap they are?" I've heard the question countless times. It's a silly question. Inventory your own life. How many things do you own that you can't make for yourself? How many people do you pay to do things for you that you can't do for yourself?

Today, I'm having my dentist put a cap on a tooth that's been broken for a long time. I'll never be able to do that myself, and he will never be able to make the things he needs to do it for me. Neither will he ever be able to run his business by himself.

As long as people need things and services that they can't make or do by themselves, there will always be plenty of jobs. The jobs will simply change to meet the ever-changing needs for goods and services.

Jobs are an inevitable byproduct of a vibrant, capitalistic economy, but the workers, just like the business owners, have to be flexible and smart enough to recognize and adapt to the ever-changing demands of the market. That ability or lack thereof is the primary distinction between winners and losers in a capitalist economy.