Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: When is a Job Not Employment?
Message-ID: <117200044@inmet>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 02:09:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200044
Posted: Thu Sep 18 02:09:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:15:33 EDT
References: <3384@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 33
Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs.UUCP:-338400:inmet:117200044:000:1489
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh    Sep 18 02:09:00 1986


>/* Written  8:44 am  Sep 12, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */
>/* ---------- "When is a Job Not Employment?" ---------- */
>David Olson writes:
>
>>>But to say the government provides no jobs is absolutely ridiculous!
>
>>I never said it doesn't provide jobs; just that they must come at the
>>expense of other jobs.  Do you think they are free?  Dammit Tim, where
>>the hell do you think wealth/jobs come from?  Do you think they fall out
>>of the sky?
>
>Well, this is strange way of talking.  If you look at this purely from the
>cash flow point of view, there's no difference between a government job and
>a supposedly private one.  Moreover, the "cost a job" way of looking at
>things works to some extent in private industry too.
>
>THis simply isn't a good way of looking at employment.  The Feds employ air
>traffic controllers.  Can anyone deny that they help to facilitate the
>making of wealth?
>
>C. Wingate
>/* End of text from inmet:talk.pol.misc */
>

Hey!  The feds employ air traffic controllers because they have a state
supported monopoly on this stuff.  No feds -- and you STILL get air
traffic controllers, and THEY still add to wealth.  The difference
between a government job and a private one is this: nobody had to 
threaten anybody with jail to divert the funds for the private job.  Or
to put it in a more bald fashion yet: the private job struck the 
employer as worthwhile, and the public one struck somebody as
politically desirable.