Why Jobs Don’t Justify Government Spending

Commentary

As Trump initiates the closure of government bureaus (or parts of them), the focus is on the downside: employees will lose their jobs if these agencies are shut down.

Although it is unfortunate for individuals to lose their jobs, not every job is indispensable.

Every job, whether in the government or private sector, has its pros and cons. The benefit lies in the value the job adds for both the individual and society based on their output. However, there’s also an opportunity cost associated with the resources and time spent on that job.

Related Stories

In the private sector, companies evaluate the balance between a worker’s output and cost to determine if a job is financially viable. If the job generates more revenue than its expenses, it contributes to the company’s profitability. Otherwise, if the job costs exceed the revenue, other uses of resources are deemed more essential. In such cases, the job is not created.

“A government is not a profit-seeking enterprise. The conduct of its affairs cannot be checked by profit-and-loss statements. Its achievement cannot be valued in terms of money.”

The benefits of government initiatives are apparent, like the construction of a bridge that serves the public. However, the cost is less transparent. The funds and materials extracted from taxpayers for such projects could have been allocated elsewhere, but since politicians use tax money, they do not bear the consequences.

“When providing employment becomes the end [of building the bridge], need becomes a subordinate consideration. ‘Projects’ have to be invented. Instead of thinking only where bridges must be built, the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built.”

But do these jobs truly enrich society? Not necessarily. As Hazlitt points out:

“It is true that a particular group of bridgeworkers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers.”

The government can create jobs through taxation, but some roles may actually harm societal wealth. Just like it would be wasteful for a private company to dig and refill holes, the government must ensure that its jobs are not counterproductive. Without financial accountability, it’s challenging to determine if government positions are truly beneficial or just akin to digging and refilling holes.

The federal government is not primarily a job provider, especially if its goal is to enhance citizens’ lives. Therefore, the argument that reducing government size negatively impacts the economy due to job losses is not necessarily valid. These displaced workers can transition to the private sector, where employers are guided by consumer demand, competition, and financial performance.

Maggie’s perspective is spot on—the government is not a means to solely create jobs.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.