CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It is critically important to note that unproductive doesn't mean low productivity output per hour nor does it mean that government employees are lazy.
Government jobs are unproductive because some don't provide society with a consumer good or service.
An ambassador is the single most unproductive government employee.
WHY?
An ambassador is simply unable to provide the market with function. Therefore, if the ambassabor position is not demanded by the market, it should not exist.
"In essence, the government creates a demand for these services out of thin air: the existence of ambassadors is what leads to the work done by ambassadors. They do not take their services to market to sell them to anyone who happens to be a willing buyer. Governments appoint ambassadors to perform services that no consumer wishes to buy."
When government forcefully transfers economic resources from the production of economic goods and services to pseudo services with no real market demand, capital and resources are wasted either through labor or land.
Ambassadors performs a function for society, namely being a mediator between two governments(which is clearly a service) the government is an employer or buyer in the labor market. Just because I nor you wouldn't hire a customer service representative, because I don't own a pizza place; doesn't mean that the employer that does is hiring someone that doesn't conduct a service or make a product. The only difference between the government and its ambassadors and the pizza place and its CSRs is the voluntary aspect of payment for a service. Coerced payment for goods or services does not mean that no goods or services were made or done.
Ambassadors performs a function for society, namely being a mediator between two governments(which is clearly a service)
Again, creating a demand out of thin air doesn't constitute an service.
In order for a job to be productive, it must be demand by the consumer. What consumer is there? Government is not a consumer because it has no assets. Even all of its enterprises or land were at some point transferred wealth.
the government is an employer or buyer in the labor market.
Government is not a buyer in the labor market because it doesn't support itself through it own means, so it is simply transferring jobs from private to public through coercion.
Coerced payment for goods or services does not mean that no goods or services were made or done.
Actually, it does because typically it results in the misallocation of resources due to the lack of price mechanism in government services.
The demand for the service is provided by an entity, it exists. its just that the demand is by the government. If you posses a large degree of control over something with value, then its your asset. How you acquired that control is irreverent to if it is an asset or not. Money is one vehicle of transferring wealth, there are other means as well. To state that transferring wealth doesn't result in a transfer of asset is absurd, unless wealth does not consist of assets.
The government has its own means: taxation, bonds, monetary policy, etc. Further more, to state that the government is not a buyer in the labor market is to suggest that it doesn't sell dollars(or another good/service)(for labor), and it clearly does. Also, all companies with a competition edge can be stated as merely transferring jobs from other industries into it's own by the logic you appear to be using.
"misallocations of resources" doesn't translate to a lack of a good or service rendered. It would appear that modern societies dependence on opec would mean that opec provides no product to its customers due to how modern society forces, or coerces people to buy from them according to your logic.
The demand for the service is provided by an entity, it exists. its just that the demand is by the government.
Government can create demand, we see this everyday via deficit spending, but it is artificial demand, which causes inflation, but it’s artificial demand, and it is unsustainable. Thus, demand can still not be created out of thin air unless the market demands it.
If you posses a large degree of control over something with value, then its your asset
WOW, THANKS FOR THAT ABUNDANT INFUSE OF KNOWLEDGE.
Assets are only subjected to human beings.
The government has its own means: taxation, bonds, monetary policy, etc.
Where does the government get means? Sure, it has means, but not of itself.
Government is the depredation of the resources from the private economy because it can't own property without taking from man.
Man has his own means of his self via property rights.
Further more, to state that the government is not a buyer in the labor market is to suggest that it doesn't sell dollars(or another good/service)(for labor), and it clearly does.
Most government services have no voluntary exchange for good or service, so it is impossible to state that it is a buyer into the labor market under voluntary purposes.
"misallocations of resources" doesn't translate to a lack of a good or service rendered.
Actually, that is the definition of misallocation of resources.
SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW IT IS,
The misallocation of resource means that the factors of production are mainly
land, labor and capital where it should be allocated in such a way they are used in such a proportion so that the production may reach the maximum level with the available resources.
When the government interferes and changes these according to the policies these resources get misallocated which results in less optimum production.
Parks are a perfect example of misallocation of resources because everyone is forced to pay but not everyone uses.
The government is not outside the market, it is part of it. Just because demand is temporary, doesn't mean it is non-existent or fake demand.
Assets are subjected to what ever entity owns them, or else corporations also lack assets.
Does the government never act independently of other institutions?The government can cause appreciation of resources from the private sector as well, a gun making machine is much more valuable when you have a contract for its use from the Government. Also, a item used by the military is likely valued at more than one used by private citizens, for example a 1940's helmet. Any organization of man that people must give time or labor to would merely be able to depreciate assets, including farm families of old, some large corporations, the military, the owning class, etc. Also, the ownership of property is a function of violence, without the state monopoly on violence property would be less stable. Stability, or less risk increases the value of an asset compared to a more risky but otherwise identical asset.
Under a libertarian world view, people generally choose to be employed by the government or by another entity correct? Thus how is it not voluntary?
Government can improve the allocation of resources, for example you can use inmates( a government resource) to reduce the cost of a project, and thus up the scale of it. That is just one of many examples. Also, just because production isn't at its max, doesn't mean that things are not being produced and sold. Parks provide benefits to even those that don't use them, in that they decrease insurance costs, increase mental health of neighbors, reduce crime by giving youth constructive activities to do(like use a soccer field instead of tip cows or what ever), etc. The development, or production of athletic youth would be lower if it wasn't for public parks as well.
Ambassoders are a form of communication between countries, if they weren't there they'ld be a lot more wars. And peace is good for many industries (aside from the military related ones). Therefore an Ambassador produces peace.
FIRST: Government doesn't make money, they TAKE money AND they can print money. They have control over the money supply and therefore your money so they don't worry about that much.
SECOND: Since no money is their money, ALL the money they spend are third party purchases. Think buying something not for yourself and not with your money. You don't care much about the price nor quality. Do you think you know what you want to spend your money on more than the government knows what you want to spend your money on? Nah, what they do is TAKE your money and spend it on your behalf. Not productive.
Money is a commodity, just like anything else that fluctuates with supply and demand. Printing it, is making it.
If I'm buying something, with or without my money; I do indeed consider who's money it is and take that into consideration when I make purchases. Just because you are inconsiderate, does not mean that all entities are. Further more, you are failing to consider economies of scale. The government can put to work your money aggregated together with others in a better fashion then you individually can, the same with banks( or else they wouldn't be profitable).
It's a fake commodity. Printing money is making money in terms of there's more of it after you print it, sure. But if the value of it goes down you're actually destroying money. If something is a real commodity it has to hold value. Something we can print indefinitely doesn't retain value. Most people don't get as least 5% raises every single year. Most people trade their time for money and so they level off at some point because you can't possible work more than 24/hrs in a day. the average American makes an average of 1.5million dollars in their lifetime. However the cost of living which has a big part to due with the printing of money steals the value of the hard working American's money. They make 100k/year but milk costs $2/gallon and next year they still make around 100k/year but now milk costs $4/gallon. That's not making money. That's taking away/stealing money. It's easy to see the up front results of things but we have to consider the long term results. When all is said and done what we have been doing all along has produced horrible results, we can argue how great it is all we want but fact proves it doesn't work.
But that's great that you would consider that for other people maybe you should run for office because certainly they aren't. But if you say that government can aggregate with others in better fashion than individuals can then shouldn't we at least give people the choice to do so? They take almost half your money whether you like it or not! And OUR money that they spend they don't even explain or have anything to show for it. They mess with it and toss it around like it's nothing. If this helps you, picture working from January to June without pay. Then you get paid for the rest of the year. The money they take from you goes to unqualified people who don't study or work as hard as you do.
The value of anything decreases if you make more of it, granted that demand stays the same. I suppose that if I grow more apples this year, that I'm destroying apples...Na, rather I am lessening their exchange value with other objects; and since money has no practical use value its exchange value is all it has. Still, the ability to expand or contract the money supply can be used beneficially, it can cause less unemployment or less inflation, lessen the amount of debt in society or increase gdp and so forth.
Inflation isn't caused by government jobs, nor is government necessary for inflation to exist. Its a natural part of our economy, tied in to factors of production and advancements in technology.
Production is a social result, without society I would not have my wealth and so I have no problems with appropriate types and levels of taxation. Charity is a luxury and a tool, There would be less of it if it wasn't tax deductible, after all it is against the short term self interest of any self interested party, and its long term effects are often risky, in general its not a good investment . Keep in mind that charity is competing against investment options, and it'll typically lose. There are easily seeable benefits to taxation, do I really have to list them? Yes there is room for better efficiency, but that doesn't mean government doesn't do anything. and I'm sure many members of the military work and study much harder and are far more qualified than me comparatively, the same with those employed by other branches of the government. Well exceptions are readily available, in general government preforms some useful functions and taxation is essential to them being completed. Now if only they would end the war on drugs, not manipulate people into supporting unjustified/unnecessary wars, not legislate morality and so forth, aka not preform the counter productive functions, government would be a lot better, but it isn't all bad.
I'll rather have police than mercenaries, Military instead of gangs, and at least a minimal voice in the coercive systems I have to deal with.
Still though, one could consider welfare an unproductive government job; but for a job to be unproductive it isn't really a job eh? An even those can provide benefits to society.
Yes they are supposed to 'manage' but also run by the people. Actually the PURPOSE of why it was created in the first place to protect America from a big central government. Now we have a government running and controlling everything.
All positions in government are necessary, people who are on those places, should be responsible for their actions and should fulfill their duties. But some of officials think that if they have power they can do everything they want, and those actions lead to unproductive work in several cases. Despite this fact every post involves certain duties it means that all government jobs are productive.
