I occasionally hear the argument against the Occupy Wall Street movement that the one percent are the ones who create all the jobs, but I find a few issues with this theory.
- It’s not necessary to be filthy rich to create jobs. Anyone with some investment capital can create jobs. Not everyone can do it, but it certainly doesn’t take millions of dollars.
- If there is truth to the idea that the one percent create most of the jobs, it is because they are the ones hogging all the job-creation resources.
- Often times the jobs the rich folks create aren’t that great. If a person can’t use their job to feed their family, it’s not much of a job. If the job is so stressful and underpaid that homelessness looks appealing, it’s not much of a job. If you don’t have healthcare or any idea what you’re going to do about retirement, it’s not much of a job.
- Jobs are not created through money and economics. A job is a job because it’s something that needs to get done… well… at least that’s the way it should be. When a plumber is called to a house to fix a leaky pipe, it’s not because of capitalism, the company owner, nor the economy. The leaking pipe created the job. Capitalism is merely providing an accounting system and the company is merely profiting from situation.
- The argument contradicts the other anti-occupy arguments that claim the occupiers are simply lazy and don’t want to work. If a desire to work is all it takes to get a decent job, then why do we need to reward job creators so much, as though job openings are so valuable?
- It seems conceited to expect people to eat from the dollar menu, skip meals and wrap themselves in blankets because they don’t want to spend money on heat, then think they’re gonna be all thankful that they have a miserable job that serves little purpose other than to make someone else rich.