Obama's job creation as a troubling end unto itself

Following up on a recent post-- here's Jacob Sullum in Reason on Obama "creating jobs"...

...many Americans will expect [Obama] to deliver on his promise to "create jobs." They probably will be disappointed, because Obama seems to view job creation not only as something the government does with taxpayers' money but as an end in itself. That's a recipe for wasteful spending that will divert resources from more productive uses and ultimately result in lower employment than would otherwise occur.

Obama says he will "transform the challenge of global climate change into an opportunity to create 5 million new green jobs"...This way of looking at climate change is a variation on the broken window fallacy, according to which the loss caused by a smashed window is offset by the employment it gives the glazier.

By the same logic, Obama should view war, crime, and hurricanes as opportunities to create jobs. All three generate economic activity, but we'd be better off if the resources spent on bombs, burglar alarms, and reconstruction were available for other purposes, instead of being used to inflict, prevent, or recover from losses....

Read the classic essay by Bastiat or Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson to get clear on a vital but overlooked point from Econ/Logic 101.

Obama wants to spend $150 billion on "developing and deploying advanced energy technologies, including solar, wind and clean coal." He says this plan "will...create jobs that can't be outsourced."

...the fact that he lists "jobs that can't be outsourced" as a distinct goal is troubling. Paying people to dig holes and fill them in again also creates "jobs that can't be outsourced," but that doesn't mean it's a smart investment or an appropriate use of taxpayers' money.

Then to infrastructure...

Speaking of digging holes, Obama also wants to spend $60 billion [on infrastructure]...He says "these projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity."

Fixing a bridge, widening a highway, or building a light rail system may or may not make economic sense. But the fact that it involves paying people to operate jackhammers and pour concrete does not make it any more worthwhile. If creating jobs and stimulating "new economic activity" can justify transportation projects, why not fill the country with empty airports and bridges to nowhere?...