[Puffer Fish]

People don't just create jobs, it's not that simple

A lot of people seem to think that people make jobs. That wherever people are, jobs will be created. It's not that simple.

You can see that wage levels are much higher in some areas than other areas.
So there is something else going on.

It's not just wages for the lowest paid workers either. There's just more money in some areas.
More middle class opportunity in some areas but not so much others. (And not just talking about somewhere out in the middle of nowhere with low population)

Why does this matter? There are several reasons.
One of them might be the connection between economics and immigration. Just adding more people isn't necessarily going to automatically increase economic output in proportion to number of people.

Also, if we could figure out why some areas are more rich and others poor, if we could have a better understanding of why that is, it might be possible for the government to be able to much more efficiently implement policies that could help bring prosperity, and spread it out. Right now, with economic opportunities so concentrated into some areas it's contributing to housing shortage problems, due to lack of available space.

[late]

It's not that simple.

It rarely is.

But that never slows you down, does it?

Before the American Civil War, we had mass immigration. The industrial base was going through rapid growth, and needed new people. On top of that, the increase in population and income swung the balance of political power away from the South, and to the North.

IOW, it was a good thing.

Any chance you could babble a little less?

[Skinny Bob]

People don't just create jobs, it's not that simple

A lot of people seem to think that people make jobs. That wherever people are, jobs will be created. It's not that simple.

You can see that wage levels are much higher in some areas than other areas.
So there is something else going on.

It's not just wages for the lowest paid workers either. There's just more money in some areas.
More middle class opportunity in some areas but not so much others. (And not just talking about somewhere out in the middle of nowhere with low population)

Why does this matter? There are several reasons.
One of them might be the connection between economics and immigration. Just adding more people isn't necessarily going to automatically increase economic output in proportion to number of people.

I gather you are implying illegal immigration drives down the price of labor? That is true. And the reason there is their illegality being exploited. But you are wrong. Immigrants, illegal or legal, have needs and wants and those needs and wants ultimately result in jobs. With an influx of people, the jobs aren't created immediately, but eventually they are, as they are assimilated into the economy and their needs and wants are met.

Also, if we could figure out why some areas are more rich and others poor, if we could have a better understanding of why that is, it might be possible for the government to be able to much more efficiently implement policies that could help bring prosperity, and spread it out.

I would venture a guess in that there are studies on this, so try doing a search and see what it out there.

Right now, with economic opportunities so concentrated into some areas it's contributing to housing shortage problems, due to lack of available space.

Jobs arise out of entrepreneurs attempting to serve the needs and wants of humans who have needs and wants. The source point in the chain of causality are human needs and wants. There is no other source. If you have one man on an island, there will be one job. If there are a million people on an island, roughly 96.5% of them will be employed serving needs and wants either directly as entrepreneurs or indirectly as employees of entrepreneurs. The more people, the more jobs. There are more complex factors such as technology displacement that affect the job markets in a developed society, or artificial demand created by advertising (and there is Chomky's 'Manufacturing Consent'), but the simple idea remains constant. Human needs and wants are the ultimate source of jobs. Naturally, some areas have a demand on jobs more than others,. but human need is driving the bus.

[Puffer Fish]

I gather you are implying illegal immigration drives down the price of labor? That is true. And the reason there is their illegality being exploited. But you are wrong. Immigrants, illegal or legal, have needs and wants and those needs and wants ultimately result in jobs. ...
Jobs arise out of entrepreneurs attempting to serve the needs and wants of humans who have needs and wants. The source point in the chain of causality are human needs and wants. There is no other source. ...

You are only looking at the element of labor, and are ignoring capital.

Wealth is composed of much more than just the element of ordinary labor.

If that were not so, there would be nothing keeping abled-bodied workers poor.

I have yet to hear any specific theory from the Left, besides the Marxian "capital" argument, that explains how workers are "exploited".

Even the Leftist complaint about "discrimination" logically presupposes there are not enough good jobs for everyone.
I've not heard of any explanation how more workers would create more good jobs without the benefits going to those same workers.
That sort of concept is not really logical or mathematical, in my opinion.

[Puffer Fish]

You might see this thread:
Retail space disappearing, giving way to more residential (posted 30 Jul 2020 in Economics)

Isn't it interesting? Retail and office businesses have been closing down and disappearing, yet all the time more high-density housing keeps getting built in many of these same areas; there are housing shortages, none of these homes are empty.

Some will try to blame online shopping and remote working, which indeed are a small part of the explanation, but I believe those are mostly just red herrings. More people does not mean more money.

[Skinny Bob]

You are only looking at the element of labor, and are ignoring capital.

Wealth is composed of much more than just the element of ordinary labor.

If that were not so, there would be nothing keeping abled-bodied workers poor.

I have yet to hear any specific theory from the Left, besides the Marxian

You mean 'Marxist'

"capital" argument, that explains how workers are "exploited".

Marxism does not have a monopoly on the theory of how workers can be exploited, simple empirical observation is how I arrive at my conclusions. I've never studied Marxism and his works have no bearing on my opinions.

Even the Leftist complaint about "discrimination" logically presupposes there are not enough good jobs for everyone.
I've not heard of any explanation how more workers would create more good jobs without the benefits going to those same workers.
That sort of concept is not really logical or mathematical, in my opinion.

My point was that the ultimate source of jobs are people. Human needs and wants.

We can prove this with simple illustrations.

If there is one person on an island. How many jobs would their be?

I would say one job. If there is only one person, then there can't be more than one job. The person earns his living by hunting and gathering, which is a 'job'. That one person could be considered to be 'self employed'.

If there are one million people on an island, how many jobs would there be?

Assuming full employment, about 97,500,000. Full employment typically runs about 97.5% (if it's different, I'll have to look it up, but it's close enough).

What caused the job numbers to rise to 97 million?

The presence of people did. Human needs and wants are the engine of jobs. Other things like 'capital' and 'entrepreneurship' are just details.

It doesn't take Karl Marx for me to figure that one out.

In fact, I studied Milton Friedman, my understanding is more from him than anyone else.

[Puffer Fish]

My point was that the ultimate source of jobs are people. Human needs and wants.

We can prove this with simple illustrations.

If there is one person on an island. How many jobs would their be?

I would say one job. If there is only one person, then there can't be more than one job. The person earns his living by hunting and gathering, which is a 'job'. That one person could be considered to be 'self employed'.

If there are one million people on an island, how many jobs would there be?

We can also drop 39,000 random people off on a big deserted island and they will be a lot poorer than 39,000 people in a developed wealthy country, such as Liechtenstein.
So there is obviously something additional going on, besides just "people".

Like I pointed out, some countries, and even regions within countries, are a lot wealthier than others.

Why, for example, is a country like Haiti so poor?
Why do so many immigrants illegally cross from Mexico into the United States, where wages are nearly 5 times higher?

Adam Smith made an early attempt at answering that type of question, in his book The Wealth of Nations (1776).

Everyone knows there are huge masses of impoverished poor people in India, and the living standards of the typical person in India are a lot lower than the U.S. This despite India being more Socialist than the U.S. But if only the number of people matter to the economy, then why is this so?

[Puffer Fish]

another related thread:
Egyptian government built new cities to deal with overcrowding in Cairo, but was it a good idea?
(posted by Puffer Fish, in Middle East section, March 1, 2024)

I wrote out that thread just to try to provide an example of the economics for this thread.