Question

#10 Summarize and Explain the Economic Situation:

THE FETISH OF FULL EMPLOYMENT

The economic goal of any nation, as of any individual, JL is to get the greatest results with the least effort. The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted in getting more production with the same labor. It is for this reason that men began putting burdens on the backs of mules instead of on their own; that they went on to invent the wheel and the wagon, the railroad and the motor truck. It is for this reason that men used their ingenuity to develop a hundred thousand labor saving inventions.

All this is so elementary that one would blush to state it if it were not being constantly forgotten by those who coin and circulate the new slogans. Translated into national terms, this first principle means that our real objective is to maximize production. In doing this, full employment that is, the absence of involuntary idleness becomes a necessary by product. But production is the end, employment merely the means. We cannot continuously have the fullest production without full employment. But we can very easily have full employment without full production. Primitive tribes are naked, and wretchedly fed and housed, but they do not suffer from unemployment. China and India are incomparably poorer than ourselves, but the main trouble from which they suffer is primitive produc- tion methods (which are both a cause and a consequence of a shortage of capital) and not unemployment. Nothing is easier to achieve than full employment, once it is divorced from the goal of full production and taken as an end in itself. Hitler provided full employment with a huge armament program. The war provided full employment for every nation involved. The slave labor in Germany had full employment. Prisons and chain gangs have full employment. Coercion can always provide full employment.

Answer 1

Wages and work are examined as though they had no connection to profitability and yield. On the supposition that there is just a fixed measure of work to be done, the determination is made that a thirty-hour week will give more positions and will thusly be desirable over a forty-hour week. A hundred make-work practices of worker's organizations are confusedly endured.

It would be obviously better, if that were the decision—which it isn't—to have greatest creation with part of the populace upheld in inaction by undisguised help than to give "full business" by endless types of masked make-work that creation is scattered. The advancement of development has implied the decrease of work, not its expansion. It is on the grounds that we have gotten progressively well off as a country that we have been capable basically to kill youngster work, to eliminate the need of work for a considerable lot of the matured and to make it pointless for a large number of ladies to take occupations. An a lot more modest extent of the American populace needs to work than that, state, of China or of Russia. The genuine inquiry isn't what number of millions of occupations there will be in America a long time from now, however what amount will we produce, and what, in outcome, will be our way of life? The issue of dispersion on which all the pressure is being put today, is after all more effectively fathomed the more there is to disseminate.

Hazlitt rightly described the goal of full employment as fool’s gold in  his 1946 classic Economics in One Lesson

As Hazlitt wrote, “Nothing is easier to achieve than full employment, once it is divorced from the goal of full production and taken as an end in itself.”

The way in to a solid economy, on the other hand, is expanding creation utilizing less and less work. Attempting to only "make occupations" or give general employment certifications can prompt unreasonable impetuses like limiting laborers' admittance to efficiency improving capital merchandise so as to require a larger number of laborers than should be expected to deliver products and enterprises.

Worth creation, not a proportion of business, is the genuine proportion of monetary prosperity. Envision if society could appreciate an extravagant way of life that requires just 50% of individuals to attempt to give it.

Moreover, Hazlitt dismissed concerns that labor-saving capital goods would cause significant unemployment. Indeed, he argued the opposite. “Our real objective is to maximize production. In doing this, full employment—that is, the absence of involuntary idleness – becomes a necessary byproduct,”

Labor that is freed up due to productivity gains can be employed in satisfying other needs and wants of consumers, often new or not-yet imagined desires.

If labor is tied up using spoons in make-work, government-sponsored “job guarantee” jobs, who will produce the next big thing? Government occupations projects won't just will in general reward less effective work however will likewise will in general tie the workforce to current methods of creation, permitting less open door forever evolving advancements.