I think you are absolutely right that the government (at every level, federal, state, local) is intricately linked with jobs. It has its own employees, that is huge. It contracts for services, including infrastructure, and another part, not to be dismissed at all is defense. There’s the armeds services, Raytheon, Northrup, Haliburton, on and on. Perhaps our defense is one of the biggest welfare programs, if not the biggest. You could make a case that it eploys well trained and educated people, but they are working at the pleasure of the government, no less. Does the government create jobs to some extent? Yes.
The question really is, how many – what scope should all this be.
Another question is, is this the best way to influence unemployment, versus the idea of letting (or encouraging) the market to create private sector jobs. Do you like less or more government involvement?
One ingredient in this issue is that some government work programs cost more to operate than gets in the pockets of the targeted workers. Hugely inefficient and backwards. We hear about them all the time; $45K per person to make $25K jobs.
Another is that regulations can be cumbersome and slow down the work of the private sector, sometime for good reason, sometimes not. Filling out forms in triplicate, then filling them out again, phone calls involving circular Departments of Obstacles.
And these are some of the legitimate claims of the right.
JP, you cannot believe that simply making and funding government programs is the best option here. On one end is only tax breaks for business. On the other end is government funded training, paid jobs, infrastructure, etc. Where do you stand on the scale?