Difference Between a "Job" and "Work"

There is a difference between a "job" and "work". One lasts and the other does not. There has been quite a bit of chatter lately about President Obama "saving or creating" 150,000 jobs through the "stimulus" bill that he signed in February. The simple fact is that the stimulus bill is not creating jobs. It is creating work, or more specifically, funding for work. Much of the money coming out of this bill will go towards transportation projects. Projects, by nature, are temporary. Once the project is done, the work is finished and people pack up and go home. A job, on the other hand, is something created by an organization in order to manage many projects. The organization sees a need to hire someone, because they foresee a sustainable amount of projects or work over a long period of time. Businesses create jobs because they grow and therefore, need more people to manage and/or do the work.

Is Obama (more specifically, his fiscal and economic policies) creating jobs? No. He is creating work. Building a bridge or laying broadband cable is temporary project work. Temporary. Once the work is finished, everyone who has been hired to do the work will find themselves without it, and therefore, without a paycheck. On the contrary, an entrepreneur may currently see an opportunity in the marketplace to serve the public with something they need. He sees this need lasting years, decades even. He wants to expand his business (aka. hire more people) to start creating this product or service. He could do this if his taxes were lowered, because then he could use that money to pay the new employee(s). He can't, though, because the government is actually going to raise his taxes in order to pay for the "stimulus" bill.

These are essentially the two scenarios that President Obama was, and still is, faced with.

Scenario 1: Laid-off worker (laid-off meaning no income, no health insurance for him or his family etc.) sees an opportunity to work on a road project funded by the "stimulus" bill. It's temporary, pays $15/hr. and has no benefits (i.e. - health insurance), but he needs the money to feed his family and pay the bills, so he takes it. The job lasts 6 months. Then he's out of work again - no paycheck or health insurance. Because he is out of work, he is also not paying taxes. Not only that, he's actually receiving money from the government in the form of unemployment benefits.

Scenario 2: Obama cuts taxes on individuals and corporations. Laid-off worker (again, no income and no health insurance) sees an opportunity to work at NewCo. (the business owned by the aforementioned entrepreneur). It's a full-time, salaried position with health insurance that pays $40,000 per year (about what he was making in his previous job). He takes it. Now he has a steady stream of income and health insurance for his family. He is paying taxes, because he is working and he can afford to take his family to the doctor, because he has insurance.

Here it is broken down in a different way:

#1 - Guy gets a paycheck for six months, but still has to cut back on spending, because it's less than he was making before. No vacations, no eating out at restaurants, no new toys for the kids. He also can't take his family to the doctor, because he has no health insurance and cannot pay for it out of pocket. The government gets only 6 months worth of tax revenue from him, because his project ends. Afterwards, the government starts paying him again via unemployment insurance.

#2 - Guy gets a full time job that he ends up keeping for 3-5 years. It's steady pay, so he can take vacations, take his family to restaurants and buy toys for the kids. The vacation destination benefits from his visit, the restaurant benefits from his business and the toy store benefits from his business. He has health insurance so he can take his family to the doctor. The doctors/hospitals benefit, because they get more business. The government also gets a steady stream of tax revenue from him, and the government benefits and can therefore fund more projects. The government also doesn't have to pay him unemployment insurance.

Which scenario do you think has more benefit?