General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why is the "private sector" better than the "public sector"? [View all]Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The standard of living that the middle class enjoys during prosperous times (like the 50's/60's and the late 90's) isn't really possible without a robust private sector.
Part of the problem, IMO, is that voters believe that the government (and more specifically the President) have actual control over private sector job growth. The fact is that the private sector is controlled by a myriad of factors, rather than any one entity. The government's influence is marginal.
Thus, the government can't create the kind of prosperity that we'd like to have. A decade of the New Deal certainly didn't bring us the kind of prosperity we had before the collapse in 1929. World War II (an event beyond our control) ultimately did that. HOWEVER the New Deal did...
1) Alleviate much of the suffering caused by the collapse
2) Make good use of human capital at a time when the private sector was unable to
3) Fix many of the problems that led to the collapse
4) Put in place Social Security and other programs that greatly increase economic fairness and security in the country
So when you have a nation that has plenty of wealth and sluggish private sector job growth, it makes good sense to put people to work repairing infrastructure, fighting fires, teaching children, and doing other things that benefit the country. It won't lead back to the kind of prosperity that we had in the 1990's. But there's really nothing that the government (or anyone else) can do to make that happen. One day we (probably) will have that kind of prosperity again, at least for a while. In the meantime, lets make productive use of human capital and alleviate suffering caused by unemployment. It's a pretty simple concept.