THE ECONOMY
A job is a job, but 'value' is in eye of the beholder
In his May 24 commentary "You say 'jobs,' I say 'rhetoric,' " economics Prof. Steven Horwitz essentially calls jobs that do not create value worthless. While I understand his assertion, it relies heavily on "value" as an absolute that we would all measure in the same way.
My computer dictionary defines value as "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something." That would suggest that everyone would value something exactly the same.
It seems clear to me that a job would have much higher value to the employee than to the boss, business owner or investor Therefore, I would assume that Horwitz means the value to the society as a whole, which would be the classical economic definition.
But it is apparent that value does not have a universally common definition. Horwitz states that "if value hasn't also been created, new jobs are only creating unnecessary work."
Again, it is a question of who is judging something to be necessary or unnecessary. To me, rebuilding infrastructure or even creating art is valuable and necessary, whereas a great portion of our military and defense spending is unnecessary.
I daresay there are many who would disagree with my judgment on those matters. This letter is written merely to indicate that matters of value and necessity are not nearly as cut-and-dried as the professor would suggest.
PETER H. SAMMOND, MINNETONKA
* * *