Comments like this are one of those little markers of someone getting entirely the wrong end of the stick. It is to entirely invert the point and purpose of everything we do in and with the economy:
The Women’s Budget Group has shown that if you invest 2% of GDP in the care sector, you get double the number of jobs compared to the same investment in construction.
A desperate failure there – jobs are a cost, not a benefit.
What we’re interested in is the output and we’d much prefer to get that with minimal inputs. If we can build a bridge with 100 tonnes of steel then no one at all is going to applaud because you’ve used 200 tonnes to build it now, are they? Equally, if we’ve task x to perform and we can do it with the labour of 100 people then that’s better than doing that same task with the labour of 200. Jobs are a cost of our getting that task done.
Even people don’t like having jobs. They like to be able to consume and for that, often enough, they’ll need an income. A job is the cost of gaining an income. For the employer the same is true, they want the work done, creating a job and paying someone an income to do it is the cost of getting that work done. At the societal level jobs are a cost. If all need to be out in the fields harvesting the corn then we can’t have short Danes making cute jokes on baking shows, can we? The lack of quips is a cost of jobs in agriculture.
Flip it slightly, we all know that higher productivity is what makes us richer. Great, so what is higher productivity? It’s more output from the same labour, or the same output from less labour. Again, we’re insisting that labouring to do something, a job doing something, is a cost.
Now, it might well be true that we’d prefer to have that caring output than more things that can be dropped on feet. Might well desire more of that traditionally female output than male. But the argument that such and such creates more jobs is an argument against doing it, not one in favour. And absolutely anyone who indicates that they don’t understand this is revealing that they’ve really very little clue of the subject under discussion, economics.