So I tend to agree with Robert that the jobs lost from (proposed) reduced aviation, while they are a tactical consideration, are not really the key point. They do speak to an underlying point, that of discarding investment in established value-adding activities. Worth thinking too about the impact of showing regulatory/legislative bad faith across a range of other commercial activites. For example, if the airlines get squeezed, will telecoms think twice about new investments, adding in higher risk to their decisions?

I think the more important impact of reducing aviation is in the opportunities lost: for commerce, for international connections and for personal fulfilment. Drbuzz0 covers these issues in the rest of the article’s paragraph on the reduced-aviation possibility.

        trrll said:

However, in a modern society, essentially everybody has a “job,” even if it just periodically going to pick up one’s welfare or unemployment check. And some jobs generate greater negative value than that–mugger, for example. So the issue with creation of jobs is the extent to which the jobs created replace jobs with greater negative value.

Pensioners don’t have a job and neither does anyone who otherwise lives off their savings (perhaps pursuing an eccentric hobby, like running for president).

I don’t understand what you’re saying here, or what your point is. Are you saying that it is worthwhile “shutting down half the airlines” or that it isn’t? I’m also not sure how what you said relates to what I said. Do you think jobs are a cost or a benefit?

        Robert Scarth said:

“Reducing aviation by such a dramatic amount would have enormous costs. Tens of thousands of jobs from airlines and support jobs would be lost…”

You make a very common mistake in this statement. Jobs are a cost not a benefit, so lost jobs are a gain, not a loss. The belief that jobs are a benefit is so wide-spread, and deeply held that it probably needs some explanation why it’s wrong.

Of course, it’s not that simple. Having people employed doing nothing useful would not accomplish much of anything. Worker productivity and overall economic activity are important. If you consider that just shutting down half the airlines would impact employees, customers, investors and generally slash a service with a high return and useful activities then it’s worthwhile.

Of course being fired sucks, and its good news for local workers if a new factory is built in the area as wages will (probably) increase, but for the reasons above, taking an overall view, jobs are a cost.

However, in a modern society, essentially everybody has a “job,” even if it just periodically going to pick up one’s welfare or unemployment check. And some jobs generate greater negative value than that–mugger, for example. So the issue with creation of jobs is the extent to which the jobs created replace jobs with greater negative value.