I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.
Ideally, what we want to create is opportunities for people to create wealth via their own labour. This is the good sort of "job creation".
The bad sort of "job creation" is where you create non-wealth-creating jobs. For instance, if the Government were to declare tomorrow that every truck driver needs a supervisor in the passenger seat to make sure he doesn't fall asleep, that would create a crapload of jobs but no wealth. Or, if you pass any new law you'll probably create a need for a bunch of new lawyers.
The problem is that "job" is synonymous with "entitlement to food, cars, and whatnot". There would be considerably less uproar over job creation if the jobless were guaranteed a house in the suburbs, an automobile, and food for a spouse and two kids.
Given the choice between
1. Being satisfied that society is moving forward in some abstract sense because your job has been rendered unnecessary.
and
2. Being reasonably sure that there will be a roof over your head and food in your children's bellies in a year and a day.
What I was asking was: if you change Cuban's argument from "If you want to see more jobs created – change patent laws" to "If you want to see more prosperity created – change patent laws", would you agree?
