Growth or Stability?

Today I read a story in the New York Times about Japan, how it was employing highly trained citizens in tedious, mediocre jobs that are far below their skill level for the sake of employment. So the question became this: what would you rather have, growth or employment? Which, of course, boils down to the idea of you can either have permanent growth for the entire nation, or to help the individual man. What is the better of the two?

The answer, of course, is to favor growth, because growth is permanent. The world is constantly changing, people growing, failing, dying, succeeding, buying, selling, everything. So, when you try to focus on the transient instead of the permanent, then what are you expecting but for your work to be swept far, far away? It is somewhat like the wartime-high of the economy. Back before the first world war, the economy in the United States was relatively tiny relative to what it was afterward. That's because the government had less employment due to the war. And yet there was explosive growth, why? Its because they had rapid growth in infrastructure to accommodate the war effort. But the key thing is that they had the jobs to accommodate the returning soldiers, leading to a huge boost in the economy that lasted through many depressions and wars. See? When growth is favored, in the end, everyone wins.

With love,
Grimm