"Public works DO create jobs, it's an empirical fact."
No it's not. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It's never that simple. Along with the obvious broken window fallacy problems, you have to look at how you are paying for that public work. Taxing a net two median-pay jobs out of existence to create a single public works median-pay job is destroying a job, not creating one.
The definition of "public works" is building things using State money. There is no way to build roads without hiring people. This is an empirical fact.
Unless you know of some way to maintain or build streets without hiring people?
Again, it is an empirical fact that public works create jobs. At least public works that require hiring people. It's not hard to understand. Work needing to be done creates jobs, whether that is financed by the government or private industry doesn't change the fact that the work needing to be done requires employment.
You can debate until the cows come home about whether specific public works are worth the money, but you can't debate whether or not they create jobs. Its a simple observational fact. Especially when the vast majority of public works require manual labor.
Sorry, I have this truly bizarre habit of trying to account for both the benefits and the costs of a given policy.
It's a fast way to Total Political Unpopularity, believe me! But alas, I'm an engineer at heart.
Creating jobs is trivial. It's not even remotely interesting. Creating net jobs is the interesting question. And you can't prove you've created net jobs until you look on both sides of the ledger. It's a bizarre, crazy, foreign idea, I know, but it also has the virtue of corresponding to reality much better.
If more politicians (and dare I say, even economists) did this more often we'd be in a lot less trouble right now.
And yes, you seem to have totally missed my point.
I agree, but the OP's point is a false dichotomy: That investment in entrepreneurship is a net benefit, but any investment in public works is a net loss.
Using roads as an example for public works not providing a net gain isn't very convincing... considering our entire society is now predicated on their existence.
No, I didn't. Maintaining infrastructure isn't breaking windows!
Public works is not the equivalent of a glass-maker breaking the baker's window. It's the equivalent of hiring people to maintain the roads that allow the glass maker to get to the baker, but instead of the glass-maker paying for the road the baker and glass-maker distribute the cost through taxation.
It's intellectually dishonest to even compare highway maintenance with breaking windows to create a job for yourself.
No it's not. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It's never that simple. Along with the obvious broken window fallacy problems, you have to look at how you are paying for that public work. Taxing a net two median-pay jobs out of existence to create a single public works median-pay job is destroying a job, not creating one.