I'm a little surprised to see liberal slashdot job raise on their shoulders the post of someone who claims job losses are good.
I doubt Hillary would make that claim in the debates, because I think that would be a tough sell. As much as I would never vote for her, I give her points for being shrewd as I aspire to be.
Luddites and Marxists have traditionally tried to sell us on how income equality will somehow create jobs. Perhaps this is a Millennial adaptation to a generation that has lost interest in working. I see the same posture in the White House's response to the ACA job losses as a benefit because people are being "liberated" from the hardship of working. It sort of puts the abortion argument (that it dignifies people with the ability to work) on its head, not that that was really ever a genuine intention.
Setting aside my personal reluctance to get fired, a big problem is the task of sustaining all this. What if everyone stops working? Great that we are all more fit (not quite convinced on that, but stranger things have happened), but who is going to make the stuff we want and provide the stuff we need?
To answer this question with the news has anyone seen the cost for a dozen eggs in Venezuela is now $150?
Right, I know it's the right wing rag, the LA Times.
Eggs cost that much there because people can now just live off the government and no one wants to be bothered with the trouble of keeping chickens and harvesting their eggs. Keep in mind Chavez died with $2 billion -so much for the desire to redistribute money to other people (unless you are describing a way for the government to redistribute to themselves).
So I am going to go out on a limb and say unless the job is thievery or prostitution (portrayed as pioneers of sharing), the government shouldn't be trying to stop it.