We're talking about a conspiracy to hire people for no other reason than to keep them busy so they don't revolt. This is laughably absurd. What do I, as a company owner, gain by adhering to this conspiracy? What I lose is obvious: huge waste on salaries for jobs that accomplish nothing. This conspiracy does not pass the economics sniff test: it purports a huge artificial externality with no apparent free-riding.
No, we're talking about hiring people for this reason, among others.
>This is laughably absurd. What do I, as a company owner, gain by adhering to this conspiracy?
You mean a share holder? Nothing. You seem to be laughably under the impression that the company is run for your personal benefit. It isn't.
>What I lose is obvious: huge waste on salaries for jobs that accomplish nothing.
You explain why companies hire based upon headcount instead of pure cost. It doesn't make intrinsic sense, but that's how it happens.
>This conspiracy does not pass the economics sniff test: it purports a huge artificial externality with no apparent free-riding.
Congratulations, you just assumed away the principal-agent dilemma.
What do you think the American Enterprise Institute is for? Cato? Chambers of Commerce? The multitude of other business umbrella lobby groups? What did you think they did other than come together to form a united front to represent their interests (conspire)?
>I am immediately bursting with questions. Such as, should we conclude that protesters around the world—in Brazil, India, North Africa, Turkey—are in fact too happy?
I don't see why one would conclude that at all.
>How does the ruling class co-ordinate all this hiring
Via a labor market which they try to mold using government policy to fit their interests.
>if much of the economy's employment is useless in the first place why not just keep them on during recessions
Periodic cullings help keep the rest of the employees suitably terrorized.