Maybe because Russia had never that big unemployment rate, but if a politician in Russia would promise creating more workplaces, this would not help him a tiny bit. It would not be seen as his good accomplishment by the analysts either.

Even more, the mayor of Moscow Sobeanin sometimes speaks about necessity to reduce workplaces, so to reduce immigration. For this purpose he cracked all the street sells and kiosks, marketplaces and bazaars, small malls, route taxis etc, that is, all areas where migrant workers were employed the most.

  • 4
    Why is “creating workplaces” such a prominent promise in US politics? maybe because without employment you would not have money and the life will suck? Regarding situation in Russia, as far as I am aware the only thing matters is whether you belong to a ruling party and whether the big leader approves you. Reducing/increasing unemployment does not mean a lot. Apr 25 '17 at 9:52
  • @Salvador Dali if a Russian politician would promise more workplaces, the left wing will say "he wants exploit us more" while right-wing will say "he wants to bring in more migrants". And the both will say it is waste of money. Nobody would praise the move.
    – Anixx
    Apr 25 '17 at 10:02
  • 2
    "Russia never had a big unemployment rate". Wasn't it a bigger deal in 1999 when the unemployment rate was around 14 % ? Apr 25 '17 at 10:07
  • And are there any powerful parties in Russia apart from United Russia? Apr 25 '17 at 10:09
  • 2
    Do you mean "create more jobs?" I don't know that politicians are particularly campaigning on places.
    – user1530
    Apr 25 '17 at 16:23

There are several different factors; but perhaps the main one is the way that lower employment demand is handled in Russia vs. United States.

In USA, when there's less employment demand, people lose their jobs (and don't get hired), increasing unemployment rate.

Thus, to improve the economy, the ideal path is to have more people hired, which means creating "more workplaces".

In Russia, in contrast, unemployment rate is very low (5-6%) and the reason is that the lowering the demand for employment is often dealt with by things OTHER than firing - the hours are cut, people are sent to unpaid leave, or salaries flat out aren't paid. But people are still "employed", so creating more workplaces doesn't help the economic situation, in macro sense (there's already enough) OR to individuals who vote (they already have a job or pension, it just isn't payed well/enough/at all).

  • There's likely also a factor of a large proportion of people depending on government paychecks, 20% are employed by central government; and that doesn't even include pensioneers; military or those employed by non-central government.
    – user4012
    Apr 25 '17 at 14:53

In the US, politicians love to appeal to the middle-class voter. As such, a lot of campaigning is meant to pander to them. The middle class is mostly working class and, as such, jobs are a key part of keeping the working class working.

Like Russia, we are a large country geographically and as such, many regions historically have evolved around particular industries. Agriculture in the midwest, mining in Appalachia, heavy manufacturing in the rust belt, etc. Many of these industries have seen a large decline over the past many decades in employment numbers for a variety of reasons. As such, "traditional" ways of life that revolved around particular industries have slowly disappeared and politicians love to latch on to that. Nostalgia is a great way to market one's message.

As for immigration, that's obviously a huge and contentious topic in the US and really beyond the scope of this question but, in general, 'creating jobs' isn't really connected to the immigration issues on the campaign trail.


There's several reasons

  1. It's popular to promise prosperity

    King Henry IV said the following

    I want there to be no peasant in my realm so poor that he will not have a chicken in his pot every Sunday

    Americans can't be promised chicken, but jobs are the new chicken. Jobs are associated with prosperity.

  2. The US has, as a key economic metric, an official unemployment rate

    The US Department of Labor publishes the Federal unemployment rate. The number shows the claims being made for unemployment benefits (it doesn't reflect people who, for instance, have left the work force). Higher numbers tend to depress political popularity.

  3. While the government can't directly create jobs, it can claim its policies did

    In 2009, President Obama, fresh off an electoral victory and with a solid Congressional majority, began to lay the groundwork for his economic stimulus package. The views of the success of that act are quite mixed, which leads people to break along political lines as to what the real impact was.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .