I was reading this article on planned obsolescence, which states
On a macroeconomic scale, the rapid turnover of goods powers growth and creates reams of jobs
In context, it's implied that this is good - it is good to have people working to design, market, make, and distribute goods to replace other goods that break after a short lifespan.
Naively, it seems very bad to me, compared to the option of having goods that last a long time. Those people working on making replacement goods are now not available to work at other jobs or use that time on other pursuits. If the goods lasted longer, we could spend far fewer resources, as a society, supplying everyone with goods. Then we would have many more resources (raw materials in the goods, human labor making the goods, time consumers spend comparing and purchasing new goods, etc.) available to solve other problems or take on other projects.
Yet, I almost always hear people refer to a project or industry hiring lots of people to work on it as an innately good thing, unlike all other forms of resource expenditure. (I never expect to hear that planned obsolescence has an upside because, "look at all the copper it's using!" or "it really keeps our power plants busy providing electricity for the factories!".)
Why is "jobs" treated so differently as a resource, and should I change my naive approach to thinking about them?