During periods of (mass) unemployment, it seems reasonable for governments to pursue policies expected to create jobs, and therefore for politicians and political parties to propose and support such policies. However, it seems this argument is still used in times of labour shortages, such as is the case today in many sectors in wealthy countries, with demographic trends suggesting staff shortages will get worse (a comment points out this can be due to lack of budget rather than unfilled vacancies, but improving compensation can only to a very limited degree increase the total available workforce). For example, in Germany (and probably elsewhere), the political debate whether a (higher) minimum wage destroys jobs continues. Elsewhere, people argue that unionisation destroys jobs.

Whether minimum wage or unionisation destroys jobs will probably remain a debate in perpetuity and is not the scope of my question. Considering we have labour shortages that are expected to get worse as demographics means that more people leave than enter the workforce in the coming years in wealthy countries. Suppose those policies do destroy jobs — so what? Why is job destruction/creation still seen as bad/good when existing vacancies cannot be filled today (except perhaps by mass immigration)? Wouldn't a pro-business politician more sensibly support destroying jobs, which would help other businesses recruiting and possibly even push wages down as an added "bonus"?