This seems more like a debate board topic.
I agree, but I think I see what he was trying so say, so I'll roll with it for now and I'll explain what I think he means later.
Using this logic, people should commit crimes so that police have jobs. :fp:
I believe this is known as the broken window fallacy, or the parable of the broken window. Basically the idea that we should celebrate it when a vandal breaks a window because the economy will be stimulated by demand for a new window. However, instead of the money being put towards something useful, it is instead spent repairing or replacing something that was working before. There is then an opportunity cost where that money could have been used towards something else productive.
I quote this from the wiki page Show content
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented
In short, such a notion fails to account for what is unseen.
I would also like to appeal to Christian theology which tells us the following In Matthew 6 3-4:
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
In other words, we should not make a display of our good things, but do them because they are good things, for instance returning the shopping cart even though no one will check. I think pollux's point was if you act in such a manner, you will create more positivity in the world and that we should be the change we want to see. However, I might be wrong on that and he's free to correct me.