Employment Guarantee

[Nakosis]

Because everyone should share an equal obligation to work, everyone should have a right to a job. The unskilled, those with various mental and physical disabilities, and those down on their luck could really benefit if the government worked harder to place workers and match them to jobs based on their skills, which would benefit society as a whole. It would be even better, and work far greater, if private employers cooperated in such a program and actively employed people enrolled in this program.

As FDR put it, anyone who wants a job and is willing to work has a right to a job. It isn't forced labor, but job opportunities that are given to those who are struggling.

It sounds good to me that everyone who wants to work is giving that opportunity. We just have to also ensure we are not overtaxing our ability to produce wealth. If the government can create jobs which produce wealth, there is no reason to be against that. However we have to be cautious in providing jobs which doesn't add to the production of wealth.

 

[metis]

The problem is that money is not a real resource. Wealth is really a matter of acquiring resources. Government jobs provide limited benefits in building infrastructure which supports the quicker accumulation of resources. Otherwise it becomes a drain on the economy.

You can increase minimum wage, you can provide government jobs. Unless there is an increase of resources there is no increase in wealth.

We have to produce stuff. Food, housing, consumer goods. If you get paid more and don't produce more, there's no real increase in wealth.

Unskilled labor is very limited in the amount of wealth which can be added to the economy. We have to do something, but we have to make sure that the actions we take is adding to real wealth, not taking from it.

Governments can print more money but they aren't usually in the business of producing wealth. Government farms, government factories? That's not something I'd expect to find in the US.

A worker for a governmental project can do exactly the same thing as one who works in the private sector project, and when they earn their money, there is not any intrinsic difference in how they'll spend it. Money is money, and it makes little difference as to where it comes from as long as it circulates within the economy. A government-paid group cleaning our highways does much the same as a private group doing the same, and they'll spend their money in much the same way.

Secondly, it is better to have people working, earning a paycheck, and spending their money, than to just have them sitting home and collecting u.e. or welfare. Work has its own reward-- sitting at home doing nothing and receiving a paycheck can be quite demeaning and should be avoided if possible, imo.

There is a common misconception that only the private sector can produce meaningful jobs and wealth, but that simply is not at all true. That lie has been perpetuated by those on the right whereas many Americans have fallen victim to that piece of economic nonsense. The key to understanding the real process is to "follow the money".

OTOH, the private sector does have an advantage to the point whereas attempting to get rid of it would be profoundly foolish. Therefore, what I am proposing is strictly a stop-gap measure with the intent of providing work for those without a job with the full intent to eventually move them into the private sector.

 

[Nakosis]

A worker for a governmental project can do exactly the same thing as one who works in the private sector project, and when they earn their money, there is not any intrinsic difference in how they'll spend it. Money is money, and it makes little difference as to where it comes from as long as it circulates within the economy. A government-paid group cleaning our highways does much the same as a private group doing the same, and they'll spend their money in much the same way.

Secondly, it is better to have people working, earning a paycheck, and spending their money, than to just have them sitting home and collecting u.e. or welfare. Work has its own reward-- sitting at home doing nothing and receiving a paycheck can be quite demeaning and should be avoided if possible, imo.

I disagree, it is not better to have someone spending money because we are all chasing after the same resources. This means overall wealth will decrease.

There is a common misconception that only the private sector can produce meaningful jobs and wealth, but that simply is not at all true. That lie has been perpetuated by those on the right whereas many Americans have fallen victim to that piece of economic nonsense. The key to understanding the real process is to "follow the money".

The key is to produce wealth. I'm fine if those jobs producing additional resources.

OTOH, the private sector does have an advantage to the point whereas attempting to get rid of it would be profoundly foolish. Therefore, what I am proposing is strictly a stop-gap measure with the intent of providing work for those without a job with the full intent to eventually move them into the private sector.

I don't care, public/private as long as it is producing resources and adding to the overall economic wealth.

Maybe I have the wrong perception but I don't see the government usually providing wealth producing jobs.

Obviously welfare doesn't add to resource production. Jobs which which don't produce resources which increases the available wealth is no different than welfare.

 

[metis]

I disagree, it is not better to have someone spending money because we are all chasing after the same resources. This means overall wealth will decrease.

It's the movement of money that produces wealth and not the other way around. If everyone stopped spending, our economy would come to a grinding halt. As John Maynard Keynes said, it's better to have people digging holes and filling them back up again than to have people sitting back doing nothing and earning nothing.

Maybe I have the wrong perception but I don't see the government usually providing wealth producing jobs.

That's because we have restricted the government's economic actions which, btw, should be done imo. Again, the governmental action I'm proposing is strictly stop-gap.

Obviously welfare doesn't add to resource production. Jobs which which don't produce resources which increases the available wealth is no different than welfare.

Actually it does, but in an indirect way. The more people spend, the more the demand for production, the more items are manufactured or services provided, and the more that money circulates. Repeat cycle. People in lower-income families tend to spend a higher percentage of their earnings and they tend to spend it more locally than those in upper-middle and upper income families, and this is where an economist wants most to be spent.

When the retired Swedish Minister of Finance was asked how he managed to make the Swedish economy much more competitive and prosperous starting in the mid-1990's, his two word response is a classic: "Higher taxes". Tell that to the talking-heads at Fox and watch their heads explode.

 

[Nakosis]

It's the movement of money that produces wealth and not the other way around. If everyone stopped spending, our economy would come to a grinding halt. As John Maynard Keynes said, it's better to have people digging holes and filling them back up again than to have people sitting back doing nothing and earning nothing.

Really, you think this even has value to the folks doing this kind of valueless work?

That's because we have restricted the government's economic actions which, btw, should be done imo. Again, the governmental action I'm proposing is strictly stop-gap.

I think the problem is capitalism and socialism don't mix well. If the government is not going to be in the business of producing wealth then we need to limit it's size. You can't run a capitalist country using socialist goals. Otherwise you get a mess which doesn't work.

Actually it does, but in an indirect way. The more people spend, the more the demand for production, the more items are manufactured or services provided, and the more that money circulates. Repeat cycle. People in lower-income families tend to spend a higher percentage of their earnings and they tend to spend it more locally than those in upper-middle and upper income families, and this is where an economist wants most to be spent.

The problem is that someone has to produce those resources or there will not be enough to go around. There will be no resources to buy unless someone is producing them. You need skilled labor to produce them. In fact if they are produce abundantly, their cost will go down. Like computers and electronics. Everyone has a TV, everyone has a phone not because of redistribution of wealth but because of increased production.

When the retired Swedish Minister of Finance was asked how he managed to make the Swedish economy much more competitive and prosperous starting in the mid-1990's, his two word response is a classic: "Higher taxes". Tell that to the talking-heads at Fox and watch their heads explode.

The more you produce, the more tax revenue the government will take in and you don't even have to increase tax rates.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really, you think this even has value to the folks doing this kind of valueless work?

When you're poor, hungry, and may potentially loose your home or lost it, it doesn't really matter how "valueless" the work is, especially if you have other mouths to feed.

I think the problem is capitalism and socialism don't mix well. If the government is not going to be in the business of producing wealth then we need to limit it's size. You can't run a capitalist country using socialist goals. Otherwise you get a mess which doesn't work.

Much of Western and Central Europe disagrees with that statement. A Nozick type of unbridled capitalism with minimalist state involvement will only work for and benefit a few, and it violates the ethical concerns that many of the early proponents of capitalism and private property had, such as Locke's ideal of leaving enough for everyone so that no one is left with less than they had before private appropriation. Without blending socialism into capitalism, society becomes dog-eat-dog, and the masses become haplessly dependent upon what generosity they may be shown, because work is performed strictly on a basis of what the employer will pay and there are no safety nets for those who find themselves in a situation of work not providing them with enough.

The problem is that someone has to produce those resources or there will not be enough to go around.

The problem with the mandate of producing wealth and resources is it mandates that resources be consumed, and we do not have unlimited resources for such a model to continue indefinitely.
Like it or not, we have to move away from a consumption-based economy before we run out of the resources that allow a consumption-based economy to exist.

You need skilled labor to produce them.

The Fordist model of manufacturing makes it so you need fewer skilled workers because you rely on machines doing most of the work while workers stand in a line performing the most mundane of tasks. You do not need to know how to work with wood to build furniture, and you do not need to understand physics to build a car. You need math skills to design a highway system, but you only need minimal skills to work on a crew to lay them.

 

[metis]

Really, you think this even has value to the folks doing this kind of valueless work?


I think the problem is capitalism and socialism don't mix well. If the government is not going to be in the business of producing wealth then we need to limit it's size. You can't run a capitalist country using socialist goals. Otherwise you get a mess which doesn't work.

The problem is that someone has to produce those resources or there will not be enough to go around. There will be no resources to buy unless someone is producing them. You need skilled labor to produce them. In fact if they are produce abundantly, their cost will go down. Like computers and electronics. Everyone has a TV, everyone has a phone not because of redistribution of wealth but because of increased production.

The more you produce, the more tax revenue the government will take in and you don't even have to increase tax rates.

Sorry, but you are working out of a false paradigm, plus you really don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.

Oh well.

 

[metis]

When you're poor, hungry, and may potentially loose your home or lost it, it doesn't really matter how "valueless" the work is, especially if you have other mouths to feed.

Much of Western and Central Europe disagrees with that statement. A Nozick type of unbridled capitalism with minimalist state involvement will only work for and benefit a few, and it violates the ethical concerns that many of the early proponents of capitalism and private property had, such as Locke's ideal of leaving enough for everyone so that no one is left with less than they had before private appropriation. Without blending socialism into capitalism, society becomes dog-eat-dog, and the masses become haplessly dependent upon what generosity they may be shown, because work is performed strictly on a basis of what the employer will pay and there are no safety nets for those who find themselves in a situation of work not providing them with enough.

The problem with the mandate of producing wealth and resources is it mandates that resources be consumed, and we do not have unlimited resources for such a model to continue indefinitely.
Like it or not, we have to move away from a consumption-based economy before we run out of the resources that allow a consumption-based economy to exist.

The Fordist model of manufacturing makes it so you need fewer skilled workers because you rely on machines doing most of the work while workers stand in a line performing the most mundane of tasks. You do not need to know how to work with wood to build furniture, and you do not need to understand physics to build a car. You need math skills to design a highway system, but you only need minimal skills to work on a crew to lay them.

Well said, and thank you for posting this.

 

[Curious George]

I disagree, it is not better to have someone spending money because we are all chasing after the same resources. This means overall wealth will decrease.



The key is to produce wealth. I'm fine if those jobs producing additional resources.



I don't care, public/private as long as it is producing resources and adding to the overall economic wealth.

Maybe I have the wrong perception but I don't see the government usually providing wealth producing jobs.

Obviously welfare doesn't add to resource production. Jobs which which don't produce resources which increases the available wealth is no different than welfare.

Hmm, while you are making a logical point, I think your misunderstanding of how work, regardless of public or private expands production.

Take for instance the quintessential government job - legislator-- I think you have very few people who will argue that without the stability government provides, production could be as high.

Similarly, every government job is aimed at serving a purpose. If these purposes were left unattended then production would decrease. Now, we can certainly argue that many "purposes" could be served more efficiently. But, that is the nature of systems, they often develop redundant and superfluous parts. Thus, systems need maintenance.

In the most simple civilization many of the government type jobs wouldn't be necessary or efficient, but as our society becomes more complex, these become fundamental to production.

 

[Nakosis]

When you're poor, hungry, and may potentially loose your home or lost it, it doesn't really matter how "valueless" the work is, especially if you have other mouths to feed.

Welfare is welfare. Why make them work for it?

Much of Western and Central Europe disagrees with that statement. A Nozick type of unbridled capitalism with minimalist state involvement will only work for and benefit a few, and it violates the ethical concerns that many of the early proponents of capitalism and private property had, such as Locke's ideal of leaving enough for everyone so that no one is left with less than they had before private appropriation. Without blending socialism into capitalism, society becomes dog-eat-dog, and the masses become haplessly dependent upon what generosity they may be shown, because work is performed strictly on a basis of what the employer will pay and there are no safety nets for those who find themselves in a situation of work not providing them with enough.

Capitalism is just a system which is dedicated to the protection of individual rights. The right of property, the right on ownership. It means you have the right of ownership for the work that you do and a right to the wealth that you accumulate. It means you have a right to choose what is done with your property. This means you have a right to choose not to work for an employer who pays less than the value of your work. Work is perform based on what an employer is willing to pay and what the employee is wiling to work for. If your work has value then you are entitled to that value. Unfortunately, people are willing to work for less and feel entitled to work less for more. So it's not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the people.

Not that I'm saying capitalism is better, the problem with either system is the possibility of corruption.

Socialism is a system which says the community as a whole shares equally in ownership. Every member has a equal right to the value of what is produced by the community. This barring corruption as well is fine but that's just not the way capitalism works.

You're trying to protect individual rights to property but then turning around and saying you don't have an individual right to property. The goals are different.

The problem with the mandate of producing wealth and resources is it mandates that resources be consumed, and we do not have unlimited resources for such a model to continue indefinitely.
Like it or not, we have to move away from a consumption-based economy before we run out of the resources that allow a consumption-based economy to exist.

I don't even know how that is possible. Life consumes resources.

The Fordist model of manufacturing makes it so you need fewer skilled workers because you rely on machines doing most of the work while workers stand in a line performing the most mundane of tasks. You do not need to know how to work with wood to build furniture, and you do not need to understand physics to build a car. You need math skills to design a highway system, but you only need minimal skills to work on a crew to lay them.

Someone has to produce the machines, someone has to maintain the machines. However this is mass production providing an abundance of product which is nothing different from what I said. Someone has to produce. If those jobs produce a certain amount of value then they should be compensated for that value. However not everyone is going to be able to produce the machines or repair them if they break down. Someone has to train the people in their jobs. They'll be fewer capable of this and so their value will be greater. That's capitalism.

 

[Nakosis]

Hmm, while you are making a logical point, I think your misunderstanding of how work, regardless of public or private expands production.

Take for instance the quintessential government job - legislator-- I think you have very few people who will argue that without the stability government provides, production could be as high.

Similarly, every government job is aimed at serving a purpose. If these purposes were left unattended then production would decrease. Now, we can certainly argue that many "purposes" could be served more efficiently. But, that is the nature of systems, they often develop redundant and superfluous parts. Thus, systems need maintenance.

In the most simple civilization many of the government type jobs wouldn't be necessary or efficient, but as our society becomes more complex, these become fundamental to production.

That's fine, I didn't say government jobs were unnecessary. What I'm saying is we have to make sure we are not overtaxing our production.

This is happening in a number of cities. Pensions for government workers is outpacing production. If you want a real solution you have to take this into consideration is all I'm saying.

So capitalism protects property rights which prevents government essentially from production. That's too bad because if you can produce more, there is more to share. In the sense that if the government were allowed to produce, hire farm workers, hire factory workers, then there would be increased production. There would be more wealth to go around.

Since the government doesn't produce something, increasing government jobs does not increase wealth. What it ends up meaning is everyone gets less because there is less to have. So you have to carefully balance the amount of government with capitalism. If it was a socialist government, where the community shares in ownership and is free to produce, this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, but you are working out of a false paradigm, plus you really don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.

Oh well.

I understand this is a stop-gap measure, which is fine. I'm sorry I'm kind of on my soap box now and didn't acknowledge that. However it is not a false paradigm. Someone has to produce the wealth. That's all I'm saying. Otherwise we could just continue to print money and create government jobs.

What is available for distribution depends on what has been produced. With FDR there was a lot of infrastructure needed. This allowed better access to resources which increased production. IMO the focus has to be on production first.

 

[Curious George]

That's fine, I didn't say government jobs were unnecessary. What I'm saying is we have to make sure we are not overtaxing our production.

This is happening in a number of cities. Pensions for government workers is outpacing production. If you want a real solution you have to take this into consideration is all I'm saying.

So capitalism protects property rights which prevents government essentially from production. That's too bad because if you can produce more, there is more to share. In the sense that if the government were allowed to produce, hire farm workers, hire factory workers, then there would be increased production. There would be more wealth to go around.

Since the government doesn't produce something, increasing government jobs does not increase wealth. What it ends up meaning is everyone gets less because there is less to have. So you have to carefully balance the amount of government with capitalism. If it was a socialist government, where the community shares in ownership and is free to produce, this wouldn't be a problem.

We agree that government work should be productive. But, I disagree that there is some magic balance. As long as it is productive it is helping production. We do not need to limit government except that it is productive.

Your example of benefits though certainly illustrates that we can implement unproductive policies if we do not think these through. The buy now pay later mentality can at times make for good investment and at other times make for poor investment. Certainly we can wish for magic 8 balls that will tell us the answer, but that won't work. Nor will our wisdom and "balancing" be correct in all events. This by no means suggests we should limit our investment to only that which we have the money to pay for today. I don't mind some risk aversion, but risk aversion doesn't make success. The best answer is diversity of investment. But, even this doesn't protect against the perfect storm. And when The perfect storm does hit, we pull together, pick up the pieces, and rebuild.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Welfare is welfare. Why make them work for it?

Because not many people like free-loaders, and not many people like being a free-loader. It's psychologically destructive to most people to just simply let them collect a welfare check and not work.

Capitalism is just a system which is dedicated to the protection of individual rights. The right of property, the right on ownership.

Capitalism is an economic system; it is unrelated to individual rights, and while the rights of private property overlap, the two are not interchangeable ideas or terms. Capitalism is the position that markets should be free of government intervention and regulation, and guided by the "invisible hand." But there is no "invisible hand," and what really runs capitalism is the owning class - those with the resources to buy up property and claim it for their own. There is much more to it, as this is a highly simplified definition, but capitalism is about free-markets through private property, and is not the same as private property as private property is an idea that existed long before capitalism.

Socialism is a system which says the community as a whole shares equally in ownership. Every member has a equal right to the value of what is produced by the community. This barring corruption as well is fine but that's just not the way capitalism works.

That's actually communism that involves communal ownership. Socialism is state ownership, state-funded grants, and other things that are maintained and operated by the state. Police and fire fighters are an example of socialism, as they are services provided by the state.

I don't even know how that is possible. Life consumes resources.

Life consumes resources, but capitalism has us consuming far more than what is necessary, far more than what the earth can actually produce, and capitalism cannot sustain itself unless people are buying and consuming things they do not need. Life feeds on life, but life does not require a TV in every room, large houses with many unused rooms, a new cell phone every other year, a McDonalds on every corner, nor does it require the wasted consumption that ends up in landfills or in the oceans collecting as one giant heap of garbage.

They'll be fewer capable of this and so their value will be greater. That's capitalism.

Yes. And automation, which makes fewer of these jobs available, rings a death knell for capitalism.

 

[Thief]

Because everyone should share an equal obligation to work, everyone should have a right to a job. The unskilled, those with various mental and physical disabilities, and those down on their luck could really benefit if the government worked harder to place workers and match them to jobs based on their skills, which would benefit society as a whole. It would be even better, and work far greater, if private employers cooperated in such a program and actively employed people enrolled in this program.

As FDR put it, anyone who wants a job and is willing to work has a right to a job. It isn't forced labor, but job opportunities that are given to those who are struggling.

Ever been through an unemployment line?.......I have....repeatedly.
In spite of an extensive education and years of experience.....my little town leads the state in unemployment.

I can at great length explain why the concept of everyone working is a dream.

It's not as simple as dreaming up a project and taxing the public to pay for it.

Have you read?....Animal Farm....

 

[Thief]

Yes. And automation, which makes fewer of these jobs available, rings a death knell for capitalism.

More than a 3decades ago we had a bad recession.
(Reganomics)

My grandfather wanted to know why I could not find work.
I told him...
In your day a machine helped you do your labor.
Now....the machine can replace a hundred men......

 

[Thief]

So, you'd rather pay for those who could work but won't and who freeload the system?



Not true, and the system here didn't operate that way, much preferring to get the unemployed back into the private sector.



U.I. can be used temporarily as placement may not be that immediate, plus the person may find another job sooner v later.



I think you've added things to this that aren't really implicit in what I would like to see or what Sanders would most likely want to see.

Either way you're gonna pay, so do you want to pay someone to do work that's needed or to pay someone to sit home on their rump waiting for their check to come in?

In 1985.....5% of the population held 8trillion dollars in personal wealth.
25yrs later....40trillion dollars held.

got ideas?

 

[Revoltingest]

More than a 3decades ago we had a bad recession.
(Reganomics)

My grandfather wanted to know why I could not find work.
I told him...
In your day a machine helped you do your labor.
Now....the machine can replace a hundred men......

The 1981-1982 recession did occur during Reagan's reign, but it was a parting gift from Carter.
Things boomed under Reagan. I did pretty well under the boom after he took office.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have you read?....Animal Farm....

Yes. It actually worked out great for them at first. Under the inspiration of Old Major (Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin), the farm was thriving while Snowball (Trotsky) was around, all of the animals contributed as they could, all of the animals were taken care according to their needs and they were better off than they were when Farmer Jones was still around, but when Napoleon (Stalin) usurped the power things when downhill, and Napoleon became indistinguishable from the rest of farmers.
Your point?

It's not as simple as dreaming up a project and taxing the public to pay for it.

If you have programs getting people to work, that means you are adding to the pool of people paying taxes.

 

[Curious George]

The 1981-1982 recession did occur during Reagan's reign, but it was a parting gift from Carter.
Things boomed under Reagan. I did pretty well under the boom after he took office.

Fanciful nostalgia.