Employment Guarantee

[dust1n]

Horrible idea. In theory it would be great, but think about the people who will gravitate towards such projects, and imagine the tax burden associated with providing for them. Unfortunately people are real scum.

I'm imaging the terrible scummy people who will gravitate towards such projects are the ones that are already a tax burden, but are broke, resigned to not changing, and not working.

 

[Stevicus]

Whatdaya think? Maintain close to 0% unemployment when the markets fail to provide enough jobs?

Perhaps it might work as a short-term solution during hard times, although eventually, we'll have to plan for a time when technology and automation will lead to a situation where there are far more people in society than actual work available. Perhaps there can be a guarantee of minimum income, regardless of whether someone can find a job or not. The idea of "workfare" is based more on a philosophical position that people "should" work no matter what, based on older ideas related to a Protestant work ethic - although such a position may be anachronistic in terms of modern economics.

 

[Revoltingest]

The stock market rose to the 10,000 marker in less than ten years.
Historically it took forty years previous to cross the one thousand marker.
People were making lots of money.....at the top of the scale.
Insider trading?......were you?

I don't do stocks or bonds.

 

[Revoltingest]

Horrible idea. In theory it would be great, but think about the people who will gravitate towards such projects, and imagine the tax burden associated with providing for them. Unfortunately people are real scum.

We are facing an increasing number of unemployable people, either thru slackerdom or obsolescence (replaced by automation).
People who don't work will inevitably be supported by taxpayers, so the question is how best to do it.
Making'm work at least doesn't over-incentivize going on the dole compared to hand-outs.
It's going to be real expensive either way.

 

[Nakosis]

"Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of Welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[31][32]It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[29][31][33]"

Welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's kind of pointless if the work they do is non-productive. The example given was digging holes and filling them back up. There's no value in that, not even for the folks digging the holes. If the point is just to fulfill the law, it defeats any purpose the law may have had.

 

[dust1n]

It's kind of pointless if the work they do is non-productive. The example given was digging holes and filling them back up. There's no value in that, not even for the folks digging the holes. If the point is just to fulfill the law, it defeats any purpose the law may have had.

Yeah, I agree that there would no point in hiring people to dig holes and fill them up again... The Department of Extraneous Digging needs to go.

 

[Thief]

It's all in how the money flows.
Bankers and investors let their MONEY work for them.
as they go boating about on yachts.....towing another yacht with the sports car on it....

Let the money flow!
There's plenty of it.

Let's all do Robin Hood!

 

[metis]

It's kind of pointless if the work they do is non-productive. The example given was digging holes and filling them back up. There's no value in that, not even for the folks digging the holes. If the point is just to fulfill the law, it defeats any purpose the law may have had.

The point Keynes was making is that it is demeaning to not have work, plus there needs to be assistance for those without a job one way or another. Therefore, the real issue is do we want to pay someone so sit back and do nothing, or do we want to pay and create a job of some type that not only helps that person and that person's family, but also the community? Either way, we pay, and to not do so would be catastrophic on multiple counts.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's all in how the money flows.
Bankers and investors let their MONEY work for them.
as they go boating about on yachts.....towing another yacht with the sports car on it....

Let the money flow!
There's plenty of it.

Let's all do Robin Hood!

If government adopts the Robin Hood approach, there will be unintended consequences.....
A great majority of us in business (you know....supplying housing, jobs, food, etc) will just retire on the dole.

Hey, that's starting to sound pretty good....
I gotta get my Social Security application in today!

 

[Nakosis]

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.

So it's the perception. If you're being productive, then there's something to be proud of. If your making them work just for the perception, then we are just fooling ourselves. It may look good but it's not really promoting a healthy economy. So politicians can say, look at all the jobs I've provided. If the jobs are not adding to the overall wealth of the community then they remain a drain.

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.

That's only one form of capitalism.

"free marketcapitalism, welfare capitalism, crony capitalism,corporatism, "third way"social democracy and state capitalism. Each model has employed varying degrees of dependency on free markets, public ownership, obstacles to free competition, and inclusion of state-sanctioned social policies."
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is common with capitalism is private ownership.

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.

Socialism
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

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.

This doesn't really have anything to do with capitalism. This is about individual greed. Communism however did have a system in place which limited greed. You could buy just enough food, your housing could only be sufficient for your needs. Consumption was strictly regulated by the government. Of course this put a lot of power in the hands of the government, which still has a potential for greed and corruption.

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

Not really, a capitalist would love this stuff. Higher production, lower labor costs. Automation is a wet dream for a capitalist.

One thing about Ford that I recall was that the people doing the work should be able to afford the product. Everyone gets a car.

I'm still undecided about capitalism. As you said, capitalism itself doesn't provide a safety net. Folks who for whatever reason can't or don't want to contribute to the wealth of the community. Welfare kind of does what communism does. It regulates what and how much of goods can be purchased. Most people don't want this type of regulation in their lives.

Socialism, I don't see how distribution can be fair. If the community shares equally in the wealth, there's not much incentive to produce more. Capitalism provides a motivation I don't see available with socialism.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I'm fine with that. It just doesn't seem how our government goes about it. I'm just trying to understand why that is. I'm assuming that capitalist idealism tends to restrict government involvement in enterprises which create wealth.

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.

I think any system can be made to work. However each in it's own way is susceptible to greed and corruption. I'd like to see a solution, I just don't think the problem is with the system. It's with the folks that run the system. In which case we should blame the people and not the system. I don't have a problem with socialism any more than capitalism. I just don't think blaming the system is really going to solve anything.

 

[Nakosis]

If government adopts the Robin Hood approach, there will be unintended consequences.....
A great majority of us in business (you know....supplying housing, jobs, food, etc) will just retire on the dole.

Hey, that's starting to sound pretty good....
I gotta get my Social Security application in today!

Yeah especially as you get older. Still you want to encourage them younger folks to be as productive as possible so they can continue to support your lazy old posterior.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah especially as you get older. Still you want to encourage them younger folks to be as productive as possible so they can continue to support your lazy old posterior.

Aye, so we shouldn't let government's burden be so onerous that they give up & go on the dole too.
Gotta leave'm enuf to inspire'm enuf to work, invest & run businesses.

 

[Revoltingest]

One thing about Ford that I recall was that the people doing the work should be able to afford the product.

When I worked at Northrop, I recall only one guy being able to own an F5.
And even then, it didn't have any of the weapons options.

 

[Nakosis]

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......

We're not there yet. If we could create machines, robots to do all the work...

Sounds great but it'd probably be the death of mankind. The need to struggle for survival maybe the only real motivation we have.

 

[Nakosis]

The point Keynes was making is that it is demeaning to not have work, plus there needs to be assistance for those without a job one way or another. Therefore, the real issue is do we want to pay someone so sit back and do nothing, or do we want to pay and create a job of some type that not only helps that person and that person's family, but also the community? Either way, we pay, and to not do so would be catastrophic on multiple counts.

It would be demeaning for me to have demeaning work. That's just how I'd see it. I've been asked to do meaningless work, I hated it. Others may see it differently, that's fine.

I just think we could somehow do better.

 

[Nakosis]

We are facing an increasing number of unemployable people, either thru slackerdom or obsolescence (replaced by automation).
People who don't work will inevitably be supported by taxpayers, so the question is how best to do it.
Making'm work at least doesn't over-incentivize going on the dole compared to hand-outs.
It's going to be real expensive either way.

Like punishment? Kind of demeaning isn't it? In California it's not PC to demean the poor. Slave labor....
You get to be a slave to the state until you can afford to pay for your own debts. Just can't word it that way. Slavery isn't PC either.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You get to be a slave to the state until you can afford to pay for your own debts. Just can't word it that way. Slavery isn't PC either.

By that logic, anyone and everyone who works is a slave to their employer. But that is not a valid point because we are not owned by or considered property by our employers or the state.
And even to me, a communist, letting someone sit on their butt and collect a check (in most cases) isn't acceptable. It's also psychologically destructive to have people doing nothing, and, indeed, doing something is better than nothing even for the least skilled and capable of workers.

 

[Nakosis]

By that logic, anyone and everyone who works is a slave to their employer. But that is not a valid point because we are not owned by or considered property by our employers or the state.

That was sarcasm but, you might like this...

"Capitalism and Corporations have devised a new method of slavery under the guise of the free market system. We are led to believe that we live in a free economy, and have the right to choose both our profession and employer. If you examine how our economy really works, you will find that corporations in a capitalistic society are not very different from the slave owners of the earlier generations. The social level we are born into generally dictates our profession and opportunities for employment. In fact, I believe that corporate employment is no more than a new method of slavery that is even more profitable for the ruling class. I heard a quote recently from Chairman Mao of China that stated, Capitalism is the highest form of Communism. We have been duped by propaganda into believing that we have economic freedom, when this is actually far from the truth."

Corporate Slavery

 

[Brickjectivity]

It would be preferable to handle this at the local level but with both state and federal involvement, including financially.

Some here may remember something called "workfare", which actually was tried here in a couple of counties in da U.P. The idea is, if one cannot find a job, the county would hire them at roughly minimum wage and put them to work on various items that are needed, such as cleanup and repairs. What stopped this experiment was mainly two items, one being $ and the other being protests that this was taking jobs away from some in the private sector.

I think I once posted an idea about 'Pointless work' sponsored by govt. for people who needed welfare. The managers should try to make work as meaningful as possible, but in cases where there were competition with the private sector it would be better to do pointless work than compete with the market. Work like that is pretty difficult for most people. I believe the objections given to me at the time were that it would be demeaning, but I think as long as the hours were reasonable it wouldn't be demeaning. Also, bear in mind that automation is likely to take away more kinds of work in the near future.