Forum Thread

Democratic Senators for a Job Guarantee

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 38 of 38 Prev 1 2 3
  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Civil servants are jobs. The overall objective should be to provide jobs and increase the standard of living . Streamlining government serves no purpose except to reduce the tax liability. Reducing the funding of anything insures the destruction of the target. Money needs to be spent, not saved.

    We could hire everybody to move piles of rocks from one side of the river to the other side. When all the rocks are moved, we move them back. Everybody has a job.

    Even at the government level, any paid position has to create value for society. Failure to do that is only a collapsing economy. But if everyone has a job on the way down, maybe the end does justify the means.

    I know more than a few people who would take these fairy-tale government jobs. They would take these jobs because they are unemployable in most other economic endeavors. They put in minimal effort at work; they show up late; they fail to show up for work without calling; etc. It is cheaper to put these people on a Guaranteed Basic Income than to hire civil servants to watch over them in their fairy-tale occupations.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    None of your criticism have any bearing on three decades worth of research and development of govt job guarantees.

    The idea that basic income is less of a govt handout than people working for a paycheck (or cheaper) is laughable and ridiculous.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    None of your criticism have any bearing on three decades worth of research and development of govt job guarantees.

    The idea that basic income is less of a govt handout than people working for a paycheck (or cheaper) is laughable and ridiculous.

    Carlitos

    What research? I am totally unaware of any western nation creating a successful massive social program in this regard.

    Around 1995, the Alberta government decided to "help" some chronically unemployed citizens. They put these citizens to school with the goal of turning them into computer repair technicians. So for a couple of years, legitimate students of this field hard difficulties in finding a spot to get their education. But the enrolled students had little motivation. They just took the stipend and did little to improve their job skills.

    Currently, the Alberta government funds employers to hire people with mental disabilities. The disabled person is accompanied with a "helper", whose wages are usually more than the disabled person. The helper ensures the disabled person stays on track on the job, but the employee is seldom as productive as regular employees. Sometimes the disabled person actually gets trained to the point where the helper is not needed; sometimes the helper is a life-long commitment. Whether we agree this is a good social program or not, it is still a great expense for the taxpayers of Alberta. It would be cheaper to give that person a pension.

    People that are chronically unemployed are usually not good employees. I know a few people on long-term welfare, and they are fairly useless in even the simplest workplace. They have various physical and psychological disabilities that limit their functioning. Giving them a helper is going to add to the expense, and not really accomplish much. It is cheaper to keep them on social assistance, which I hope eventually turns into a guaranteed basic income.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dave Volek said: "any paid position has to create value for society."

    That is only true for a society that has no regard for citizens . Beyond a radical right wing posture that people are responsible for their own welfare.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Dave Volek said: "any paid position has to create value for society."

    That is only true for a society that has no regard for citizens . Beyond a radical right wing posture that people are responsible for their own welfare.

    Chet. I guess are in favor of people moving rocks from one side of the river to another, than back again. This would create full employment.

    Maybe we should build bridges with a 5-year life span instead of a 50-year lifespan, Knocking down 5-year bridges and rebuilding will employ a lot more people than building 50-year bridge.

    Even government positions eventually have to create value.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    That’s called “work fare” and it undermines the purpose of a “transitional” JG to get people back in the private sector. The Jefes de Hogar program in Argentina is probably the most successful anti poverty and economic growth program in history.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    If the unemployment rate increased, I would be in favor of a WPA type of government program to employ an idled work force, but the USA would need to be in the situation such as another great depression.

    "The Works Progress Administration (WPA; renamed in 1939 as the Work Projects Administration) was the largest and most ambitious American New Deal agency, employing millions of people (mostly unskilled men) to carry out public works projects,[1] including the construction of public buildings and roads. In a much smaller project, Federal Project Number One, the WPA employed musicians, artists, writers, actors and directors in large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.[1]

    Almost every community in the United States had a new park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP).[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:

    If the unemployment rate increased, I would be in favor of a WPA type of government program to employ an idled work force, but the USA would need to be in the situation such as another great depression.

    "The Works Progress Administration (WPA; renamed in 1939 as the Work Projects Administration) was the largest and most ambitious American New Deal agency, employing millions of people (mostly unskilled men) to carry out public works projects,[1] including the construction of public buildings and roads. In a much smaller project, Federal Project Number One, the WPA employed musicians, artists, writers, actors and directors in large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.[1]

    Almost every community in the United States had a new park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP).[2]

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Ad...

    This is just good Keynesian economics. Society gets a benefit from putting people to work. Some people get paid work. However, any worker in these projects has to contribute value to these projects. If the project is construction, the worker has to apply a reasonable effort and skill to the job. If the project is entertainment, the public must show its appreciation by attending and paying something for the entertainment.

    But creating jobs that have no value or when workers have no accountability is not good Keynesian economics.