Job Guarantee scheme
>Pay minimum wage to anyone willing to work
>As many hours as they want
>Real work - e.g. environmental restoration, infrastructure projects, or whatever the local community needs
>Administered by local government but funded federally
This would:
>End long-term unemployment, and make workers more employable
>Also end underemployment because you can work in the JG as an extra job if you want
>End most of the poverty we needlessly tolerate in society
>Have an excellent automatic stabilising mechanism and buffer stock against inflation
>See yuge real output gains (close the Okun gap, aka wasted labour as a result of unemployment)
Just to name some of the benefits.
Common questions:
>What if the unemployed refuse to work?
Then they would remain poor.
>Isn't there going to be a lot of bureaucracy to make sure these people aren't abusing the system?
Yes. There needs to be some degree of oversight. But consider how much waste would be eliminated by removing the existing structures dedicated to managing the unemployed - e.g. jobseeker activity testing, workfare.
>Wouldn't this be expensive?
The total cost of JG wages should be allowed to expand as much as necessary. In other words, however much the government spends on JG wages, that was the correct amount. By paying a fixed wage this will never be inflationary.
>Is this like "America Works" from the TV show House of Cards?
There is some similarity in that it's a universal employment / public works scheme. The details of the fictitious AmWorks are not clearly outlined but it's unlikely that AmWorks is as comprehensive as this model of JG. A JG also isn't necessarily paired with cuts to other programs.
>How is this different from workfare?
This is a real job, with no coercion, paying a real wage per hour worked. Workfare typically is meagre, degrading, and little better than state-subsidised slave labour for businesses.
Do you agree or disagree with this idea and why?
>>72280001
This is the objectively better way of providing welfare for the poor than transfer programs (what /pol/ calls the gibesmedats; EBT and the like.) The reason it is objectively better is that it is not inflationary: People working on something useful contribute to the supply-side of the macroeconomic picture, which means when they spend money purchasing goods, something has been produced for them to have that money.
There are other important benefits that you missed:
>The government, being the country's largest employer, can effectively control the wage structure simply by increasing or decreasing the minimum wage
This means you don't need to tax the rich in order to redistribute wealth, you can simply increase the baseline government pay and high income inequality will evaporate.
What jobs would they actually be doing? The average person doesn't have the skills or ability to build heavy-duty infrastructure that isn't complete shit, and there's only so much infrastructure that's useful anyway. I can't see how this wouldn't end with employing people to do mostly useless things just so they have something to do, and with government departments intentionally being inefficient just to employ as many people as possible.
Isn't this what the New Deal did?
>>72280001
>Not posting the final solution
>>72280001
How would you finance this?
In addition if you already have the money to fund all this, why doesn't the government just hire the relevant companies in the private sector to execute these projects (thus indirectly increasing employment) instead of creating this huge and inevitably inefficient system?
i would be okay with this.
give people incentive to work, without keeping them down worrying about jobs or hours needed.
we need to bring back the old chaingangs who clean trash on the road side.
>>72280591
>>72280445
This is pretty much what hitler did for the german economy
Funding projects like the autobahn and paying people in labor certificates (pseudo-currency backed by actual labor output, rather than fiat printing)
>>72280445
No, not exactly. The New Deal did a lot of things, one of which was institute public works projects...but they were mostly hiring skilled laborers to build those projects because sending unskilled laborers to build what was then the largest dam on the planet or one of the longest bridges on the planet was a practical death sentence.
OP's talking about being an employer of last resort which accepts unskilled workers.
>>72280695
By replacing all the transfer payment systems (barring those for the disabled or elderly, i.e those who cannot viably work) with a job guarantee program. Trying to directly increase employment has been a fucking disaster for the country.
>>72280943
*trying to INdirectly increase employment
Doesn't this incentivize the government to artificially create recessions for cheap labor?
>>72280001
>Job Guarantee scheme
in other words
>let's expand the federal govt guys
>that's the only to fix our problems!
I wonder who could be behind this post.
>>72281387
>Expand the federal govt to fix our problems
Trump?
I really like the "choose your own hours" part. Shame the Jews don't let us do that already.
>>72281493
That's certainly one possibility.
Hillary wants to do the exact same thing as well.
>>72280427
The people hired to build roads in my area already make a shit product and get paid more than I do because Muh union Labor, so...
>>72281387
"muh big government." Old meme. Go back to 2012.
Society will probably go down the basic income track in the end. Republicans are statistically more likely to work jobs that can be taken by automation, so when the job crunch eventually happens, they will swing blue.
There are much better solutions that could retain smaller government and keep individual autonomy, but they would change the status quo way more so people would much sooner implement the nice simple meme of socialism.
This is actually a well known fact. Right now we're in a period where people are just trying to get as much capital as possible, because once socalism hits it will be practically impossible for a business to grow or a person to rise to a higher class. You boys had better be trying to get money now because your financial status in the next couple of decades will probably determine the economic property for you and your kids for generations.
>>72281709
>IT'S 2016!
>wrong side of history
What else you got for me?
>>72281822
>This is actually a well known fact.
s-sauce?
>>72280695
>How would you finance this?
pic related
The military is basically a welfare system but at least the State gets something out of them.
This is s pretty great idea. I thought of something similar where you just get subsidized the welfare money to work for a company.
So basically any company can have "free" labor that will be subsidized by welfare. So those lazy fucks will have to work and we will get some return Out of it.
Even if the job is producing much less than what is paid to them it's still better than nothing.
You lost me at "minimum wage" and "tolerating poverty."
The poor would still remain poor because they're making minimum wage.
>>72282066
>>72282066
You're not suggesting cutting NASA right? They actually make stuff
>>72282510
boo hoo :^( muh starving african children
>>72281387
What's the difference between Private vs Govt. jobs in a Keynesian economy?
If anything Govt. jobs allow for a more direct control in case of an emergency.... among other things.
I never understood why private sector are a big deal anyway....
>inb4 "efficiency" meme
>>72281999
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-leaning-cities-are-at-greater-risk-of-job-automation/
http://mic.com/articles/136799/republicans-most-vulnerable-to-job-automation
Also watch the documentary and read the book "Humans need not apply" by Jerry Kaplan.
Socialists at Forbes and PCWorld and every other large journalism sites have, in the last few years, taken a very optimistic tone towards automation. They welcome the throwing away of all of these jobs because in their mind it will force their socialist utopia.
>>72282932
>I never understood why private sector are a big deal anyway....
In reality, it's because you can have it be inefficient and authoritarian without blaming the government.
>>72282932
>What's the difference between Private vs Govt. jobs in a Keynesian economy?
If I don't like my private sector job, I have the choice to quit and get another private sector job with a different employer.
If I don't like my govt job, I'm fucked.
>>72280001
I see a problem:
>these jobs are less labor-intensive/more fulfilling/more outdoors/whatever than most minimum wage jobs
>also more stable hours and work than a lot of jobs
>college students stop taking certain minimum wage jobs
Also there would be many more costs not related to labor if the infrastructure/other investment was actually useful--and if the city really "needed" it, why haven't they contracted it out already to a private company (if they're really broke shouldn't we already be giving them federal aid for infrastructure)? I might suggest having people tutor/coach/etc undersocialized children (divorced parents and shitty neighborhoods, etc) instead, but then again, many more organizations already do this probably more effectively than a government agency. Also, knowing government goons, this would mean that essentially only poor black children would get help, and honestly I only care about white kids.
>>72283035
Better than ponzi schemes backed by nepotist banks used by foreign enemies, you even have the excuse to public all transactions and justifications this way.
>>72283234
>If I don't like my govt job, I'm fucked.
Reassigned.
Anyway the thing is that we should be reaching job limits, actually why isn't there a formula about the job market limits and future is beyond me, but maybe I should google harder.
>>72281932
You're literally on a board for fascists. No one cares about your lolbertarian bumper sticker slogans.
>>72280001
OP you need to embrace the free market. The cost of efficiently allocating resources in the labor market is that companies and workers have to do some research. Government isn't going to aid this process (other than by creating a massive indeed.com and banning all the others, thereby consolidating the entire (online) job market--I could get behind that.)
>>72280761
>labor certificates (pseudo-currency backed by actual labor output
Marx advocated "labor notes", sounds similar.
>>72283509
There is a formula. Haven't you noticed?
More people will fix everything.
>>72280001
Stop posting this shit you fucking idiot
Any time a scheme similar to this has been set up it's never fucking worked properly
Also real work in "whatever the local community needs" like "Environmental restoration" and "infrastructure projects" are already done by contracting to companies - offering unemployed people minimum wage instead would effectively fucking kill those companies because they actually pay their workers decently and give them benefits
Also
>I want the government to be even bigger and more convoluted than it already is
Especially in Australia, this is a fucking retarded opinion
>>72283546
>board for fascists
Citation needed.
>>72283668
kek
Hitler hated Marxism/Marxists with a passion.
>>72283546
>a board for fascists
newfag spotted
>>72283808
>>72283509
more government will fix everything*.
*false
Explain to me how this is different from communism? (Which we know from history doesn't work)
Who will be responsible for overseeing this program?
>>72283923
I'm aware, but there are similarities with regards to currency.
>>72283509
>Reassigned.
to the same employer.
I have no choice.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
>>72283546
>You're literally on a board for fascists.
/pol/ is a board of peace.
>>72281283
Thus damaging its own economy and pisses off its own people? No.
>>72284114
>same employer.
>Society
Ok then you want to work outside of society? mmh... harsh but you can.
>>72280001
Find me enough people willing to pay for millions of others to dig holes and fill them back up.
Good luck with your delusion.
>>72281671
its not muh union labor, its muh prevailing wage, actually.
>>72284301
state=! society
The state is an extention of society.
It it were society we would call it society.
>>72284301
>government = society, no exceptions
faggot
>>72284285
Cause the government has such a good track record of doing what is in the best interest of the people?
>>72280001
Big problem with this concept, we are on the verge of the vast majority of human labor being automated. That gives this system two problems. First, the number of unemployed is going to start skyrocketing. Second; how do you justify inventing menial busy work for all of these people that could be done better, faster, safer, and cheaper by a robot?
>>72284918
No we aren't you meme shill
>>72284918
>we are on the verge of the vast majority of human labor being automated.
I've been hearing this for 25 years.
Wake me up when it's a reality.
>>72283923
How much of a newfag is he? Every other thread is about "White Genocide", "White Nationalism", or some conspiracy bullshit about the Jews. No sentient being can browse this board for more than five minutes without realizing that it's basically just an extension of Stormfront.
>>72280294
>This means you don't need to tax the rich in order to redistribute wealth, you can simply increase the baseline government pay and high income inequality will evaporate.
>>72285038
>>72285071
Driverless cars alone are going to wipe out millions of jobs.
>>72285188
>88
Heil Hitler get.
Did you come back us mein Fuhrer?
Will gas the kikes race war now?
>>72284362
If you explain that you're already paying like 20k per person into the system for them to sit on their asses, or 50-100k for them to sit on their asses in prison, I'm sure they'd have no problem with paying them to actually work.
That said, the only true solution is sterilization of do-nothings
>>72285259
>this technology will be free
>everyone from the old to the young to the rich to poor will have it just cause
>it won't take decades of phasing in
>>72285220
If the government is an unlimited employer (as it would be under this scheme) then if the government increases its minimum wage then private firms must increase their wages or risk losing employees to government jobs. This necessarily decreases shareholder earnings and capital gains for large firms, while simultaneously increasing the income of the bottom quintile of households, both of which reduce income inequality.
>>72285351
They're not paying for that - they're having their resources stolen from them and it just so happens the thieves spend those resources on dregs.
If you're of the mind that maybe people shouldn't allow themselves to be stolen from without objection, I'm on board. I doubt you are though.
>>72285188
>namefag
>autistic language
>conspiracy bullshit about the Jews
faggot
>>72285259
...when they can actually work at a low enough cost to be mass-produced, which is likely not very soon.
Where will all the jobs come from once machines replace farmers?
>inb4 muh factories
factory workers make less than farmers, plus it's the 1920s and factories are too efficient to give jobs to everyone about to be replaced!
>>72285521
>income equality is necessarily a good thing
please kill yourself
We already have this system in place for long-term unemployed people.
I've always taken for granted that people who have been unemployed for a long time gets called in for forced labour. I know I did once upon a time.
>>72285629
Retard.
>>72285071
We've already lost millions of jobs to automation, it isn't something that's off in the future. It's been happening for decades and isn't stopping.
>>72284362
We already pay trillions for dindus to do nothing but lay around and commit crime.
>>72285808
not an argument. Go to bed, Timmy, you have to catch the bus tomorrow.
>>72285780
>forced labour. I know I did once upon a time
??? Sweden please explain
>>72285887
Other people doing stupid shit is not a valid reason for doing more stupid shit.
>>72285887
>We've already lost millions of jobs to automation
And created millions of job in the automation/robotics industry, plus someone has to maintain these automotons.
>>72285421
>this technology will be free
Doesn't need to be free, just needs to be cheaper than a human employee.
>everyone from the old to the young to the rich to poor will have it just cause
What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
>it won't take decades of phasing in
The moment a driverless semi-truck can operate cheaper than a human driver, 3.5 million truckers are out of a job.
>>72285629
A completely useless comparison. The introduction of machinery and automation in the past increased the number of jobs available because they still required human labor in some form to operate, and bringing in more people to operate more machines made perfect sense. As we move toward robotic automation, human labor is being cut out entirely. It is being replaced, not augmented.
>>72285935
Calling someone a faggot isn't an argument, retard. Perhaps leaving your helmet on the short bus is throwing off your concentration.
>>72285629
Economically speaking, income inequality beyond certain upper bounds stalls a standard economy because rich households consume less of their income which means aggregate demand falls while aggregate supply rises. When demand and supply miss each other it ruins earnings outlooks and stalls investment, which then reduces aggregate supply through reducing employment.
>>72286015
>The moment a driverless semi-truck can operate cheaper than a human driver, 3.5 million truckers are out of a job.
Hopefully those people can be retrained to maintain those 3.5m driverless trucks.
I mean just cause a truck can drive itself doesn't mean it can change it's own tires, unload itself, pump it's own gas, etc.
>>72286220
Slim chance, those are already occupied fields. Who will also be at risk of losing their jobs at some point because all of those tasks can be easily automated as well.
>>72286453
>Slim chance
s-sauce?
Oh that's right, you're projecting your fantasy land as fact again.
>>72286015
Are you saying that the need for people in the farm sector actually increased when they turned to giant fucking robots? Wrong. Also, in the case of driverless cars, there will have to be people to build the machines and do maintenance on them--there are no maintenance/supervisor robots feasible yet. So no, the comparison is not useless or meaningless.
>>72286098
>When demand and supply miss each other it ruins earnings outlooks and stalls investment, which then reduces aggregate supply through reducing employment
No it doesn't, kek
>I am taking a degree in finance
Good lock managing that bro
protip: not gonna work
>>72280001
Okay, but you're forgetting that these wages that you're paying do not come out of thin air. You are taxing everyone to pay for these guaranteed jobs that are not economically viable. Besides that, you're also taking money away from existing public work contractors to do this.
>>72287996
The taxes to pay for the program will be offset by the new taxes the government will bring in from all the new employed people the government gave jobs too.
Its kinda a genius idea.
Maybe next OP can create infinite energy.
>>72287996
>You are taxing everyone to pay for
Where do you get the money to pay your taxes? Can you tell me that?
>>72288533
can you tell me why I masturbate to images I took in an Australian public locker room with my flip phone over the course of a year?
>>72288533
I sell goods and services within the market.
If you're proposing that these new laborers are creating more taxes while being paid with taxes, then you're simply fucking retarded.
Let's assume you have 100% efficiency in collection and payment. These people must live and thus use their wages to buy food and shelter, etc. So, you cannot keep these people alive and have a tax surplus. Let's not even touch on the fact that you need to pay the collectors, organizers and others who are associated with the projects.
What you have done is robbed people of their free enterprise in how their money is spent to essentially hire a huge amount of bitch labor for projects that are not being demanded naturally.
>>72286627
>You're taking a degree in finance
Freshman micro does not count as a degree in finance.
>>72289185
>I sell goods and services within the market.
Where did your customers get the money to pay you, to eventually pay your taxes?
>If you're proposing [some bullshit]
No, stop this hypothetical strawmanning.
>>72283546
>>72281709
>>72281544
return2reddit
>>72289185
>for projects that are not being demanded naturally.
There are tons of projects that are needed and aren't done only because the government would rather kick the can until shit blows up for the next chump in office ten years ahead. See most of our bridges and dams.
>>72289351
no, but in my finance degree I've taken micro/macro and up through the 300s in ECON.
>>72289367
>implying his customers are using money and not currency
>>72288533
minimum wage people dont get taxed dumbass
we need an overhaul of the tax code
Money from government is either inflationary as a result of adding money into the economy or a result of taxation meaning it is my money. If I want to hire someone to do stuff I'll do it directly, no need for the government middleman to take a cut or mess up the transaction.
>>72285521
>reducing capital gains
oh look another barrier to entry to starting a new business, but this time it's the federal government's easy unskilled job with shit oversight by federal employees instead of a competitive industry
I do agree that it's better than just giving people welfare, but I don't agree that it should be able to expand infinitely. If the labor costs a set amount of money, these people should only be doing jobs that are economically more valuable than the cost of their labor. It won't take long to run out of things to do for unskilled labors that are worth their price.
In reality, a nation should be willing to abandon a citizen who refuses to be a net plus to the economy, save for special cases like disabilities, veterans, or elderly. Don't give people the unlimited EBT and project housing and they'll actually care about working, because they'll have to care about dying.
>>72290577
How does taxation inflate currency?
>>72290577
>"I define inflation as an increase in net financial assets and therefore deficits cause inflation"
If you use the non-autistic-libretardian definition of inflation, which is a constant increase in the price level, your whole argument collapses. Prices don't magically adjust according to how much financial equity exists in the economy. They respond to spending and the capacity of the supply side to expand production.
Exactly how much money the government spends into the economy minus how much it taxes away is subject to the whims of private sector spending. It's not an amount the government can or should target. The focus should be on price stability and full employment, and let money/bonds (same effect in terms of fiscal policy) be spent into existence and destroyed in whatever proportion is needed.
>>72290983
He's saying "either the government steals from me or it creates new dollars and devalues the currency" (but of course that's not how it works).
>>72289367
By creating value and selling goods and services.
What are you proposing?
>>72289590
>Projects that were not demanded are falling apart because there are no market forces to keep them together
I'm saying the government is unnaturally funding shit regardless of market demand.
>>72291614
>By creating value and selling goods and services.
Where did their customers get the money to pay them and eventually to pay your taxes?
>>72291786
I suppose from a bank who got the money from the FED.
What is money?
Something tells me this kind of things always end in clay grabbing and ammo factories
>>72283668
>>72283923
Hitler was a socialist but just of a different spectrum than Marx, Hitler advocated that the people should be under the state whilst Marx advocated that the people make up the state as they go along.
It has been tried before and it doesn't work because it just takes jobs that people are already employed to do and spreads the work out to 5+ people.
>>72291907
At the start of the chain you have to acknowledge that all cash money (USD banknotes) originated from the government spending it into existence, right?
So taxes are paid in money that the government previously created by spending.
With this understanding, why do you insist on saying that taxes will pay for a job guarantee program? Clearly government spending finances the private sector's ability to pay taxes, not the other way around.
You can argue that "money" also takes the form of bank credit etc. but the point is private equity can only come from public sector deficits, meaning the government spending new money into existence, either as reserves (equivalent to cash) or bonds.
You can also argue that the Fed is somehow independent of the government but I am referring to the consolidated government (Fed + Treasury) without getting into details of which arm conducts which operations. I'm assuming you're not a tinfoiler who believes the Fed is truly independent of Congress.
>>72280001
Solution to unemployment:
1) deregulate industries so that starting businesses isn't an impossible pain in the ass
2) get rid of welfare, because people have little reason to work when there are so many bennies to acquire instead
3) deport minorities back to africa/mexico
4) helicopter rides for communists
>>72292874
But what is money? The problem you're getting into here is that you're claiming that money = value, and that the government is the source of all value.
If government can create value, then there is no problem, and it begs the question of "Why aren't all citizens paid government employees if this a net gain?"
>>72286098
>>72286627
t. took an introductory level economics class in college
Do you think that if there was such a simple solution, the problem would still exist?
Income inequality to an extent is necessary in an economy, and not to mention that unless a government actively try and push high earners back towards the mean income, you'll find that there will always be people who earn more.
>>72294343
>The problem you're getting into here is that you're claiming that money = value
No I'm not. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't pretend the federal government is financed by taxes.
If we can have a better economy by keeping an employed buffer stock of labour rather than an unemployed buffer stock of labour (the current system), then we should.
People have needs. People whose needs aren't met are a liability. If there aren't enough jobs to go around, employment becomes a game of musical chairs. Either governments dole out money, create make-work or deal with the sociopolitical consequences of large numbers of men with nothing to lose. You can kick the can down the road, but it's something that has to be dealt with eventually. Guaranteed employment isn't the worst solution I can imagine.
>>72296539
>Guaranteed employment isn't the worst solution I can imagine.
I'd like to add that after WW2 the UN included "right to work" in the Declaration of Human Rights and it's still there, just ignored by today's negligent political class.
See Article 23: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
>>72280001
Congratulations, you just invented Cuba.
>>72280294
Inflation happens when the government prints more money then what is being produced.
Yes, this guaranteed work would be better than what we have currently (just handouts), but it still has the potential for inflation if the minimum wage is higher than the goods that are being produced. For example, if the government tells people to make mud cookies (a no value good) and pay them a minimum wage, there will be inflation.
Money raised and spent through taxation don't increase inflation (the money is tied to what good/service was taxed). So, if we have a Welfare program that has a maximum fund according to money that was raised through taxation, then there will not be inflation. But the current system where we print money to give to welfare programs, and that causes inflation.
I support guaranteed work as a welfare program.
>>72293067
>1) deregulate industries so that starting businesses isn't an impossible pain in the ass
Even with 0 regulations, starting a small business is still an incredible pain in the ass. And i'm guessing you're against government subsidization of small businesses?
>2) get rid of welfare, because people have little reason to work when there are so many bennies to acquire instead
less welfare = less spending = less jobs = deflation
>3) deport minorities back to africa/mexico
costs of most goods would skyrocket, especially in the case of shit that is currently outsourced
You need to find a balance, familia, doing things like this in absolute would ruin the economy even more.
>>72283020
>>72281822
There is literally nothing wrong with automation
>>72286098
This is not good economics. It's the scientific equivalent of saying lightning is sparks from Vulcan's anvil.
>>72280001
Looks mahm, its a ditch digging thread
>>72296539
They aren't a liability retard, that's whats wrong with your shitty philosophy.
It's their responsibility to meet their own needs.
All people are intrinsically valuable and capitalism is the only system that recognizes this.
>>72298429
Government has to deal with the fallout of people who can't meet their own needs. "Intrinsic value" sounds nice and all, but doesn't put a roof over anyone's head. There's no frontier. The state can't tell the homeless or the hungry to fuck off to the West and absolve themselves. People taking what they need is a very real threat and possibility. Yelling at the unemployed and underemployed to hustle harder won't change anything.
>>72282066
>education that small
Yeah, this is bullshit and probably only takes into account federal spending when most school spending is state based.
>>72299136
>The state can't tell the homeless or the hungry to fuck off
Oh, but it can anon.
Just because your ideal govt wouldn't do that doesn't make it an impossibility.
In all honesty, if the govt were to start doing just that, we would probably be able to start tackling some of the issues as a local community.
>>72280001
This is a great idea and better than a universal living wage. We have such shit infrastructure in the United States that jobs could easily be created for all the unemployed to fix it.
>>72299136
That is not government's role
And if they quit destroying opportunities we'd be a much richer society with less problems
>>72280294
You'll get inflation, but it is partially mitigated by the JG labor. If the labor were cost neutral or profitable, then there would be a private industry job for it already. Forestry, cleaning streets, and other make-work tasks tend to contribute a relatively small amount to the economy simply by their nature.
The biggest benefit is that fewer people will have the free time to sling drugs and commit crime.
>>72280001
>put laws in place that make it a pain in the ass to organize anything that generates revenue, even if it's a short restoration job
>"we need mo ppl fo dem jobs"
>>72299444
This has nothing to do with ideal or non-ideal governments. The needs of the people are weeds which crack pavement. Either those needs are assuaged or civilization gives way to disorder. Droughts have destroyed empires. Acts of god may be out of human hands, but grain and pussy have been distributed in one way or another for ten thousand years.
Government's role is, and always has been, a monopoly on violence. To an absolute reduction. And they don't want competition. Why do you think Africa is being white-washed with Han seed? Because the Chinese government doesn't want a bunch of rabble-rousing, pussy starved, unemployed, hungry assholes causing problems.
And you, you want the issue to sort itself out. You want people, with their intrinsic value, to meet their own needs. Is your head comfortable in the sand. It's in the self-interest of the state to preemptively deal with these problems. The ism is irrelevant. Power structures don't goad rust. Every citizen is a mouth to feed.
>>72301218
>This has nothing to do with ideal or non-ideal governments
Them proceeds to explain how your ideal plays out.
I don't know what to say other than your shilling sheckles should be withheld for this post.
The logical solution to the problems our society faces is euthanasia, but that doesn't fit your ideal scenario does it?
This sounds like a good idea. Reminds me of FDR and his programs that brought America out of depression. Why have people lost faith in government programs?
>>72285935
I don't know what there is to explain. After you've been unemployed for a certain time chances are they'll look at your resume and say that you're better off gardening or something with your time. If you don't agree on it they take away all your unemployment benefits.
I had a really hard time getting work after I graduated and had unemployed for almost a year. After around a month they started sending me to re-education centres and a few months after that they put me on unpaid internship as a janitors despite having a law degree.
Where do you think all unemployed immigrants we have get to do? Sit on their ass all day getting handouts just because they exist? A lot of them are literary free labour under the threat that they'll take away your kids since you won't be able to support them since they're taking away all your handouts. I'm not opposing the system because I think it's great, but I can see why some people would bitch at it.
Found a proper work a few months after that tho so I'm doing fine these days.
>>72301583
>your ideal scenario
I'm not a capitalist or a communist. I'm neither for nor against small or large government. I don't care one way or another. I'm talking about history, human behavior and the way the story plays out time and time again. Who could I possibly be shilling for.
>euthanasia
Getting rid of inconvenient people is a very old pastime.
>>72297482
>Yes, this guaranteed work would be better than what we have currently (just handouts)
Yea, but this is better because you can hire the unemployed to create assets, which can later on be privatized such as toll roads, building, etc...
The trick is how to use them wisely so that they don't end up just digging a hole and fill it back up all day. You might as well just give them money and save taxpayer some potential work injury lawsuit.
>>72280001
Plot to "Dave" the movie.
>>72299828
>You'll get inflation
Nah, it can only cause inflation if the JG wage is constantly increased. Setting it to a particular level and leaving it there can only cause a one-time adjustment in wage price structure (whereas inflation is defined as a constant rise in the overall price level).
If the extra demand from those workers now having a decent income causes inflation then you'd have to look at some tax increases to manage it. But I doubt that would happen because there's no supply-side shortage now or in the foreseeable future.
>>72301766
Muh gibsmedat. Gtfo commie
>>72280001
THe problem with your plan is the oversight. and making sure those working on those projects are actually working and not just lazing around all day collecting a check
>>72302031
>I'm not a capitalist or a communist.
Anarchist?
>Getting rid of inconvenient people is a very old pastime
And look where it got us.
Let me give you my ideal scenario:
If you are unwilling to plant a garden or pick up a rilfle and go hunting, and would rather sit on your ass and starve, expecting me to give you handouts, then I have a solution for you!
Follow me right this way.
I have a oven with your name on it.
>>72302520
>If you are unwilling to plant a garden or pick up a rilfle and go hunting
I'd agree with this if the Homestead Acts were still applicable. But the US ran out of free land to settle in 1986.
>>72302928
Are you implying that gardening and hunting are dead...
in 2016!
You are responsible for your survival. No one else, especially not me.
>>72302850
No mate. You'll just get a labour shortage because private employers can't dip into the unemployed stock of labour and then the economy will contract sharply. That's without even getting into the effects of much lower aggregate demand and killing fucking 5% of the adult population.
>>72303117
>Are you implying that gardening and hunting are dead...
Can't farm on land that isn't yours. Although I guess you could join a coop. Can't argue on the hunting point, since you can hunt on government land. Still, not exactly a simple endeavor for hypothetical suburbanites to lead a subsistence lifestyle, paying for gas god knows how, camp-site hopping every two weeks, hunting whatever's in season. People mostly eat staple grains. Like a lot. I'd eat offal if I had to, but I imagine most pampered folks today would rather risk their chances robbing Cheez-Its from an Aldi's.
>>72302850
But then who will vote Trump?
>>72303354
Labour shortages equal rises in pay for workers.
Just like immigration keeps the workers paid pennies cause of basic supply and demand.
>>72280001
This was the same scheme I had thought of to replace all forms of welfare/assistence (for those capable of work). The idea of a guaranteed job/employment for community type tasks (raking leaves, gardening, cleaning, shoveling, crafts, and other temp type work). Would need to keep it at the community level otherwise it would likely become corrupt and unmanageable.
The pay should be given daily rather then weekly, by-weekly, or monthly to ensure they are able to afford their meals etc. If they do not put in effort there hours worked are reduced accordingly, no show = no pay, etc. Possibly come with certain "perks" such as a provided lunch and use of a bathing facility and transportation from a centralized site to the work venue.
>>72303566
And whose fault is that?
Were they mislead by the govt that they didn't need to learn how to provide for themselves?
Did our education system fail to provide the most basic lessons imaginable?
Were they enslaved by the system to be a cog in a machine instead of a self sufficient individual?
And now you advocate expanding the govt's role in caring for them?
To keep them eteranlly enslaved to the very organization that failed them?
>>72282731
No, he's suggesting that instead of just giving benefits in the form of ebt, just fund military and NASA as well as other public works with that same money... That way, jobs are created for skilled workers as well... And as a result you build infrastructure that can be used for so thing positive
None of these comprehensive and consolidated plans will work... None!
What's happening is that the means for production are becoming more and more centralized by big business... We're cutting out mom and pop..
In its place, we're building a big silo and then the corps are charging the consumer to transport goods, services, energy etc... Prices are high... And the profits of these corporations are going to the pockets of the few... Who are in turn indebted to the mega banks due to their depreciation on capital investment strategies....... And the Government is aiding in this process of centralization with the way they write the law...
The only way to fix this is to tax the corporations HEAVILY and reduce taxes or eliminate taxes on small time businesses... Like partnerships or LLCs....
Smaller local farms... Smaller local factories.... Multiple ownerships
Encouragement of mid-level wealth and discouragement of the stock market shenanigans...
It's not big government that is needed... It's a shift in the method of taxation that takes the means of production out of the hands of the few and decentralized it...
Localized and modular economies that are not as affected by fluctuations in a particular industry (such as oil... When oil goes up, food commodities go up and that affects the whole economy)...
Gold backed systems..reducing usury as a whole and limiting it.
keystone pipeline !!!!
>>72303725
Yeah but there would still be a finite supply of labour to produce output. So the only way for the economy to improve through his proposed unemployed massacre is for productivity to somehow soar.
I'm sure wage increases would motivate workers to be more productive - there's reasonable evidence that they do - but you could achieve that in better ways such as using a JG.
>>72304966
>Jesus...Reddit...is...here...
If you could write the English language according to the rules of grammar, someone might actually take you seriously.
>>72283601
The "free market leads to full employment" meme has run it's course, the economy isn't some chalkboard drawing where things like perfect competition and general equilibrium exist
the only thing people can do is labor everything else requires training.
you cant just be a plumber, or an electrician, or a concrete worker, or a framer. It takes years to amass the knowledge to be good at it.
there's a huge demand for construction workers right now.
you can literally go to a job site or a job placement agency and get on a crew right now.
but you won't.
because you dont want to do actual work.
>>72305625
>because anyone has ever tried a free market even once, except for the one time we did and the richest society in history was created, but seriously free market doesn't work except for that one time
