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?
>>73366198
You could actually get rid of the minimum wage under this idea, since private enterprise would have to compete against the JG wage. The question of course, as always, is how the program is funded.
>>73366394
Yeah that's the idea. This is, among other things, a better (real) implementation of a minimum wage.
Funded by the federal government because it would obviously always run at a "deficit" and this might cause solvency problems for state/local government.
>>73366198
>middle class gets fucked in all holes by taxes so poor people can do useless jobs that nobody needs
Why not cut all the bureaucracy and just give people basic income right away? Doesn't seem more expensive than this bullshit.
What about cunts who are too fat to walk let alone work?
Do we just keep giving them free £ to stuff themselves.
>>73366725
Pay to exercise/low intensity labour jobs, bonuses for lost weight.
>>73366566
I didn't say to raise taxes anywhere in the post.
Basic income risks:
>Inflation, because handouts without means testing will cause your BI to add to the demand side regardless of the business cycle
>Reduction in labour force and therefore lost output potential (and therefore more risk of inflation)
>Welfare trap
Not saying BI won't work but it's potentially dangerous. I wouldn't use it as a serious tool against poverty.
>>73366566
At least in america, there is a lot of work that needs to be done that for one reason or another isn't. It constantly comes up in national conversation that our infrastructure is crumbling, but nothing is ever done to fix it, and really it's in need of expansion. In that sense, this seems like a better deal.
I'm not 100% sold, but I am intrigued.
>>73366725
I would put the JG in place atop existing welfare systems and see what happens. If there's a serious problem with what you're describing then maybe a different policy is best equipped to deal with it.
Thanks, doc
>>73366566
We could do basic income if not for NIGGERS (and spics)
Look at all white european countries prior to immigration of mudslims. There was enough welfare to support anyone as long as gave enough of a shit to apply for it.
Now you're starting to see elderly people in these EU countries bitch because the migrants are eating up the welfare. While it is sad to see our white brothers across the sea getting enriched maybe it will show them you can't important tons of sandniggers without it fucking up your social infrastructure.
>>73366198
but what labor needs to be done? we don't need a team of 15 to fill a pothole
>>73367097
Check these out:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2009/08/job-guarantee.html
http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/job_guarantee/JobGuarantee.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee
>>73367372
Go to your local council and ask them what unmet needs they have that they just don't have enough money & labour to fix. Their answers will depend on where you live but it will be much more thorough than one pothole.
The JG is ideal for anything low-skilled that the private sector doesn't find profitable such as cleaning up the environment.
>>73366974
You said that it will need (massive) bureaucracy. Knowing how government operates, this means more taxes because it will be inefficient as fuck.
I'm not a fan of basic income either but at least we could cut everything else and reduce bureaucracy.
As for the labor, who cares? Demand will grow and raise wages and get people to work.
>>73367097
The problem is that you two assume that unemployed people are capable of doing these jobs. The majority of them are not. Training them will cost even more resources, all for menial jobs that are neglected not because of lack of labor but because of government inefficiency and corruption.
Look at my country.
A year ago, the 'refugees' were hailed as a much needed workforce to replace our aging population and fill many vacant trades.
Then they found out what any /pol/tard could have told them from the get go: the majority of them are illiterate retards who can't even read.
Now homegrown unemployed people are not that dumb, but they are unemployed for a reason, that reason being their lack of marketable skills.
Artificial labor demand created by expensive gov programs won't magically give them skills tho.
And paying a couple million people to pick up trash will just cost tax money and put trash collectors out of business.
Sorry but I dont see it.
>>73367372
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/grades/
Dams, hazardous waste, Drinking water, Levees, Waste water, Aviation, Inland waterways, Roads, Transit, Schools, energy
ALL fucking D's. Fuck a pothole, half our our 80% bridges aren't up to code or if you prefer more sanitized wording "structurally deficient"
This is an average score across all the states so some states are better off than others but every state has at least one D to be sure.
>>73367647
This is not because there are no worker available, but because gov for some reason doesn't allocate resources to it, because transgender bathrooms are more important or whatever.
>>73366198
you're essentially wanting the govt to pay for community service. not a new idea, but just as silly
>>73366198
>>Real work - e.g. environmental restoration
Every fucking time I read this copypasta, I still crack a smile.
>>73367603
I would argue you'd see more kickback from unions. They'd see it as an attack on their wages and they'd lobby the shit out of fighting JG.
Notice you can be criminally charged for filling in a pothole yourself because you didn't do it "up to code" even though it amounts to little more than filling the hole with asphalt and packing it in. Who do you think lobbied to for such strenuous and bullshit codes?
Probably the people that own the industry and want to edge out private competition.
>goyim you need a license to operate an asphalt pouring machine.
>you want to lay it yourself? you need a permit from the city to accept a contract.
>you need $1000 grand to apply for the permit goyim payup!
>Looks like we had to choose another contractor, thanks for your money goyim!
>when will they fix your pothole? As soon as they can. They're very buys goyim, they cannot just fill pot holes willy nilly.
>hand wringing intensifies
>>73367603
>You said that it will need (massive) bureaucracy. Knowing how government operates, this means more taxes because it will be inefficient as fuck.
The point is that this bureaucracy that will administer the JG would be much thinner and more efficient than the existing systems that manage the unemployed and have absolutely zero productive purpose. I don't know exactly what it's like in Germany but here it's a farce - private companies climbing over themselves to get government funding by helping one unemployed person replace another in a scarce job market.
>As for the labor, who cares? Demand will grow and raise wages and get people to work.
Ideally but not if the BI payment is set too high.
>Now homegrown unemployed people are not that dumb, but they are unemployed for a reason, that reason being their lack of marketable skills.
No, the definition of unemployed is willing to work but jobless. The best test of someone's willingness to work is an unconditional job offer.
>Artificial labor demand created by expensive gov programs won't magically give them skills tho.
Keeping the "unemployed" in the JG rather than jobless makes them much more employable, and of course gives them a stable income and protects them and society from the other indirect costs of unemployment like crime, mental illness etc.
>>73367910
No, I'm wanting the government to guarantee employment for all willing citizens and also bring all the other benefits of having zero waste of workers.
>>73368091
>I would argue you'd see more kickback from unions. They'd see it as an attack on their wages and they'd lobby the shit out of fighting JG.
The effect of JG on wages is no different to the current minimum wage system except that it does an objectively better job at it, because the real minimum wage isn't zero.
>>73368515
Unions artificially inflate the wages though. They'll compete against other unions perhaps there's kind of an understanding like "nobody go below x". If you have uncle sam providing a minimum wage for dullard work you can bet your ass unions will fight back against it.
Gotta keep the gravy train rolling.
Filling potholes and laying cement isn't exactly high skill labor. A few competent foremen and you can get a construction site up and going fairly easily.
>>73368844
I'm not sure why stopping cartel behaviour is a bad thing (if/where such behaviour by unions exists).
>>73369054
I hate unions as much as the next guy but they fund the democratic party so they have their hands in a lot of pockets. It happens all over the world but it's painfully blatant in the Northeast of the states.
There would have to be a tremendous political upheaval to take power from the unions. Bigger than Trump even.
>>73366198
We've already got work for the dole you ignorant cunt, it's the same thing
>>73366198
>Real work
No it wouldn't be real work, it would be dumb menial work that will become automated soon anyway.
Work for work's sake is a complete waste of time. It makes more economic sense to give people a basic income, and then let them spend that money on
>An education to pursue a real career
>Start their own business and create real jobs
>>73366198
>>Administered by local government but funded federally
yep it would fail, good try though.
>>73369585
>No it wouldn't be real work, it would be dumb menial work that will become automated soon anyway.
everything he listed isnt close to being automated so no.
>>73369550
See
>>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.
>>73369686
>mfw newspaper writing elite keep telling me that I'm being exploited and underpaid
>mfw I don't even care, still getting paid twice as much as I was under the student dole scheme
>>73369686
also I haven't done it yet, but isn't work for the dole mainly things like planting trees, uprooting weeds and picking up garbage? not exactly poaching work from business
>>73366198
>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.
>typical politician bullshit
>"oh guys we'll get it back through...uhm...all the things we save on!!!11!!"
>Wouldn't this be expensive?
>dodging your own self-asked question
"yes, it's going to be expensive." is the only right answer, don't bullshit around it.
>>73367603
>illiterate retards who can't even read.
illiterate retards who can't even read.
>illiterate retards who can't even read.
illiterate retards who can't even read.
>>73368199
>Keeping the "unemployed" in the JG rather than jobless makes them much more employable...
the rest of your statement is correct, this however, you can't prove (I'm sure of that), so it's bullshit.
>more employable
>"yes, sir, I was the best thrash collector they've seen in years! I could empty 15 trash cans an hour without immediatly using my money to buy weed"
>>73370138
I haven't done it, but my understanding is that the government hands you over to businesses as free (for them) labour then gives you slightly more than your usual welfare payment. Not even close to a substitute for a real job.
>>73370354
>dodging your own self-asked question
>"yes, it's going to be expensive." is the only right answer, don't bullshit around it.
No, I gave the correct answer which is that the financial cost to the government is irrelevant for a buffer stock employment scheme. What matters is the macroeconomic effect.
>>73370547
I don't see how that claim is bullshit. It seems self-evident. An employer obviously won't prefer a job applicant that has been idle for weeks/months/years over one that worked during that time.
>>73370934
So it will go
people who have done real work recently > people who have done makework recently > people who have been passed out on their couch for the past 6 months
still gives no relative advantage over anyone but other unemployed people
>>73367647
I wonder when first death(s) caused by a shit infrastructure will happen in US and A.
Imagine driving on a bridge or one of those big interstate loop-de-hoop-thingamajiggers, shit breaks down you fall like 100 feet in your car with ten tons of rubble following you.
>>73371103
I suspect most of the time it just gets shut down and never actually fixed, so everyone has to go the long way around
>>73366198
I have several worries that I would like OP to address, if possible.
OP says that the scheme would only involve real work. That's a very loose definition, which can easily be exploited for political ends by any unscrupulous politician wanting to get elected amidst -- for example -- an economic crisis. What sort of safe-guard guarantees that this system doesn't devolve over time into providing unneeded jobs for political purposes?
Another point that makes me very suspicious is the promise of eliminating unemployment by providing "needed works" First, if the works were so needed, why hasn't there been any incentive from to market to do? I'm not entirely against public organizations conducting infrastructure projets, but it still seems to me that the so-called work needed by the local community isn't so needed, or doesn't need a complex scheme, maybe just subsidize to let professional companies do it, if the community is too poor.
Again, another point: the promise is that the needed work will eliminate unemployment. What is the communities don't need that much work? There will still be unemployment. And if the communities do need some work, and that work is completed by the proposed schemed, what will happen to all those JG workers? Go back to unemployment? I could very well see this scheme turn into an utopian project where there is always work that needs to be done, much at the expense of actual productive members of society.
Another point: what if this scheme ends up putting actual, real working professionals out of work? Infrastructure projects are currently done by professionals who know their trade, are unionized and live from this. I'm worried that the JG scheme will simply put them out of work by offering subsidized, untrained labour. What kind of safe-guard will be put in place to prevent such thing for occurring? And what if they are trained? More spending at the expense of the taxpayer? We already have training schemes.
>>73371036
Even supposing that the JG is makework (which it's not) and the effect you just described comes true, that's still better than the status quo.
>the government can just give everyone a job
>they can fix everything
>administered by local government but funded federally
You can't fool me OP, I know what the Soviet in Soviet Union refers to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs
>>73371244
To summarize, I think my biggest fear comes from the fact this scheme shifts the distribution of labour from the market to elected officials. The market certainly isn't perfect, but it is impersonal and apolitical. It encourages satisfying demand and allows the failure of unneeded or unwanted projects. The proposed scheme would substitute this system by the good will of elected officials who are still only human. That means they are prone to error -- even when well meaning -- but can also be corrupted or just plain stupid. It seems to me that such a scheme would become a political football, used to bribe the voters with their own money. Our recent history is filled with cases of unscrupulous politicians abusing the system for their own gains.
Also, like I said before, I don't think that the market is a perfect thing, but its big difference with your proposed scheme is that the market allows bad or unneeded projects to fail (because they go bankrupt). With the JG system being subsidized, what will be the signal that a specific project is bad or unneeded, and that it should be stopped? I'm very worried because politicians are stupid and often launch such projects. For example, the football world cup was disastrous for Brazil. Those stadiums costed a fortune only to become empty after the event. No private company would have organized and payed for such even to be held because the return on investment was obviously too low (Brazil lost money on this). What safe-guard mechanism would prevent your scheme to take the same route?
>>73371244
>What sort of safe-guard guarantees that this system doesn't devolve over time into providing unneeded jobs for political purposes?
It depends on how the system and its oversight are structured. I'm not really sure that this is any more abusable than any other public program.
>First, if the works were so needed, why hasn't there been any incentive from to market to do?
Not "needed" in the sense of "we would all die if these jobs weren't done" but work that could improve society & environment but is not inherently profitable and therefore private enterprise isn't doing it.
>What is the communities don't need that much work?
This would be great, if we were at the stage where the economy takes care of all possible societal needs, but we're not. The point of this kind of program is that if someone wants to be useful while they're without a private sector job, we make it possible.
>Infrastructure projects are currently done by professionals who know their trade, are unionized and live from this. I'm worried that the JG scheme will simply put them out of work by offering subsidized, untrained labour. What kind of safe-guard will be put in place to prevent such thing for occurring?
This is an important consideration. The research into how a JG could work is quite thorough and looks at details like that. See the links in this post (and other sources exist online too, of course): >>73367386
>More spending at the expense of the taxpayer?
Well it's not really paid for by taxes because it's funded by the federal government, aka the currency issuing authority. In France today that would not be possible unless the eurozone developed a fiscal authority to conduct such things.
This is getting into monetary economics that is not essential to understand how a JG works except to say that the financial expense to (say, the US) government is not an issue.
>>73366198
The US had something like this long ago. The CCC and The WPA. They made lodges, post offices, trails, and roads, but gave men a chance to improve themselves
>>73372119
Well I can't really suggest any universal solution to political footballing that doesn't undermine democracy/sovereignty. I would just say that the JG's structure & operation needs to be transparent and follow strict rules like any other program.
>>73372187
> I'm not really sure that this is any more abusable than any other public program.
Welfare just gives people money to spend. This would get them to actually do real material life work. It's a lot more exploitable by any company that needs "needed work" (the broadest term ever possible). I can easily picture infrastructure projects being built for the covert benefit of big corporations.
>work that could improve society & environment but is not inherently profitable and therefore private enterprise isn't doing it.
Again, such a broad term. Who would define it? Elected officials? They are the most incompetent people in our society. Look at most Green parties, the supposed environmental-concerned people around, half their projects are money pits and many are actually detrimental to the environment. Solar panels come to my mind (it's not environmentally friendly to have gigantic open mines in China to get the minerals you need to make them). What if those people are in charge of defining the ambiguous terms of society & environment? These people don't have a clue.
You sell your system based on unrealistic results without clearly explaining the way it will go about. Even the links provided are unclear and the examples found in the wikipedia article don't seem to have work. Despite years of implementation, those countries are still failed states.
>therefore private enterprise isn't doing it
There are several private non-profits doing amazing work. I'm not sure how to entice further work (maybe a mentality change), but what you are saying is not true.
>>73373191
>I can easily picture infrastructure projects being built for the covert benefit of big corporations.
Fair call.
>Even the links provided are unclear and the examples found in the wikipedia article don't seem to have work. Despite years of implementation, those countries are still failed states.
Not really a helpful insight, because no country has implemented the full JG scheme I described, only at best some parts of it. The heads of household scheme in Argentina, for example, did improve employment prospects despite being a less than ideal jobs program.
>>73372187
>The point of this kind of program is that if someone wants to be useful while they're without a private sector job, we make it possible.
Again, the term "useful" is ambiguous. Useful as defined by who? People are fucking stupid and they fall for the stupidest of gimmicks. Remember that solar freaking roadways scam? The French government is actually planning to spend billions to implement it here. The project leader is the environment minister. You have a minister that doesn't have a clue about engineering or even how the technology she wants to implement works. Even worst, in my region, the EU is investing billions in the "third industrial revolution", a literal scam made up my some american lawyer. I'm a chemical engineer and I looked at the premise of the project. For every good idea, there is an equally retarded idea (turning every building into mini-electric plants? These things have huge economies of scale. Even if the technology is interesting, the way they intend to implement it is retarded and shows they don't have a clue).
You say they the prive sector don't do some things because there is no profit to be made. Your ideas are noble, but I can't get myself to give more even more power to literal idiots who care more about their popularity ratings and money than the actual end result of their policies. I want to stress how stupid these people are. They have no clue, they are dangerous.
You also didn't address my point regarding what happens when the work is done.
>Well it's not really paid for by taxes because it's funded by the federal government, aka the currency issuing authority
Inflation is essentially taxation by other means. The wage of the productive members of society will still be eroded as money pours from projects which you yourself have admitted there is no profit to be made with.
>>73373925
>You also didn't address my point regarding what happens when the work is done.
When the work is done the local government finds some other work to do.
>Inflation is essentially taxation by other means.
Yeah, and I wouldn't advocate for inflationary spending. Not really sure why you said this.
>>73374383
>When the work is done the local government finds some other work to do.
When does it stop? I specifically mentioned being worried about a Utopian "there is always work to be done" mentality which would lead to an eternal search for work, eventually leading to work that doesn't need to be done.
>Yeah, and I wouldn't advocate for inflationary spending. Not really sure why you said this.
You strongly implied the government would issue currency to pay for these things. Inflation is too much money chasing too few goods (broadly speaking). If you pump money into projects that you yourself have admitted would not return a profit (no goods being produced, no economic benefit), then there will not be any to offset the increase of money in the system. That's going to lead to inflation. Maybe not systematically, but I'm pretty sure it will.
>>73375336
I would like to specify that I am not against using tax money to pay for public work. Of the two, I would prefer taxing the well-off to pay for them, because inflation affects everyone, especially the poor, because they paycheck to paycheck and they don't own any property that would appreciate with inflation.
I actually would have been much more reassured to hear that you wanted to pay for these projects with tax money.
>>73375336
>>73375460
>You strongly implied the government would issue currency to pay for these things.
Yes that is the intention.
>That's going to lead to inflation.
The price level doesn't magically know how many dollars the government is spending into or taxing out of existence. Inflation is more complicated than that.
You might be referring to quantity theory of money which is debunked nonsense reliant on two ridiculous assumptions. One is that the economy is at full employment already (the "natural" or NAIRU level of unemployment), and the second is that the velocity of money is constant.
In any case, whether the government were to finance this scheme by issuing new dollars or by borrowing or by taxing the never-spent savings of the top 1% has absolutely no effect on whether or not the spending is inflationary.
The reason is must be conducted by a currency sovereign is that, even though the program would not pose an inflation risk with a fixed wage, it could threaten the solvency of a state government like Oregon or Greece simply because it doesn't run at a "profit" (which is true of many/most public programs).
>>73376208
>One is that the economy is at full employment already (the "natural" or NAIRU level of unemployment)
Which would be met, according to your scheme. But that's besides the point.
>The price level doesn't magically know how many dollars the government is spending into or taxing out of existence
It doesn't matter how much money is spent by government. What matters is that a huge portion of the population will now have an increase in their wages not compensated by any other economical benefit, as you admit the goal of the JG scheme is to do the unprofitable work. When these people hit the stores with their increased money which was injected into the economy by the printing press, the price level will react. Surely you can recognize that this can likely lead to inflation (depending on the varied nature of the projects you think will be done, some might have unexpected economical benefits), without any input from any economic theory.
>The reason is must be conducted by a currency sovereign is that, even though the program would not pose an inflation risk with a fixed wage, it could threaten the solvency of a state government like Oregon or Greece simply because it doesn't run at a "profit" (which is true of many/most public programs).
Why? It's alright to spend money into things that done turn a profit. Most modern countries do, especially in the form of geriatric care. You don't need to be sovereign to do that. Keeping old folks alive for 5 more years in horrible life conditions is a huge chunk of healthcare spending. It's a price many of us are willing to pay, but at least I know how much of my paycheck goes to the government. If you leave it to the printing press, how will I know how much of my paycheck is eroded? You still haven't convinced me this scheme is not inflationary.
>>73376208
>In any case, whether the government were to finance this scheme by issuing new dollars or by borrowing or by taxing the never-spent savings of the top 1% has absolutely no effect on whether or not the spending is inflationary.
That may be true, but the manner in which the effects of these policies manifest themselves is very different. If you take money from the economy by taxing the rich, then fine. The money was earned by doing something productive in the economy, so it's compensated when it's injected back. But if you pay for your scheme by injecting new currency into the system, then the effect of it is felt by everyone who holds currency. That's very regressive, because the poor don't even have property of escape this, while the rich do.
>>73366566
>there are jobs that need to be done but nobody wants to
>there are poor people that need the money
>we could pay them to do the unpleasant jobs
>"why not just give them the money for free "
Hans...
>>73377449
>>73377641
Again, the price level doesn't respond to how much money exists in total in the economy. Prices rise when spending is too high and bids them up, but that would only happen in aggregate if the economy is at full employment (in other words maximum production). Close to or at full employment is where the JG would be at its smallest.
If everyone spent 100% of their (after tax) income then your intuitive inclination about deficits and inflation could be true, but people always save some and this introduces unemployment into the system that can be picked up by fiscal expansion (whether it's discretionary or, like in this scheme, automatic).
>>73366198
>Pay minimum wage to anyone willing to work
You are literally a stateist or if worse a communist.
Why should I hire every shitskin, not able to speak to the customers and pay him also minimum wage, or be o.k that a possible gap is paid by in the end my tax money?
Fuck off ivory tower fag, and stop reading Marx and Keynes.
>>73378512
You don't have to hire anyone you piece of shit. It's not like you've contributed fuck all to society anyway. The government hires these people for extremely low wages to do whatever needs to be done to make the country a better place for everyone.
This is arguably a better alternative than food stamps and welfare, no? Better to see people planting trees, watering gardens, and picking up trash for 7.25 an hour than getting paid to sit around section 8 housing and having 10 kids.
>>73378759
>The government hires these people for extremely low wages to do whatever needs to be done to make the country a better place for everyone.
Cквoзь гpoзы cиялo нaм coлнцe cвoбoды,
И Лeнин вeликий нaм пyть oзapил:
Ha пpaвoe дeлo oн пoднял нapoды,
Ha тpyд и нa пoдвиги нac вдoхнoвил!
>As many hours as they want.
Nigger i be working 18 hour days then.
>>73366198
I'm a fan, honestly. Minimum wage was flawed in its inception. The thing to ensure is that the JG program floor is scaled to the cost of living for the area.
>>73366198
This is what the Fidesz did after 2010 to fight the poverty.
Do you know what the leftists said?
That it's demeaning and humiliating. It's apparently a horrible thing to "force" people, who are unemployed to work menial jobs when they have degrees.
And this argument just blows my mind. They don't have to apply for this. The only downside of refusing to do "Public Work" - the term here for the JG thing in OP is that he bans himself from the system for not accepting a job that was given to him for a while and he has to reapply later.
And yes, most of these jobs are not just physical labor, but often quite menial, like pulling out weeds on the side of roads, trimming trees, doing occasional agricultural and forestry jobs, but the entitlement in these people are absolutely horrifying.
If he couldn't secure a proper, private sector job, why would he expect that the government will pay for him just to exist as a burden or create a job that he likes for him and wastes resources on that for his sake only.
Leftists are nothing but children with no sense of responsibility and sadly a lot of European countries including ours just cuddles them and this makes all of us weak.
Get a real job, fuckers. And if you have big dreams start your own business and fight for it.
>>73378116
It seems to me that you assume a total efficiency of the market economy where any increase in aggregated demand can be off-set by an increase in production. I don't believe our monstrously complex and inefficient economy can simply react to a spur in demand as easily as that. Maybe it can, I don't know. It just seem like utopian thinking to me.
And where will the additional manpower needed to increase productivity be found now that the previously-unemployed are busily toiling away on unproductive projects?
Furthermore, how will the scheme affect the price of scarce ressources as the unproductive projects drain them from away? Trucks, cement, metal, etc.
I don't remember my macro 101 class to well so I'm sorry. I'm just too suspicious when someone tells me economic mumbo jumbo to tell me their own specific scheme is flawless. I think in terms of energy balance and when you tell me giving new money to a bunch of people in order to realize the pet project of dumb politicians will not have any negative repercussion on the economy, it sounds to me like a perpetual motion machine or some way to create energy out of no where.
Besides, even if the scheme is not inflationary, it still doesn't change the fact that you give additional spending power to criminally stupid politicians, which is my main concern anyways.
>>73379757
Leftists are fucking morons. Over here they also shat their pants in a fit of rage when it was suggested that we should give the refugees vouchers rather than cash because apparently that would violate their human dignity or some retarded shit like that.
People really have a problem with facing the consequences of their actions. Make bad choices, face the consequences. Really, they are in no position to make demands since they come to you as suppliant with nothing to offer.
>>73366198
People on the lowest rung of welfare receive just a little bit under net earnings of full time minimum wage.
No one in their right mind would stop receiving free money, to go bust their ass for 40 hours a week picking up garbage when they can sit at home and beat off all day and make almost as much. When you factor in transportation, it actually winds up being you make less money working than sitting at home beating off.
If this was added onto welfare with more bureaucrats, this is like a double shit sandwich
Basic income makes more sense because you eliminate the bureaucrats and welfare programs and leave the choice of what that person wants to do with the money up to them. People on this would probably just sit at home and beat off all day too.
This program could be useful. By having a job guarantee scheme, people can be use to do more than 1 job over the course of the year. An important aspect if your goal is to get people needed skills or just to make idiots useful to society. Seasonal Agricultural workers (pruners, pickers, etc), ditch diggers for infrastructure projects, landscaping and environmental clean up, basically things that require more physical labor and are temporary or seasonal in nature could be filled by these workers. It would also create a pool of workers that could be drawn on in the event of a national emergency to do clean up, assist in search and rescue. Maybe send them to Fort McMurray to clear old and dead trees and build fire breaks. But more importantly, the ability to say the minimum wage is , 7.25 $, and that for these people, the only way to get more money is to work longer hours. They can work as little as they want, but if the government abolishes other programs, they will have no choice but to work. This will improve them as people in the long term while in the short term reducing crime and vagrancy since EVERYONE will literally be able to get a job , make more money the longer they work, basically removing the whole idle hands are the devil's workshop from the equation for these people.
As for bureaucracy and its cost, the people working the local welfare office, let alone the people running the local gov. housing program are not low paid bureaucrats. Many make very good salaries. Go look it up, you will be surprised how much the head of your local welfare department makes. If were already throwing the money away anyways, and we are, might as well get some labor for it. Even if it does not pay for the cost of the program in terms of economic benefit. Literally anything is better than the 0 $ return on welfare at this point.
>>73380450
Another alternative would be vouchers. Even if they still approach roughly the same value as the same amount as a full time minimum wage worker would earn, you would have at least the advantage of being able to spend your money however you want rather than being restricted to certain items.
>>73380498
>EVERYONE will literally be able to get a job
How do students always assume that there is an infinit number of jobs available? Also public jobs are limited in numbers by budgets, which rely on tax money and credit worthiness of the state in question.
>bureaucrats have good salaries
I wonder why. Hope we cut that to, corruption will be flourishing and destroy even more jobs.
Really this thread is an excellent example, that Bernie and Trumpfags are the same. Freaking disgusting gibs me dat. I know why I don't hire graduates between 18 and 30, and have introduced trial months disguised as internalship.
>>73380498
Wow. So instead of trying to recoup any cost of the money spent on welfare, we should get nothing and let it continue as is... Brilliant.
Idiot
Why not just gather up all the welfare people into a giant furnace and boil them down into a blubber like sludge and use it to heat our homes and whatnot?
>>73366198
Job Guarantee - Slavery?
>>73379979
>It seems to me that you assume a total efficiency of the market economy where any increase in aggregated demand can be off-set by an increase in production. I don't believe our monstrously complex and inefficient economy can simply react to a spur in demand as easily as that.
Businesses generally are set up to be able to expand production when more demand comes along, if possible. Were that not true then cyclical increases in demand, or even slight discretionary fiscal expansions by the government, would cause inflation all the time.
>And where will the additional manpower needed to increase productivity be found now that the previously-unemployed are busily toiling away [in the JG]?
The private sector takes them back by offering higher wages than minimum. Again the JG is a buffer stock of employed labour that expands when the private sector contracts and vice versa. It doesn't have to be an ideal use of excess capacity, but it's much better than nothing (the status quo).
>it still doesn't change the fact that you give additional spending power to criminally stupid politicians
Well they already have that power, but yeah, like any program this could potentially be used by the moronic and the corrupt. I don't deny that but I think we can't really progress if we shut down anything that politicians could abuse.
>>73380450
Well I won't say whether the JG wage should be fixed at a higher rate or welfare should be cut but those are potential solutions to the "welfare trap" problem you described. Note that basic income can very easily be a welfare trap too if implemented badly.
>>73367512
They don't find it profitable because it isn't.
What a massive waste of tax dollars, and what a guaranteed way to force the government into printing and leveraging even more money, increasing inflation, lowering the value of the dollar.
Which in turn leads to having to pay thes JG ditch diggers more money because the dollar isn't worth fuck now and next thing you know it's the Weimar republic all over again.
>>73382609
No, think of the current system, and then add a job offer at minimum wage for everyone who wants it. Not slavery but an opportunity for the most desperate in society.
>>73383103
>government must profit
>federal government spends tax money
>deficits cause inflation
>public sector work is ditch digging
>muh weimar
Nice memes but you can stop pretending to be retarded now.
>>73367647
Those are all skilled jobs dingus.
Repairing a dam or a bridge takes educated people.
Not just mindless worker drones with shovels and picks.
You need engineers to design a stable and durable enough object, skilled managers to ensure the efficiency of your workers - which won't happen with government workers a, 15 of them will stand around watching the one guy with a work ethic do things - other skilled individuals to ensure the proper materials of the proper quality arrive at the right time in the right amounts, AND skilled heavy machinery operators.
You can't just grab Jamal off the streets and pay him $15 to fix a bridge fuck.
>>73366198
We do that here and it absolutely does not work.
Stop trying to get bureaucracy to fix shit, only local communities can set their youth straight.
>>73374383
Do you even know what inflation is?
If the government isn't raising taxes to pay for this then it is either printing more dollars, selling bonds, or leveraging their taxpayers as a means to borrow, all of which lead to inflation.
>>73382458
Best suggestion so far.
>>73384015
No no, you already established your economic illiteracy. You don't have to keep posting bullshit.
>>73382650
>Businesses generally are set up to be able to expand production
>if not would cause inflation all the time
>The private sector takes them back by offering higher wages than minimum
Your posts stink from paradigmatic assumptions. It is clear you have never ever worked in your live in the private sector.
Strayan Gibs Medat, disgusting communists
>>73383444
Never said governments must profit nice straw man.
Deficits don't cause inflation but increasing the money supply via printing a shitload of dollars and handing them to Shaneequa for holding a shovel does.
>>73384133
Tell me then, how does the government pay every single unemployed or underemployed person to work for this JG program without causing inflation and without raising taxes?
>>73384458
Based Austrian bro, or are you Lithuanian lol, can't actually tell on my phone.
Either way keep fighting the good fight against these commie bastards.
>>73384844
I meant Latvian whoops lol
>>73366198
This is literally a commie scheme. Our left-wing party wanted to implement it to solve our unemployment problem. It's ridiculous.
>Together with welfare, you now also pay poor people for doing useless jobs that bring absolutely no value, it's just glorified wealth re-distribution (because obviously the higher classes are going to pay for this)
>Since the jobs are shit, it doesn't help the slightest bit into making workers "more employable". In fact they might even be looked down by employers.
>Ridiculously expensive, you just expect it to pay itself because of the previous point, but if it doesn't the whole system fails.
>It might be more respectful with human rights that commie workfare, but the flaws are still there
The thing is, I actually like the idea up to a point. I believe it's good for unemployed people to keep themselves busy, and can be specially helpful for young people to get an idea of how the world works. But this is something that should be applied AFTER the unemployment problem is reduced to a minimum, with the economy going well and preferentially in an homogeneous country. And the reason is simple: it doesn't solve shit, a JB scheme costs money and it's only useful from a social stand-pont. It's nice if you can afford it, but it's a terrible idea if your country is in trouble.
>>73384543
>Inflation = handing dollars to Shaneequa for holding a shovel
ripped sides died. Best argument against the alibi job crowd ever
>>73384844
You would wonder what Iam.
>>73367097
Where I am there are basically (((two))) civil engineering companies capable of doing heavy infrastructure work. They certainly wouldn't collude to raise prices!
>>73366198
FUCK OFF GLOBALIST COMMIE SCUM
>>73385089
Austrian it is.
>>73385045
Its a question of government competence. The problem here in Nova Scotia (the Spain of Canada) is that corrupt, incompetent government insiders would use the welfare workers to enrich private corporations by building free shit for them. Because they aren't paying the workers salary there is no incentive for efficiency.
