At first I thought this was some quote denying the existence of affirmative action in hiring.

Unemployment is preferable for hirers, it allows them to raise standards to the point that wage growth is negligible and that they can actually afford their diversity policies. Obviously it isn't healthy in an economy, but neither is colluderism or anti disruption or monopolies or the corporate auditing system.

These are things governments are permissive of because they're worried their next campaign budget will be halved.

>>81284191
>At first I thought this was some quote denying the existence of affirmative action in hiring.
Nah, it's Keynes talking about the waste that is deliberately high unemployment.

This will definitely help the poor at the expense of the middle class. (referring to a basic income and not this retarded shit from the op)

First, the cost of labor increases. Unemployment creates supply and thus lowers the price of hiring new employees. Assuming the program will only pay minimum wage levels, this means it will mostly affect the low income jobs. It will ultimately lead to offshoring and automation which will put more people on this program (especially during a recession assuming payment doesn't not decrease).
Second, this concept does not consider how debt and credit will be affected by this system. This program will structurally structurally change how we loan money. The middle class who takes out large loans will still be unable to pay their loans even with this system.
However, instead debt will be lent heavily towards the lower class. Someone who is poor can be guaranteed an income which will always pay them, therefore they will much less delinquent when it comes to paying bills.

What does all this mean? That the lower class becomes a huge consumer force. Not only will their wages increase but they have a credit line from the program itself.
The poor will be more accessible to money but will not have the same consumer patterns as the middle class. Going mostly to cheap retail stores instead of small businesses which will lead to wealth inequality as upper class grows and the middle class shrinks.
It really is a toss up on whether or not I like the idea.

>>81286034
>Calls an employer-of-last-resort scheme retarded
>Takes Basic "Just Fuck My Price Level Up" Income seriously
lol

>>81283278
I would prefer to see expansionary fiscal policy, funded by the central bank, geared towards using that labour to produce worthwhile outputs in the national interest.

This will never happen though because allowing countries to maximise their output will allow geopolitical challengers to rise up and challenge western hegemony. It is easier to suppress countries through junk economics than to engage them militarily.

>>81286862
It's retarded because it waste resources at times where businesses desperately need to buy them.
Unless you hire them to just walk around jerking off or some other menial task, the business program will still have to buy concrete, wood, etc. There is no reason to assume that this "employer" will reflect what the true economy wants.

At least with basic income the economy is still stimulated while business that are lean enough to survive and reflect the consumers demand will not have to compete with JG corporation for material and goods (such as employees).

The only good thing about it is it will stimulate b2b purchases (often underlooked in fiscal policy but like I said it will not reflect the true economy) and also make people work for shit.

>>81287523
>Unless you hire them to just walk around jerking off or some other menial task, the business program will still have to buy concrete, wood, etc.
Would you rather dedicate some resources and get true full employment, or waste ~15% of the available labour force?
>business that are lean enough to survive and reflect the consumers demand will not have to compete with JG corporation for material and goods (such as employees).
The whole idea is that the job guarantee sets a basic, minimum conditions job that employers must outbid to get labour. Think of the minimum wage as we currently have, and then imagine it actually achieves its goal, because everyone has a job.
Most JG advocates would also argue for fiscal expansion like >>81287426 said, so the pool of JG labour would actually shrink anyway (to about 2-3% or less, depending on who you ask), but it would still exist for any worker that falls through the cracks.
The private sector alone never creates enough jobs for all jobseekers. A federal job guarantee is the only way to do it.

>>81288962
15% is pretty damn high assumption.

First off, the problem is still during the recession.
Will the company decrease wages during a recession? No, it couldn't because of political pressures and a slow reaction.

During a recession, lean business will pay their employees cheaply and buy supplies at a huge discount. This is how business survive during a recession when stimulation doesn't work.
At least with basic income, employers don't need to compete with some program that will be hiring employees at pre-recession wages.
And yes, these are all problems with minimum wage too which is why a lot of basic income supporters want to replace it with a guaranteed income.

Lets talk about what good true employment will be for the economy. Best case scenario, the jg program will be smart and match expected demand. However there is also a real possibility of lobbying or just incompetence that could make the develop something useless.

Imagine jg company starts creating wooden furniture. Because of this other companies will start chopping wood and create retail joints in order to sell your wood. The problem is though that the consumers don't want wooden furniture! So all these businesses and resources are being dedicated to something people don't want. Businesses that could serve the consumer instead decide to start chopping wood because jg is very stable source of income.

Its not just an insular problem. The entire economy will shift around jg.

>>81290681
sorry I misread. I thought you meant 15% frictional employment but I see you are talking about during a recession.
My point will still be that the basic income still works better in the situations where resources are poorly handled.

>>81290681
>>81290904
15% is an estimate of current total unemployment, underemployment, and hidden unemployment rolled into "labour force underutilisation". It's approximately 15% in Australia and the US but of course much higher in some European countries.
>At least with basic income, employers don't need to compete with some program that will be hiring employees at pre-recession wages.
The welfare system we currently have is Basic Income for the poor, which is automatically counter-cyclical in a recession and this is obviously a good thing. Politicians can't fuck it up too much unless they really want to.
A JG is like that, except rather than giving a meagre income, it pays a wage per hour, maintains the employed lifestyle structure for workers, and also gets some kind of output. As a stabiliser it's like welfare but much better.
So when we have a downturn:
1. Some workers get laid off
2. Those workers go into the JG program
3. Those workers earn less, but still some reasonable income (as opposed to welfare or nothing)
4. Economy picks up again
5. Employers can employ more people
6. Some/most JG workers return to the private sector