3 ms·

Most aren't, but some are, and as there is no way to separate the good from the bad you have to take this into account. I'm just pointing out the main flaw in

Most aren't, but some are, and as there is no way to separate the good from the bad you have to take this into account. I'm just pointing out the main flaw in this plan and the reason it (as far as I know) has never been implemented. You can argue against a strawman all you like but it's not going to solve any problems.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Why is there no way to separate the good from the bad? Just have a strict "one strike and you're out" policy. It's certainly a fallacy to say that a plan is impossible because no one has done it before; everything has a first time. It's irrelevant in this case, however. FDR implemented it, it was called the Civilian Conservation Corp and it was awesome - we got a national park system out of the deal. India does it too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rural_Employment_Guarantee_Act,_2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rural_Employment_Guar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps South Africa and Argentina have similar programs but I don't know as much about them. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_534.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_534.pdf http://www.epwp.gov.za/ http://www.epwp.gov.za/
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > FDR implemented it, it was called the Civilian Conservation Corp and it was awesome Its an awesome solution to a particular kind of transitory unemployment (and, at the scale it had at its height, perfectly sensible when there is a large, national, temporary economic dislocation) where you expect that the kind of work that people were doing before will be in demand again. Its less good as a way of dealing with long-term structural changes in the economy -- either in the proportion of people employable at living wages in the marketplace or the jobs demanded. Particularly the latter, since locking people into public make-work jobs with mostly or entirely in-kind, survival-necessity payment provides little opportunity for adjustment to labor market changes.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Why is there no way to separate the good from the bad? Just have a strict "one strike and you're out" policy. It's certainly a fallacy to say that a plan is impossible because no one has done it before; everything has a first time. It's irrelevant in this case, however. FDR implemented it, it was called the Civilian Conservation Corp and it was awesome - we got a national park system out of the deal. India does it too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rural_Employment_Guarantee_Act,_2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rural_Employment_Guar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps South Africa and Argentina have similar programs but I don't know as much about them. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_534.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_534.pdf http://www.epwp.gov.za/ http://www.epwp.gov.za/

dragonwriter 10y ago
> FDR implemented it, it was called the Civilian Conservation Corp and it was awesome Its an awesome solution to a particular kind of transitory unemployment (and, at the scale it had at its height, perfectly sensible when there is a large, national, temporary economic dislocation) where you expect that the kind of work that people were doing before will be in demand again. Its less good as a way of dealing with long-term structural changes in the economy -- either in the proportion of people employable at living wages in the marketplace or the jobs demanded. Particularly the latter, since locking people into public make-work jobs with mostly or entirely in-kind, survival-necessity payment provides little opportunity for adjustment to labor market changes.