8 ms·

Bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) concept and significantly over-pay the employees on the condition half goes into savings accounts for family us

Bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) concept and significantly over-pay the employees on the condition half goes into savings accounts for family use or to pay down debts of some sort. Employ it as a method to give uneducated (HS degree) or underemployed (able bodied with Bachelors and $8/hr job), rehabilitate and early-release incarcerated US Citizens and put them to work in infrastructure needs. So, this way we address numerous factors: 1) The large uneducated mass of young people excluded from the workforce or otherwise drowning in college debt, 2) Work to reduce the prison population and actually rehabilitate people with worthwhile skills (metallurgy, equipment, etc), and 3) Fix the crumbling, pot-hole riddled, creaking, aging US infrastructure in probably record time. Yes it will cost a fuck-ton of money but because these low-level employees will have money to spend, the wheels of US Consumerist economy will be able to pick up. Former students in the program could pay down debt AND save for after they're released from the program commitment. Poor people are poor because they spend. The US wealth gap is so distorted the rich have choked this system. They sit on piles of assets and spend very little by comparison, even if it's millions of dollars per year. These are economic realities that Bezos is part of causing to be an issue. It's almost as if Amazon's business model isn't viable without the public infrastructure that is now in desperate need of investment. Hm.

samstave 9y ago
Totally agree! This is why I always skeptically look at any philanthropic announcements.... if billionaires like Gates, Buffet, Zuck, Bezos simply funded the above - it would go way further, and have long asting effect on the future of this nation in so many profound ways. Rather than "give away half their wealth" - why not do the above now and actually see it change the surface of the nation? --- I am getting involved in the tiny house movement. Clayton homes (berkshire hathaway) has a tiny home division... but BHs entities (like clayton and karsten) in the housing market are so poorly regarded: they build sub-standard homes, their employees are treated like crap, the quality of their products are low because they do not provide skilled training to their employees, the working conditions are fairly poor etc... its maddening to see billionaires and governments claim all this "making the world a better place" platitudenal BS, but a critical program like CCC would be realize some serious material benefit in every sector.
- josst 9y ago
  I would guess many of them want to contribute to solving big global challenges rather than simply focusing on a single country?
  - _yosefk 9y ago
    I'd think one is more qualified to address local challenges than global ones. Certainly all those people made their money focusing on the US market, not only because it's big and governed by relatively uniform regulations but because they understand it better than any other. For the same reasons, it's IMO far easier to be effective as a philanthropist closer to home. (This is not to say there aren't exceptions to this, just that there's a certain tendency for it to be true. Of course there's the somewhat-Rawlsian argument that you should focus on those worst off first; without addressing this argument in itself, I think you should also focus on those whom you can make better off most effectively and who in turn will likely do the most philanthropic work once their own situation improves, and at least for a US billionaire, US citizens sound like a great target demographic on both counts.)
    - clmckinley 9y ago
      Actually helping people in a significant way in large wealthy countries is harder/more expensive because the bar is already higher. A disadvantaged person in a first world country is still much better off then a disadvantaged person in a third world country. Not saying that working in a country with no regulatory or physical infrastructure is easy, but buying a bunch of mosquito nets is much cheaper with very few unintended consequences compared to doing something like OP suggested. For instance, wouldn't a revived/subsidized CC put a lot of current companies/workers out of business? How would that opportunity effect a high schoolers decision making? Is this something that goes on forever, it sounds like we would be training more people to do a job then would be needed if this program stopped. etc, etc, etc.
- euroclydon 9y ago
  Simultaneously driving the economy and increasing quality of life are often competing goals. Take tiny homes, sure, you might be able to put more people in homes they own, but housing construction is one of the most hammer-ready jobs producing activities there is, and if you cut the average house size by 75%, there are fewer jobs in building. Then consider externalities, the environment could be a lot cleaner if we got over striving for economic growth. Growth is driven by population or consumption growth or both. So you get more trees cut down to build roads, houses and malls. More pollution from energy consumption and manufacturing. We should really just pursue managed population reduction, combined with a prescribed amount of economic shrinkage, not growth. But then people really get stuck in their caste and there are far fewer opportunities to move into middle class.
zip1234 9y ago
The problem with "significantly over-pay" is that you end up with incentives for people to quit other low paying jobs and switch, which will force those employers to either significantly increase wages to match or more likely, automate the job. An another alternative is that there is a such a huge demand for jobs in new CCC that not everyone can be given one. How do you figure out who to give the jobs to? I would be very concerned about unintended consequences.
- dwighttk 9y ago
  "The problem with "significantly over-pay" is that you end up with incentives for people to quit other low paying jobs and switch, which will force those employers to either significantly increase wages to match" This is usually the explicit goal of this sort of program. "or more likely, automate the job" oh right... we'll have to make that illegal or something.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    If we as a nation are going to be as opposed to unions and collective bargaining then some other mechanism needs to be in place to give labor some pricing power. The tax on labor is greater than the tax on capital. The pricing power for low skilled jobs is clearly heavily tilted in favor of employers. At some point, where we are headed maybe slavery will make a comeback.
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      >At some point, where we are headed maybe slavery will make a comeback. If you look at prison labor, it already did.
- zanny 9y ago
  > automate the job This is never a bad thing. The only bad thing is if your society doesn't account for the potential of automation and just leaves the unemployable destitute. But that is a political problem, not an economic one - being able to produce without any labor is one of the greatest accomplishments of economic development you can possibly have. It does reflect that, in most western countries (and the US in particular) we have a glass house for an economy, propped up in large part by bullshit jobs that exist to satisfy the broader markets demand for comprehensive employment of citizens, and if you throw a pebble in that lake the ripples could break the dam holding a huge portion of the US workforce in employment right now. Bezos is close to being the richest man recognized by western institutions (tyrants around the world probably control more assets, but can't utilize them on demand) and has the potential to spearhead the social and political changes necessary to adapt to the changing economic reality nobody wants to acknowledge, and that his company is near the forefront of bringing about. But that isn't particularly a way to spend money - it is more that he will hold the respect of oligarchs and politicians the world over and might be able to persuade some of them, if he were so persuaded himself, that like global warming this is not a can to just kick indefinitely down the road until overnight you see 50% unemployment and start seeing public hangings of the elite come back into vogue.
Consultant32452 9y ago
>Bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) So you want to put a bunch of poor people in labor camps. Inflation adjusted wages of the CCC works out to about $550/mo. If they get injured on the job they will be sent home with nothing. >over-pay the employees In a country with a minimum wage, how do you know they're not already being overpaid? >on the condition half goes into savings accounts for family use or to pay down debts of some sort. Because "poor people" are too stupid to determine how they should best spend their own money that we should infantilize them and take away their personal autonomy. >able bodied with Bachelors and $8/hr job It's nice to know that a person's pedigree determines their market value, rather than their productivity. >Yes it will cost a fuck-ton of money but because these low-level employees will have money to spend, the wheels of US Consumerist economy will be able to pick up. US unemployment is already at 4%. Those US consumers are going to be buying products made in Mexico or China because US labor costs more and comes saddled with more health, safety, and environmental regulations. I'm not necessarily opposed to those things, but make no mistake, that money is getting shipped overseas very quickly. And your new CCC workers will be right back where they started.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  >on the condition half goes into savings accounts for family use or to pay down debts of some sort. >> Because "poor people" are too stupid to determine how they should best spend their own money that we should infantilize them and take away their personal autonomy. That is so ridiculously unfair. 1) You expect someone making minimum wage to have the time and energy to put together a sound investment strategy. 2) Humans LIKE to spend their money the second they have access to it. Among families giving million dollar trust funds to their children, parents commonly don't allow trustees to have access to their funds until they are in their mid thirties. These are children who go to Ivy League schools, and their parents don't let them have access to their savings. It's not because they are stupid, its because they are human.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >1) You expect someone making minimum wage to have the time and energy to put together a sound investment strategy. I suspect that most people will not do what I think would be best for them to do. The difference is that I don't want to usurp their personal freedoms. >These are children who go to Ivy League schools, and their parents don't let them have access to their savings. It's not because they are stupid, its because they are human. I agree that the people who have earned money should get to do with it whatever they want, including withholding it from their adult children. Let's apply this universally. You are more than welcome to take some of your money to hire and over-pay minimum wage workers and create these grossly paternalistic contracts with them where you dictate how they're allowed to spend their pay. Just don't try to do it with my money.

samstave 9y ago

Totally agree! This is why I always skeptically look at any philanthropic announcements.... if billionaires like Gates, Buffet, Zuck, Bezos simply funded the above - it would go way further, and have long asting effect on the future of this nation in so many profound ways. Rather than "give away half their wealth" - why not do the above now and actually see it change the surface of the nation? --- I am getting involved in the tiny house movement. Clayton homes (berkshire hathaway) has a tiny home division... but BHs entities (like clayton and karsten) in the housing market are so poorly regarded: they build sub-standard homes, their employees are treated like crap, the quality of their products are low because they do not provide skilled training to their employees, the working conditions are fairly poor etc... its maddening to see billionaires and governments claim all this "making the world a better place" platitudenal BS, but a critical program like CCC would be realize some serious material benefit in every sector.

josst 9y ago
I would guess many of them want to contribute to solving big global challenges rather than simply focusing on a single country?
- _yosefk 9y ago
  I'd think one is more qualified to address local challenges than global ones. Certainly all those people made their money focusing on the US market, not only because it's big and governed by relatively uniform regulations but because they understand it better than any other. For the same reasons, it's IMO far easier to be effective as a philanthropist closer to home. (This is not to say there aren't exceptions to this, just that there's a certain tendency for it to be true. Of course there's the somewhat-Rawlsian argument that you should focus on those worst off first; without addressing this argument in itself, I think you should also focus on those whom you can make better off most effectively and who in turn will likely do the most philanthropic work once their own situation improves, and at least for a US billionaire, US citizens sound like a great target demographic on both counts.)
  - clmckinley 9y ago
    Actually helping people in a significant way in large wealthy countries is harder/more expensive because the bar is already higher. A disadvantaged person in a first world country is still much better off then a disadvantaged person in a third world country. Not saying that working in a country with no regulatory or physical infrastructure is easy, but buying a bunch of mosquito nets is much cheaper with very few unintended consequences compared to doing something like OP suggested. For instance, wouldn't a revived/subsidized CC put a lot of current companies/workers out of business? How would that opportunity effect a high schoolers decision making? Is this something that goes on forever, it sounds like we would be training more people to do a job then would be needed if this program stopped. etc, etc, etc.
euroclydon 9y ago
Simultaneously driving the economy and increasing quality of life are often competing goals. Take tiny homes, sure, you might be able to put more people in homes they own, but housing construction is one of the most hammer-ready jobs producing activities there is, and if you cut the average house size by 75%, there are fewer jobs in building. Then consider externalities, the environment could be a lot cleaner if we got over striving for economic growth. Growth is driven by population or consumption growth or both. So you get more trees cut down to build roads, houses and malls. More pollution from energy consumption and manufacturing. We should really just pursue managed population reduction, combined with a prescribed amount of economic shrinkage, not growth. But then people really get stuck in their caste and there are far fewer opportunities to move into middle class.

zip1234 9y ago

The problem with "significantly over-pay" is that you end up with incentives for people to quit other low paying jobs and switch, which will force those employers to either significantly increase wages to match or more likely, automate the job. An another alternative is that there is a such a huge demand for jobs in new CCC that not everyone can be given one. How do you figure out who to give the jobs to? I would be very concerned about unintended consequences.

dwighttk 9y ago
"The problem with "significantly over-pay" is that you end up with incentives for people to quit other low paying jobs and switch, which will force those employers to either significantly increase wages to match" This is usually the explicit goal of this sort of program. "or more likely, automate the job" oh right... we'll have to make that illegal or something.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  If we as a nation are going to be as opposed to unions and collective bargaining then some other mechanism needs to be in place to give labor some pricing power. The tax on labor is greater than the tax on capital. The pricing power for low skilled jobs is clearly heavily tilted in favor of employers. At some point, where we are headed maybe slavery will make a comeback.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    >At some point, where we are headed maybe slavery will make a comeback. If you look at prison labor, it already did.
zanny 9y ago
> automate the job This is never a bad thing. The only bad thing is if your society doesn't account for the potential of automation and just leaves the unemployable destitute. But that is a political problem, not an economic one - being able to produce without any labor is one of the greatest accomplishments of economic development you can possibly have. It does reflect that, in most western countries (and the US in particular) we have a glass house for an economy, propped up in large part by bullshit jobs that exist to satisfy the broader markets demand for comprehensive employment of citizens, and if you throw a pebble in that lake the ripples could break the dam holding a huge portion of the US workforce in employment right now. Bezos is close to being the richest man recognized by western institutions (tyrants around the world probably control more assets, but can't utilize them on demand) and has the potential to spearhead the social and political changes necessary to adapt to the changing economic reality nobody wants to acknowledge, and that his company is near the forefront of bringing about. But that isn't particularly a way to spend money - it is more that he will hold the respect of oligarchs and politicians the world over and might be able to persuade some of them, if he were so persuaded himself, that like global warming this is not a can to just kick indefinitely down the road until overnight you see 50% unemployment and start seeing public hangings of the elite come back into vogue.

Consultant32452 9y ago

>Bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) So you want to put a bunch of poor people in labor camps. Inflation adjusted wages of the CCC works out to about $550/mo. If they get injured on the job they will be sent home with nothing. >over-pay the employees In a country with a minimum wage, how do you know they're not already being overpaid? >on the condition half goes into savings accounts for family use or to pay down debts of some sort. Because "poor people" are too stupid to determine how they should best spend their own money that we should infantilize them and take away their personal autonomy. >able bodied with Bachelors and $8/hr job It's nice to know that a person's pedigree determines their market value, rather than their productivity. >Yes it will cost a fuck-ton of money but because these low-level employees will have money to spend, the wheels of US Consumerist economy will be able to pick up. US unemployment is already at 4%. Those US consumers are going to be buying products made in Mexico or China because US labor costs more and comes saddled with more health, safety, and environmental regulations. I'm not necessarily opposed to those things, but make no mistake, that money is getting shipped overseas very quickly. And your new CCC workers will be right back where they started.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
>on the condition half goes into savings accounts for family use or to pay down debts of some sort. >> Because "poor people" are too stupid to determine how they should best spend their own money that we should infantilize them and take away their personal autonomy. That is so ridiculously unfair. 1) You expect someone making minimum wage to have the time and energy to put together a sound investment strategy. 2) Humans LIKE to spend their money the second they have access to it. Among families giving million dollar trust funds to their children, parents commonly don't allow trustees to have access to their funds until they are in their mid thirties. These are children who go to Ivy League schools, and their parents don't let them have access to their savings. It's not because they are stupid, its because they are human.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >1) You expect someone making minimum wage to have the time and energy to put together a sound investment strategy. I suspect that most people will not do what I think would be best for them to do. The difference is that I don't want to usurp their personal freedoms. >These are children who go to Ivy League schools, and their parents don't let them have access to their savings. It's not because they are stupid, its because they are human. I agree that the people who have earned money should get to do with it whatever they want, including withholding it from their adult children. Let's apply this universally. You are more than welcome to take some of your money to hire and over-pay minimum wage workers and create these grossly paternalistic contracts with them where you dictate how they're allowed to spend their pay. Just don't try to do it with my money.