4 ms·

A company is an OPEN system (they can cut jobs and make more money), but a country is a (mostly) CLOSED system (someones spending is somebody else's income). Ev

A company is an OPEN system (they can cut jobs and make more money), but a country is a (mostly) CLOSED system (someones spending is somebody else's income). Even the most ineffectual government employee is more valuable than another mother or father on the dole when unemployment is already high. I'm not supporting government waste, but the way. Efficiency should be the goal, but you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about.

arethuza 14y ago
"Even the most ineffectual government employee is more valuable than another mother or father on the dole when unemployment is already high." That would suggest that the solution for unemployment is to simply give all unemployed people public sector jobs - which doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.
- _delirium 14y ago
  It's a plausible (temporary) solution, known as the "employer of last resort". It worked okay in the 1930s; even today, a lot of the national-parks infrastructure is stuff that was built in that era, because instead of just handing out welfare payments, the government hired people on short-term contracts instead. Same stimulus/welfare effect (people who can't find other work are paid for a few months), but the national parks got some useful work out of the deal too.
  - cglace 14y ago
    "It worked okay in the 1930s; even today" It's a mixed bag. Some economists claimed it helped others claim it lengthened and made the recession deeper.
  - hessenwolf 14y ago
    And it is good for people. Being unemployed is very unhealthy for your mind for a lot of people.
    - gaius 14y ago
      The UK govt tried this recently; those given work placements immediately began crying that working for the dole violated their "human rights".
      - v0cab 14y ago
        - They were forced (or tricked, or coerced) into working for private companies. We're talking about jobs in supermarkets and (the UK equivalent of) dollar stores. - The taxpayer paid the wage (the same as jobseeker's allowance, I think). The private companies didn't pay anything. - Companies could just sack their workers and enjoy the benefits of free labour. So much for the minimum wage! How can minimum-wage workers compete with free labour? (Free from the company's perspective, that is.) And this was supposed to reduce unemployment?! And anyway, if people are working, why aren't they getting minimum wage?
ekianjo 14y ago
> Even the most ineffectual government employee is more valuable than another mother or father on the dole when unemployment is already high. Yeah, it worked very well in Russia and East Germany. So well people were risking their lives to go somewhere else for better opportunities. And if North-Koreans could get out of their country, I'm sure they would be happy witnesses of a full-employment state policy. You obviously have NO idea what you are talking about.
- poloniculmov 14y ago
  Could it be that they risked their lives because they lived under a totalitarian regime? People didn't leave because they didn't make enough money.
- Daishiman 14y ago
  If you think matters of economics were the only, or primary, reason why people attempted to escape from those countries, you are seriously delusional.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    It all goes together, my friend. WHen you destroy the economy, you have to replace it by a state-fueled economy and therefore the totalitarian package goes with it. We have yet to see totalitarian states with free economy. It does not exist because it goes against its own logic. That's not hard to understand.
    - Klinky 14y ago
      The most successful economies are not free and feature heavy governmental influence. One of the most successful, China, could be considered a totalitarian regime.

arethuza 14y ago

"Even the most ineffectual government employee is more valuable than another mother or father on the dole when unemployment is already high." That would suggest that the solution for unemployment is to simply give all unemployed people public sector jobs - which doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.

_delirium 14y ago
It's a plausible (temporary) solution, known as the "employer of last resort". It worked okay in the 1930s; even today, a lot of the national-parks infrastructure is stuff that was built in that era, because instead of just handing out welfare payments, the government hired people on short-term contracts instead. Same stimulus/welfare effect (people who can't find other work are paid for a few months), but the national parks got some useful work out of the deal too.
- cglace 14y ago
  "It worked okay in the 1930s; even today" It's a mixed bag. Some economists claimed it helped others claim it lengthened and made the recession deeper.
- hessenwolf 14y ago
  And it is good for people. Being unemployed is very unhealthy for your mind for a lot of people.
  - gaius 14y ago
    The UK govt tried this recently; those given work placements immediately began crying that working for the dole violated their "human rights".
    - v0cab 14y ago
      - They were forced (or tricked, or coerced) into working for private companies. We're talking about jobs in supermarkets and (the UK equivalent of) dollar stores. - The taxpayer paid the wage (the same as jobseeker's allowance, I think). The private companies didn't pay anything. - Companies could just sack their workers and enjoy the benefits of free labour. So much for the minimum wage! How can minimum-wage workers compete with free labour? (Free from the company's perspective, that is.) And this was supposed to reduce unemployment?! And anyway, if people are working, why aren't they getting minimum wage?

ekianjo 14y ago

> Even the most ineffectual government employee is more valuable than another mother or father on the dole when unemployment is already high. Yeah, it worked very well in Russia and East Germany. So well people were risking their lives to go somewhere else for better opportunities. And if North-Koreans could get out of their country, I'm sure they would be happy witnesses of a full-employment state policy. You obviously have NO idea what you are talking about.

poloniculmov 14y ago
Could it be that they risked their lives because they lived under a totalitarian regime? People didn't leave because they didn't make enough money.
Daishiman 14y ago
If you think matters of economics were the only, or primary, reason why people attempted to escape from those countries, you are seriously delusional.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  It all goes together, my friend. WHen you destroy the economy, you have to replace it by a state-fueled economy and therefore the totalitarian package goes with it. We have yet to see totalitarian states with free economy. It does not exist because it goes against its own logic. That's not hard to understand.
  - Klinky 14y ago
    The most successful economies are not free and feature heavy governmental influence. One of the most successful, China, could be considered a totalitarian regime.