4 ms·

> if the US government had a full employment program. Like the US Military? Do you mean we should get some of the old anti-black laws on the books outlawing be

> if the US government had a full employment program. Like the US Military? Do you mean we should get some of the old anti-black laws on the books outlawing being unemployed? > allocate them to something useful, possibly at cost. I don't think the average person is ok with the government spending $5 to has a task done that will immediately require spending $20 to undo it and another $25 for somebody to do it correctly. People can do negative work. There's often a reason the private sector has passed over people for employment. > a country of subsidized housing and scarce jobs would still be a pretty sad place I don't think that would happen. There's a reason Amazon wanted to build HQ2 at NYC & NOVA; there's a ton of people here that could work for them. While people move for jobs; people also build factories/office parks where they can employ people. Although it could be the case that people taking subsidized housing don't have the skill set Amazon is looking for so there may be a limit to what job opportunities they have in the nearby area. And of course Amazon isn't interested in running a training program into SWE when they can just hire people who paid for it themselves (college).

cousin_it 3y ago
>> hire everyone who wants a job > outlawing being unemployed? Didn't read what I wrote. > There's often a reason the private sector has passed over people for employment. Yes: because they could hire someone overseas for cheaper, or because the work in question would benefit society but the benefit would be hard for the business to capture, and other such good reasons. > I don't think the average person is ok with the government spending $5 The average person would be so happy to not be under threat of unemployment anymore that they'd be ok with the government spending $5. The rich person, on the other hand.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  Most people who cannot hold down a job are that way for basically psychological reasons, they can't bring themselves to consistently show up and quit any job you give them within days/weeks. What would help them the most is creating a new class of labor which works on a day-to-day basis with no paperwork/bureaucracy setup to hire them and fire them. I'm talking about legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed day-labor, so people who can't hold down a regular job can at least easily earn irregular money whenever they find themselves able. If it requires applying for one day then showing up the next, that disqualifies most chronically unemployed people. Unfortunately well-meaning people will insist on creating bureaucratic roadblocks in this program ostensibly for the benifit of the workers, to make sure the workers are getting benefits, safety training, etc, that have the end result of making it a job you have to apply for in advance and show up for later. And once this is done, it will be no different from the normal sort of job that some people can't hold onto because they can't bring themselves to show up reliably.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    The bureaucratic roadblocks would be created because the employers would immediately exploit such a loophole in the employment law to treat their normal employees as just 'day-to-day' ones
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      And so there will continue to be people who are unemployable because they're unreliable. We need both kinds of jobs; it shouldn't be impossible to have an economy where both exist... In fact we already do but the day-labor is done illegally under the table which makes it harder for low-motivation/ability people to get into. Besides, companies don't want unskilled day labor for most semi-skilled work anyway because the workers would do more damage than good, so regular jobs will still exist if irregular day labor is legalized and legitimized. For safe measure, make it illegal to refuse a day worker in Wednesday because he didn't show up on Tuesday, no implied fulltime contracts for day laborers, so companies will have to hire people on for regular jobs for work that requires training and regularity. Violations can be investigated at the government's expense, as is already the case with Department of Labor investigations.
      - antisthenes 3y ago
        > And so there will continue to be people who are unemployable because they're unreliable. We need both kinds of jobs; it shouldn't be impossible to have an economy where both exist... I think I would rather these unreliable people be paid basic income to just live than to try and invent some convoluted employment scheme for them, that will ultimately 90% benefit the bureaucrats and 10% to those people and that will also inevitably balloon to 5x its intended original size.
        lupusreal 3y ago
        The idea is to create the least convoluted employment scheme conceivable. Convoluted employment schemes are exactly the problem that keeps people who can't handle their shit from working at all.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > Didn't read what I wrote. > The average person would be so happy to not be under threat of unemployment anymore that they'd be ok with the government spending $5. I see you neglected to address the US Military comment. Which person are you thinking of that is so suited for a job that isn't employable by the military? You also neglected to read the second half the sentence; it's not about the government spending $5; it's about the government spending $50 of which $25 is literal wasted spending. It's literally better to just give the person $5 to do nothing over having them work.
  - yetihehe 3y ago
    > I see you neglected to address the US Military comment. Which person are you thinking of that is so suited for a job that isn't employable by the military? Such government program could provide different jobs, not only one. People have different expectations and different abilities. Military is not for everyone. > It's literally better to just give the person $5 to do nothing over having them work. Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society. If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      Military is probably the most diverse employer you can find. Honestly besides C-suite / lobbyists / factory-work there's probably not a single private sector job that doesn't exist in the military. Plus the military will train you; good luck getting Boeing to shell out the money so you can get a pilot's license. > Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society. Not doing negative work isn't an option here. How will you handle people that nobody literally wants to work with? How will you handle people that literally cannot understand instruction? Wish I could find the blog posts people have done on Universal Jobs where they can outline people who cannot work. What are the goal posts here? I'm going off the initial comment of providing literally every single person that wants it a job so that they're able to afford to live. There are no points for only getting to 99% as those remaining 1% will be the RV-ers living in the parking lot. If we're ok with the goal posts being 99.9% than yeah sure things such as WPA [1] or CETA [2] are great. Probably even expand them to handle the national parks or develop more land into national parks would be neat. > If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better. This isn't the option here. It's you have say $50 and can pay somebody (in need) $5 to do something and then pay somebody (not in need) $45 to fix up the mess. Or you could just give $5 to 10 people in need to do nothing. If your goal is to make sure everybody is housed then the second option is way cheaper. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_Training_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_T...
dessimus 3y ago
>There's a reason Amazon wanted to build HQ2 at NYC & NOVA To quote Contact: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" They were likely given so much in tax incentives from local local and state governments that building 2 HQ2s was less than what one would have cost Amazon on its own. Furthermore, it makes sense to want to have HQs in both the Financial and Federal Government centers of the US.

cousin_it 3y ago

>> hire everyone who wants a job > outlawing being unemployed? Didn't read what I wrote. > There's often a reason the private sector has passed over people for employment. Yes: because they could hire someone overseas for cheaper, or because the work in question would benefit society but the benefit would be hard for the business to capture, and other such good reasons. > I don't think the average person is ok with the government spending $5 The average person would be so happy to not be under threat of unemployment anymore that they'd be ok with the government spending $5. The rich person, on the other hand.

lupusreal 3y ago
Most people who cannot hold down a job are that way for basically psychological reasons, they can't bring themselves to consistently show up and quit any job you give them within days/weeks. What would help them the most is creating a new class of labor which works on a day-to-day basis with no paperwork/bureaucracy setup to hire them and fire them. I'm talking about legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed day-labor, so people who can't hold down a regular job can at least easily earn irregular money whenever they find themselves able. If it requires applying for one day then showing up the next, that disqualifies most chronically unemployed people. Unfortunately well-meaning people will insist on creating bureaucratic roadblocks in this program ostensibly for the benifit of the workers, to make sure the workers are getting benefits, safety training, etc, that have the end result of making it a job you have to apply for in advance and show up for later. And once this is done, it will be no different from the normal sort of job that some people can't hold onto because they can't bring themselves to show up reliably.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  The bureaucratic roadblocks would be created because the employers would immediately exploit such a loophole in the employment law to treat their normal employees as just 'day-to-day' ones
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    And so there will continue to be people who are unemployable because they're unreliable. We need both kinds of jobs; it shouldn't be impossible to have an economy where both exist... In fact we already do but the day-labor is done illegally under the table which makes it harder for low-motivation/ability people to get into. Besides, companies don't want unskilled day labor for most semi-skilled work anyway because the workers would do more damage than good, so regular jobs will still exist if irregular day labor is legalized and legitimized. For safe measure, make it illegal to refuse a day worker in Wednesday because he didn't show up on Tuesday, no implied fulltime contracts for day laborers, so companies will have to hire people on for regular jobs for work that requires training and regularity. Violations can be investigated at the government's expense, as is already the case with Department of Labor investigations.
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      > And so there will continue to be people who are unemployable because they're unreliable. We need both kinds of jobs; it shouldn't be impossible to have an economy where both exist... I think I would rather these unreliable people be paid basic income to just live than to try and invent some convoluted employment scheme for them, that will ultimately 90% benefit the bureaucrats and 10% to those people and that will also inevitably balloon to 5x its intended original size.
      - lupusreal 3y ago
        The idea is to create the least convoluted employment scheme conceivable. Convoluted employment schemes are exactly the problem that keeps people who can't handle their shit from working at all.
lesuorac 3y ago
> Didn't read what I wrote. > The average person would be so happy to not be under threat of unemployment anymore that they'd be ok with the government spending $5. I see you neglected to address the US Military comment. Which person are you thinking of that is so suited for a job that isn't employable by the military? You also neglected to read the second half the sentence; it's not about the government spending $5; it's about the government spending $50 of which $25 is literal wasted spending. It's literally better to just give the person $5 to do nothing over having them work.
- yetihehe 3y ago
  > I see you neglected to address the US Military comment. Which person are you thinking of that is so suited for a job that isn't employable by the military? Such government program could provide different jobs, not only one. People have different expectations and different abilities. Military is not for everyone. > It's literally better to just give the person $5 to do nothing over having them work. Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society. If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Military is probably the most diverse employer you can find. Honestly besides C-suite / lobbyists / factory-work there's probably not a single private sector job that doesn't exist in the military. Plus the military will train you; good luck getting Boeing to shell out the money so you can get a pilot's license. > Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society. Not doing negative work isn't an option here. How will you handle people that nobody literally wants to work with? How will you handle people that literally cannot understand instruction? Wish I could find the blog posts people have done on Universal Jobs where they can outline people who cannot work. What are the goal posts here? I'm going off the initial comment of providing literally every single person that wants it a job so that they're able to afford to live. There are no points for only getting to 99% as those remaining 1% will be the RV-ers living in the parking lot. If we're ok with the goal posts being 99.9% than yeah sure things such as WPA [1] or CETA [2] are great. Probably even expand them to handle the national parks or develop more land into national parks would be neat. > If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better. This isn't the option here. It's you have say $50 and can pay somebody (in need) $5 to do something and then pay somebody (not in need) $45 to fix up the mess. Or you could just give $5 to 10 people in need to do nothing. If your goal is to make sure everybody is housed then the second option is way cheaper. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_Training_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_T...

dessimus 3y ago

>There's a reason Amazon wanted to build HQ2 at NYC & NOVA To quote Contact: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" They were likely given so much in tax incentives from local local and state governments that building 2 HQ2s was less than what one would have cost Amazon on its own. Furthermore, it makes sense to want to have HQs in both the Financial and Federal Government centers of the US.