5 ms·

>no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs So you are saying that the jobs building the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan and the Tribor

>no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs So you are saying that the jobs building the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan and the Triborough bridge (among many other things under the PWA) were "economically inefficient make work jobs". Why?

dllthomas 12y ago
I see no claim in the parent that everything done by the PWA was make-work. Also, while creating jobs was an important motivation of the PWA, to the best of my knowledge it never included any guarantee.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  I said "let's have something like the PWA - what would be wrong with that?". OP responded with: "because no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs"
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    That's not what you said. You said, "This is preferable to a Basic Income", and linked both the PWA and a page on a job guarantee. I don't think dragonwriter's response would have been the same to the above. A job guarantee necessarily involves possibility of make-work, or it's not a guarantee.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> So you are saying that the jobs building the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan and the Triborough bridge (among many other things under the PWA) were "economically inefficient make work jobs". No, I agree that it is an essential function of government (arguably, the only legitimate function of government) to correct for market failures by shifting incentives or directly purchasing goods and services so that exchanges which are a net benefit but which the market fails to provide because externalized costs or benefits are not taken into account naturally in market exchanges (as is the case, for instance, when benefits or costs are particularly diffuse in space or time or both). And many public works projects fit that bill, and when labor costs are low because of a dip in private market demand, more of those projects have a positive cost:benefit ratio. OTOH, the social benefit from an income support is independent of its tie to employment, and therefore it makes sense for the income support to be decoupled from any public works program. Coupling the two creates inefficiency, as individuals receiving the income support are then compelled to devote time to an economically-inefficient job that could, instead, be devoted to economically efficient activities, including working at an economically-efficient job with a lower wage (that would be inadequate income for basic living on its own) than is provided by the government make-work job but which provides experience which enables the individual to progress to better paying jobs and greater contributions to society.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >Coupling the two creates inefficiency, as individuals receiving the income support are then compelled to devote time to an economically-inefficient job Economically inefficient jobs like building the triborough bridge. Or providing healthcare. Or building dams. Or building schools. Or building public art works. Your entire argument is based upon a theoretical presumption that is disproved by reality: that if the government provides jobs that did not otherwise exist that those jobs will by necessity be make work. Economic efficiency is also a terrible measure of whether something is worthwhile. Was sending a man to the moon economically efficient? Was it worthwhile?

dllthomas 12y ago

I see no claim in the parent that everything done by the PWA was make-work. Also, while creating jobs was an important motivation of the PWA, to the best of my knowledge it never included any guarantee.

crdoconnor 12y ago
I said "let's have something like the PWA - what would be wrong with that?". OP responded with: "because no one needs to be forced into economically inefficient make-work jobs"
- dllthomas 12y ago
  That's not what you said. You said, "This is preferable to a Basic Income", and linked both the PWA and a page on a job guarantee. I don't think dragonwriter's response would have been the same to the above. A job guarantee necessarily involves possibility of make-work, or it's not a guarantee.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> So you are saying that the jobs building the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan and the Triborough bridge (among many other things under the PWA) were "economically inefficient make work jobs". No, I agree that it is an essential function of government (arguably, the only legitimate function of government) to correct for market failures by shifting incentives or directly purchasing goods and services so that exchanges which are a net benefit but which the market fails to provide because externalized costs or benefits are not taken into account naturally in market exchanges (as is the case, for instance, when benefits or costs are particularly diffuse in space or time or both). And many public works projects fit that bill, and when labor costs are low because of a dip in private market demand, more of those projects have a positive cost:benefit ratio. OTOH, the social benefit from an income support is independent of its tie to employment, and therefore it makes sense for the income support to be decoupled from any public works program. Coupling the two creates inefficiency, as individuals receiving the income support are then compelled to devote time to an economically-inefficient job that could, instead, be devoted to economically efficient activities, including working at an economically-efficient job with a lower wage (that would be inadequate income for basic living on its own) than is provided by the government make-work job but which provides experience which enables the individual to progress to better paying jobs and greater contributions to society.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>Coupling the two creates inefficiency, as individuals receiving the income support are then compelled to devote time to an economically-inefficient job Economically inefficient jobs like building the triborough bridge. Or providing healthcare. Or building dams. Or building schools. Or building public art works. Your entire argument is based upon a theoretical presumption that is disproved by reality: that if the government provides jobs that did not otherwise exist that those jobs will by necessity be make work. Economic efficiency is also a terrible measure of whether something is worthwhile. Was sending a man to the moon economically efficient? Was it worthwhile?