4 ms·

I don't understand why they don't simply do real work. Are all possible useful services in France already provided? Why not simply have these unemployed people

I don't understand why they don't simply do real work. Are all possible useful services in France already provided? Why not simply have these unemployed people work for the government, instead of hiring overpriced union workers?

rsynnott 11y ago
So, replace a highly-trained essentially unfireable labour force who'll mostly stick around for life with a labour force which would more or less turn over entirely every year (as noted in the article, people who do these schemes tend to get real jobs afterwards)? This seems like a bad idea.
Cthulhu_ 11y ago
Because there is no real work? If there was a pet webshop like the one described in the article, these people could go there and work there. There isn't though, else they'd be working. Simple economics, really. As for working for the government, that depends on whether the government has any jobs that suit these people. If you're suggesting they could work for their unemployment benefits... that's a legal problem, because then they'd technically not be unemployed anymore and would cost the government / tax payer more money. Although they'd be tax payers themselves again via income tax. It gets very confusing really. TL;DR: One does not simply create jobs.
- nhaehnle 11y ago
  Because there is no real work? Really? I suspect that our eyes are merely blinded to positive things that can be done but that currently nobody is willing to pay for. In ageing societies, think about services for the elderly. The elderly benefit, and if the job is designed humanely (i.e. not with the aim of extracting as much profit as possible at any cost), it could also benefit the one who does it. What about making the cities we live in more beautiful by creating new municipal gardens and tending to them? These are just two examples. Once you look outside the usual economic spheres you can certainly find more. Somehow, I have the feeling that it would be more valuable to society if the people working fake jobs as described in the article actually did something useful instead. That could still provide training as a side effect.
  - FeepingCreature 11y ago
    Money is exactly the measure of "value to society". If nobody pays these people to do this, then it literally means that it's not worth a living wage to do it. You may like municipal gardens, but how many dollars per month do you like them? Run a Kickstarter or Patreon to start a charity, go out and advertise that garden project, or contact your elected representatives to pay for that garden in exchange for a modest tax increase. The capitalist system is set up to measure value in a common unit called "money". If you value something, paying for it is exactly how you express this. So put your money where your mouth is. Cash is the unit of caring.
    - saalweachter 11y ago
      Eh, there are well-known situations where bare capitalism leads to under-utilization of available resources. See, the Parable of the Babysitting Co-op. One of the sane uses of government (as opposed to, oppressing people we don't like to make us feel better about ourselves) is back-filling demand that the private sector isn't supplying.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Suppose the government is currently paying them $10 for a fake job. That's a loss of $10. Now suppose the municipal garden is worth only $5/hour. If we instead shut down the fake job and paid them $10/hour to create $5/hour of value, society would only lose $5 rather than $10. All I'm proposing is France should get something instead of nothing.
    - nhaehnle 11y ago
      Your argument is not really an argument, but merely the statement of the assumption that value (in general) and monetary value are the same thing. It is hard to define value in general (and I cannot do it) simply because unlike money, there is no clear way of numerical measurement. It may be tempting for technical folks to believe otherwise, but things can matter very much even when they are not easily measured numerically. So why is your assumption incorrect? The fact that different market institutions lead to different outcomes given the same underlying preferences of individuals is really enough to show this. If you can keep the same set of people with the same set of beliefs and preferences, but obtain different prices merely by changing the market institutions, then this means that the prices do not accurately reflect the underlying value (in the general sense). Yes, money is an extremely useful proxy for "value to society", but it is only a proxy. Consider this thought experiment. Suppose that tomorrow, your city council decides to put more money into work making the city more beautiful. More people will be paid to tend to municipal gardens, among other things. Does this mean that suddenly, society values a beautiful city more? Did preferences change over night? I would argue that it is the other way around: Society has always valued a beautiful city more, but the existing market institutions did not translate this valuation into monetary terms. People noticed the discrepancy and effected political change to bring the money in line with underlying valuations. The belief that "the market" is this objective institution is very widely spread today. This is unfortunate, because "the market" is not a fixed thing. Market institutions can be changed via politics, and those in power use that fact for their own benefit. I would be so happy if more people recognized that the assumption you stated is really part of an ideology and should be treated as such: potentially useful at times, but not a universal truth.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  >Because there is no real work? Apart from education, infrastructure maintenance and development, community improvement... and many many more. There's plenty of work that needs to be done. >There isn't though, else they'd be working. Simple economics, really. No, according to "simple economics" these people aren't working because no one can profit off them. That's in no way the same as there not being nothing useful for them to do.
  - asddubs 11y ago
    The problem is no one wants to hire them, despite their obvious desire to work. That might be hard for some techies to understand, but it does happen.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Because there is no real work? If that's the case, then I guess there is no need to expand the government or provide any new services? And yes, I'm suggesting that instead of being paid to do nothing, they could be paid the exact same money to do something useful. If the law forbids this, fix the law.

rsynnott 11y ago

So, replace a highly-trained essentially unfireable labour force who'll mostly stick around for life with a labour force which would more or less turn over entirely every year (as noted in the article, people who do these schemes tend to get real jobs afterwards)? This seems like a bad idea.

Cthulhu_ 11y ago

Because there is no real work? If there was a pet webshop like the one described in the article, these people could go there and work there. There isn't though, else they'd be working. Simple economics, really. As for working for the government, that depends on whether the government has any jobs that suit these people. If you're suggesting they could work for their unemployment benefits... that's a legal problem, because then they'd technically not be unemployed anymore and would cost the government / tax payer more money. Although they'd be tax payers themselves again via income tax. It gets very confusing really. TL;DR: One does not simply create jobs.

nhaehnle 11y ago
Because there is no real work? Really? I suspect that our eyes are merely blinded to positive things that can be done but that currently nobody is willing to pay for. In ageing societies, think about services for the elderly. The elderly benefit, and if the job is designed humanely (i.e. not with the aim of extracting as much profit as possible at any cost), it could also benefit the one who does it. What about making the cities we live in more beautiful by creating new municipal gardens and tending to them? These are just two examples. Once you look outside the usual economic spheres you can certainly find more. Somehow, I have the feeling that it would be more valuable to society if the people working fake jobs as described in the article actually did something useful instead. That could still provide training as a side effect.
- FeepingCreature 11y ago
  Money is exactly the measure of "value to society". If nobody pays these people to do this, then it literally means that it's not worth a living wage to do it. You may like municipal gardens, but how many dollars per month do you like them? Run a Kickstarter or Patreon to start a charity, go out and advertise that garden project, or contact your elected representatives to pay for that garden in exchange for a modest tax increase. The capitalist system is set up to measure value in a common unit called "money". If you value something, paying for it is exactly how you express this. So put your money where your mouth is. Cash is the unit of caring.
  - saalweachter 11y ago
    Eh, there are well-known situations where bare capitalism leads to under-utilization of available resources. See, the Parable of the Babysitting Co-op. One of the sane uses of government (as opposed to, oppressing people we don't like to make us feel better about ourselves) is back-filling demand that the private sector isn't supplying.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Suppose the government is currently paying them $10 for a fake job. That's a loss of $10. Now suppose the municipal garden is worth only $5/hour. If we instead shut down the fake job and paid them $10/hour to create $5/hour of value, society would only lose $5 rather than $10. All I'm proposing is France should get something instead of nothing.
  - nhaehnle 11y ago
    Your argument is not really an argument, but merely the statement of the assumption that value (in general) and monetary value are the same thing. It is hard to define value in general (and I cannot do it) simply because unlike money, there is no clear way of numerical measurement. It may be tempting for technical folks to believe otherwise, but things can matter very much even when they are not easily measured numerically. So why is your assumption incorrect? The fact that different market institutions lead to different outcomes given the same underlying preferences of individuals is really enough to show this. If you can keep the same set of people with the same set of beliefs and preferences, but obtain different prices merely by changing the market institutions, then this means that the prices do not accurately reflect the underlying value (in the general sense). Yes, money is an extremely useful proxy for "value to society", but it is only a proxy. Consider this thought experiment. Suppose that tomorrow, your city council decides to put more money into work making the city more beautiful. More people will be paid to tend to municipal gardens, among other things. Does this mean that suddenly, society values a beautiful city more? Did preferences change over night? I would argue that it is the other way around: Society has always valued a beautiful city more, but the existing market institutions did not translate this valuation into monetary terms. People noticed the discrepancy and effected political change to bring the money in line with underlying valuations. The belief that "the market" is this objective institution is very widely spread today. This is unfortunate, because "the market" is not a fixed thing. Market institutions can be changed via politics, and those in power use that fact for their own benefit. I would be so happy if more people recognized that the assumption you stated is really part of an ideology and should be treated as such: potentially useful at times, but not a universal truth.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>Because there is no real work? Apart from education, infrastructure maintenance and development, community improvement... and many many more. There's plenty of work that needs to be done. >There isn't though, else they'd be working. Simple economics, really. No, according to "simple economics" these people aren't working because no one can profit off them. That's in no way the same as there not being nothing useful for them to do.
- asddubs 11y ago
  The problem is no one wants to hire them, despite their obvious desire to work. That might be hard for some techies to understand, but it does happen.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Because there is no real work? If that's the case, then I guess there is no need to expand the government or provide any new services? And yes, I'm suggesting that instead of being paid to do nothing, they could be paid the exact same money to do something useful. If the law forbids this, fix the law.