Getting the US out of debt

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 92
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@blamonkey
There is also the problem of the self-interest of the government.

Milton Freidman explains this concept as follows: The best interest of the government is to make as many low-risk decisions as possible. This leads to the inherent unproductiveness of the government where inaction is the preferred course due to any notable level of risk.

In the case of Coronavirus, all government agencies have it in their best interest to prolong the quarantine as long as possible due to any notable level of risk, even if it means shutting down all production. Every risk estimate the government uses will be on the high end as in the case of consistently using the 2 million deaths prediction. It's in the government's best self-interest to be as risk-averse as possible.

In the case of California, it is far more important to allow 100 poor people to publicly defecate on the streets than it is to be caught publicly wrongly detaining a homeless person.

In the case of welfare policing, the same concept applies. The best interest of the government is to make as many low-risk decisions as possible. That means it is far more important to allow 100 people to cheat the welfare system than it is to be caught publicly wrongly denying one poor person welfare. After all, most of the public won't even know the extent of the waste as the government can simply reclassify the fraudulent recipients as just receivers of welfare after the fact.

This is where the self-interest of the individual and the self-interest of the government diverge.
The best interest of the government is to make as many low-risk decisions as possible with productivity a secondary concern.
The best interest of (most) individuals is to make as many productive decisions as possible with risk adversity a secondary concern.

Government incompetence, Freidman argues, isn't just due to simple human error. It is fundamentally inherent in the interests of self-preservation of the government.

#32
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
In very simple terms and disregarding the evolved complexities of the system:
The hierarchy of ability is what really orders social structure and money has become the established system we use to represent this, both nationally and individually.

Altruism and unhindered cooperation is the only real alternative and given human nature and the natural hierarchy of ability,  it is highly unlikely that such a system would ever be workable.
I disagree. We are a subjectively hierarchical species because we have the reason to express values within our social institutions. And the premise of these values is self-interest. Altruism isn't a necessary basis for a "debt-free" society, especially when this has been achieved among a species you claim to be incapable of it. In other words, what you claim isn't workable has worked.

#33
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
I don't think its necessarily wrong to allow the homeless to seek jobs or receive training. I don't think that any employer would ever put them in a position that pays substantially though, so displacing high-wage labor might not be as big a problem (although I think you posed that as a hypothetical), but it is something to consider (especially given the inverse relationship between full employment and inflation, but that is another issue entirely). I'm not saying that the plan isn't ambitious, in fact, that might be the downfall of it. It doesn't take into effect numerous factors playing into employment or the unique situation the homeless find themselves in. In fact, as much as the intention is to save money, I think that expanding programs to employ every single homeless person would not be offset by eliminating SNAP. Homeless employment is something that we should strive for, but its not as simple as portrayed. 

So yeah, I concur. 
#34
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@blamonkey
I don't think its necessarily wrong to allow the homeless to seek jobs or receive training. I don't think that any employer would ever put them in a position that pays substantially though, so displacing high-wage labor might not be as big a problem (although I think you posed that as a hypothetical), but it is something to consider (especially given the inverse relationship between full employment and inflation, but that is another issue entirely). I'm not saying that the plan isn't ambitious, in fact, that might be the downfall of it. It doesn't take into effect numerous factors playing into employment or the unique situation the homeless find themselves in. In fact, as much as the intention is to save money, I think that expanding programs to employ every single homeless person would not be offset by eliminating SNAP. Homeless employment is something that we should strive for, but its not as simple as portrayed. 

So yeah, I concur. 
Alec's goal is to have to homeless acquire the job positions he outlined on his spreadsheet. So it isn't necessarily about the particular wage, since Alec has also delineated their salaries as well. My point is to highlight that if its imperative the homeless are to select from this list of positions, who's expendable since job availability isn't necessarily clear? And since these salaries are fixed, can an employer pay anyone less?

I'm not attempting to argue that the homeless shouldn't have opportunities made available to them which would include employment and training (though my support would be with this being conducted in the private sector.) It's as you said, it's not as simple as portrayed.
#35
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
I buy that there is government incompetence, and that often the government does not tackle said incompetence due to a misunderstanding of risks, but clearly there is more nuance to the issue because governments have been lifting restrictions on Covid-19, passing laws regarding public defecation (as well as other laws that are less meritorious,) and passing measures to prevent fraud. It's true that the SNAP program was at one point inundated with fraud, but with tracked EBT cards requiring PINs and government documents, abuse of the program has dwindled to about 2% (1).

Also, investigators for the Social Security Administration have been able to detect and cease fraudulent activity worth millions of dollars, so it's not like the government is doing nothing about fraud (2). In fact, many (if not most) government departments rely on investigative bodies to track fraud and malfeasance (some, like HUD, struggle more than others, but that is likely due to a lack of manpower and funding.)

Government can be productive, but the compliance of multifarious parties with differing goals and constituencies need to converge for many decisions to be made. It sounds impossible, but it definitely is.


#36
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
Thank you for clarifying, I do agree. Methinks a better approach would involve public-private partnerships. Vocational rehabilitation programs are also useful (as someone who uses it, I can say this from personal experience, but quality of service differs widely across states and counselors.) While I hate to admit it, a granular, piecemeal approach might be the best option to aid the homeless. Since monetary allocations to help the homeless are often determined by self-reported data, it might be time to rectify issues in stat collecting too. I just don't think a swathing system could possibly account for everything. A series of granular, piecemeal reforms might be preferable. 

Thoughts?
#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@blamonkey
It is inherently in the government's self-interest to not be productive, which is precisely why all your cited instances are outliers.

It's not about human error. It's about the systemic self -interest of an institution.

Take teacher unions for example. (or any labor union) Their number one self-interest is reducing risk by destroying competition. Being productive for the student is a  secondary concern.

Milton Friedman has written volumes about systemic self-interests versus individual self-interests.
#38
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@blamonkey
Thank you for clarifying, I do agree. Methinks a better approach would involve public-private partnerships. Vocational rehabilitation programs are also useful (as someone who uses it, I can say this from personal experience, but quality of service differs widely across states and counselors.) While I hate to admit it, a granular, piecemeal approach might be the best option to aid the homeless. Since monetary allocations to help the homeless are often determined by self-reported data, it might be time to rectify issues in stat collecting too. I just don't think a swathing system could possibly account for everything. A series of granular, piecemeal reforms might be preferable.
If it is the intent of a public institution to address and meet its presumed obligation, then that would be ideal. However, I must parrot Greyparrot's (pun intended) argument insofar as extending homelessness and poverty has been a staple in partisan politics--particularly the "left wing." It is a metaphorical plantation. While I do not presume to know the exact content in the minds of these policy makers, their mission statements and their policies have been inconsistent throughout history--not to mention currently.

#39
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
The crux of the theory you provided is that governments tend to act with impunity because it is an inherent quality of government. I think this understanding is valuable (often true even,) but not 100% accurate. Eliminating the bulk of SNAP abuse is more than just a "fluke," it took the concerted efforts of federal and local authorities to prevent fraud and punish defrauders. I think that the pervasive idea of inefficient governance is due to universal media coverage of government failures with scant mention of government success. What is invisible to most people is the state governments which pass 129 times the bills and resolutions that Capitol Hill does (1). Some of these underground bills surface to national media attention, especially when they elicit disgust, but most elude our attention unless we are personally involved. 

I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: the theory is immeasurable. We have no real way of quantifying government "successes" vs. "waste" (especially since everyone's ideas about government waste differ drastically.)

Also, what is risk? If government is risk averse, surely, in your examples provided, they would calculate the risk of 100 people defecating in public, yes? Would they then try to provide them housing to avoid possible contamination? What about issues like the fact that there is no compulsory mandatory vaccination policy on the federal level? Why does the government not act risk averse when it comes to protecting people from possible measles outbreaks? In fact, I would say the government takes tremendous risk when it comes to foreign intervention and stimulus packages. It's jeopardizing tax dollars. 

My issue with Alec's plan is actually similar to your objection though. Setting the minimum wage for thousands of workers at 60k a year, (if that is what his plan entails, but I literally thought he was just going to demand that poor people "get better jobs," which is patently ludicrous if the best jobs they can find happen to be minimum wage,) is endemically flawed. 

That said, the plan also includes a frankly bizarre stats. For example, retirees are only supposed to spend 12k on housing under the tabs about how seniors can pay this new tax regime. In actuality, they pay roughly $16k, while Social Security beneficiaries collect about $17,500 per year (2). Also, there doesn't seem to be much flexibility. Insurance, for instance, varies greatly by a person's use of medical services, the state that they live in, and other complicating factors that make the $12,000 dollar a year allotment to not be representative of everyone's needs, especially in the face of medical inflation driving up prices for medical procedures and co-pays. Also, banking on 750 million people moving to the US is pretty far-fetched and risky. I mean, I could go on, but dissecting this plan would take years if we are to determine its full effect. I do like the work put into it though.

Sources

#40
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
Fair, but I don't think necessarily that private institutions, unless being nudged vigorously by the government, will want to rehabilitate homeless people so they can work. There isn't too much profit in that. 
That's just my thoughts though. I'd love to continue this conversation, but where I'm at, it's late, and I already spent too much time on these last two responses. 

#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
I disagree.

Genetically defined natural ability defines the formation and structure of natural social hierarchy.  Subjectivity and the utilisation thereof is simply another manifestation of the same processes.

And obviously altruism can be achieved "among a species" hence the development of the word altruism, but this is not representative of the human species as a whole.

And the subject matter is the U.S.  national debt and therefore inevitably, it's purposes and reasons within a global context.
#42
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@blamonkey
@zedvictor4
@blamonkey:

Fair, but I don't think necessarily that private institutions, unless being nudged vigorously by the government, will want to rehabilitate homeless people so they can work. There isn't too much profit in that. 
If they were able to pay them a wage which reflected their productivity, rather than one dictated by price controls, then there would be much profit in taking on the rehabilitation of homeless people.

@zedvictor:

Genetically defined natural ability defines the formation and structure of natural social hierarchy.
No it doesn't. The values we ascribe defines the formation and structure of social hierarchy. Case in point, I don't have to buy a woman with large breasts a large house in an attempt to procreate with her. Arguing that subjectivity is merely a manifestation of genetics is circular teleological reason. Your conclusion will always be the same as your premise.

And obviously altruism can be achieved "among a species" hence the development of the word altruism, but this is not representative of the human species as a whole
I was referring to the elimination of debt, not altruism.
#43
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
Maybe, but productivity rarely matches with wages. Often, people are paid less than their total worth to company's bottom line (1) (2). In fact, the productivity-wage gap is growing, not shrinking (2). In theory, companies would compensate their employees in equal measure to their usefulness, but this isn't always the case. Also, how would these companies that rehabilitate the homeless make profit? Would they take a portion of their clientele's paycheck to pay for services to treat mental illnesses and drug addiction which often holds people back from getting jobs? How about job placement and shadowing opportunities? Non-profit organizations might be able to help, but do we have enough of these social organizations to aid those who are homeless? Also, businesses leverage their money and influence to keep laws that target homeless people on the books (3). Why would they want to help the homeless?

In reality, there are probably a bevy of services that could help homeless people, for a price. If the homeless are unable to pay for it, then government involvement in some respect, be it federal, state, or municipal, might be called for. 

I've heard the argument that perhaps solving homelessness should not be a moral imperative for the US, and maybe that's true. If we want to though, there is more to do than simply relegate this to the private businesses with no oversight. Clearly, if it were profitable, profitable and effective startups would already be addressing homelessness, right? 

Sources
#44
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
You assume that the inseparable are separable. 

That is to say, you suggest that values are separate to function.

I would suggest that function dictates values.

Just as function dictates your desire to procreate with the large breasted woman.
#45
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@blamonkey
Maybe, but productivity rarely matches with wages. Often, people are paid less than their total worth to company's bottom line (1) (2). In fact, the productivity-wage gap is growing, not shrinking (2). In theory, companies would compensate their employees in equal measure to their usefulness, but this isn't always the case.
There is a productivity wage gap, but it's not as dire as your references make it appear once context is considered. James Sherk's report offers said context.

Also, how would these companies that rehabilitate the homeless make profit? Would they take a portion of their clientele's paycheck to pay for services to treat mental illnesses and drug addiction which often holds people back from getting jobs? How about job placement and shadowing opportunities?
"Mental illness" (we can discuss the merits of its classification as an "illness" in another venue) can range anywhere from depression or anxiety to schizophrenia. So the cost of rehabilitation would be heavily contingent on the scope of mental illness. The cost of taking this task on would also be reflected in compensation. And of course, I won't ignore the competition of the non mentally-ill. But state-sponsored programs for homeless rehabilitation are more like detention centers--a conclusion I've drawn mostly using anecdotal evidence.

Manual jobs are always in high demand, and without a price control to stifle what would otherwise be available job opportunities, employers and firms would have more incentive to hire members of the homeless demographic.

Non-profit organizations might be able to help, but do we have enough of these social organizations to aid those who are homeless? Also, businesses leverage their money and influence to keep laws that target homeless people on the books (3). Why would they want to help the homeless?
Your reference mentions a select group of "cronies" who, by function of their economic practices, are not private. Whenever public money is involved, they can no longer be considered private, only extensions of the apparatus which allows for said crony functions.

In reality, there are probably a bevy of services that could help homeless people, for a price. If the homeless are unable to pay for it, then government involvement in some respect, be it federal, state, or municipal, might be called for. 
The state already does this--or at least, it claims to do this. From your own observation, can you argue that it has had a substantial impact?

I've heard the argument that perhaps solving homelessness should not be a moral imperative for the US, and maybe that's true
I think it's pertinent to consider the morality of the means rather than the morality of the ends.

If we want to though, there is more to do than simply relegate this to the private businesses with no oversight. Clearly, if it were profitable, profitable and effective startups would already be addressing homelessness, right? 
Can we really control for the effect the private sector would have on the rehabilitation of the homeless when government oversight, regulation, and downright incompetence remains a constant factor?
#46
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
You assume that the inseparable are separable. 

That is to say, you suggest that values are separate to function.

I would suggest that function dictates values.

Just as function dictates your desire to procreate with the large breasted woman.
No, I posit it a priori. But let's explore: how does function dictate value?
Topic's author
#47
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@blamonkey
SAMSHA reports that 26% of the homeless population suffers from a mental illness and 35% had a substance abuse disorder (6).
I wouldn't call a mental illness something that necessarily prevents someone from getting a job.  Many autistic people have gotten jobs just fine.  If they have a substance abuse disorder, we ban welfare but encourage rehabilitation for them so they can get better jobs once they aren't dependent on drugs anymore.  If drugs ruin your life, get off of them.  If you need help, we can use the Portuguese method.  I've heard that worked in getting people off of drugs, and back to normalcy.

 Moreover, many jobs require permanent addresses, which the homeless do not have
I think I know a way for them to get addresses in 3 steps.

1) The government spends $60 billion building apartment buildings or other shelters.  This amounts to $120,000 per house, which might be done if construction companies make the houses in masses for the government.

2) The homeless and the government strike a deal, in exchange for the government letting the homeless stay at a government built and owned house for 2 months(and food for those 2 months), the homeless simply have to give 500 ml of blood; enough to save 2 lives on average.  They save 2 people's lives from the blood; and the government sells the blood for $3000 per 500 ml unit to whoever wants it.  60,000 people a year die from lack of blood.  All of these deaths can be eliminated if we get the homeless to be productive to society.  Once they have a job and if they don't want to give blood anymore for free room and board, they can either pay rent or pay a mortgage to eventually own their house.

3) With their new shelter that they rented, they can apply for a job.  They get hired if they are qualified for the job.  They get a good salary from that job and would have the option at buying the shelter from the government with a mortgage or in flat out cash if they save.

 employers maintain negative views of the homeless and formerly homeless.
If they did, I think they would ask this question on job forms.  I haven't encountered a question like, "Do you have a history of homelessness?".

 So, when asking about permanent transportation and housing on applications, they tend to "follow up" with additional questions to ascertain whether an applicant has lived in an address for more than a few years, or if they have a car
What incentive would they have to reject ex homeless people who aren't homeless anymore?

Even the recently homeless are affected due to intrusive background checks into people's housing history (8).
Why do these exist?

The number of jobs is not unlimited (as Athias has already pointed out) and the kicker is that we don't know how many people are actually homeless.
Kyle Kullinski has repeatedly claimed the number is 500,000.  He's a social democrat, so his numbers are going to be high.  He's a smart guy, so he probably used sources that were reliable.  Maybe the study was done in April, when the homeless are more likely to be outside.

The number of jobs is not unlimited
It's not unlimited, but based off of my research, there are enough jobs.  The University of Georgetown confirmed 13 million jobs that exist that pay $55K or more per year.  If we are more lenient and include jobs that pay $45K/year or more, this number increases.  Given that there are only 500,000 homeless according to Kyle Kullunski, all of the homeless can be easily incorporated into these jobs.


More to the point, while some jobs don't necessarily require degrees, won't these better educated Americans be in direct competition with the homeless? Who do you think they are going to hire, someone with an Associate's degree, or someone who shows up to a job interview who looks like they're homeless, and outright admit they don't have a permanent address?
I think the employers would hire both people assuming they are trained for the job given that the more employees they have, the more products they can make and the more money they generate for themselves and their shareholders.

Instead, programs to rehabilitate and train homeless for jobs
These I support.

providing tax breaks to firms that hire homeless people
I fail to see what's stopping them from doing this on their own?  If a homeless person looks well groomed on their interview day, they're probably getting the job once they have a shelter that the government could rent them in exchange for them giving enough blood to save people.

 and providing direct assistance (cash based or otherwise) should exist
This has been tried for 50 years, and it has stagnated the poverty rate that would have otherwise continued to fall.


and should be trying to place their clients in jobs and permanent abodes. 
If the homeless earn this, this is fine.
Topic's author
#48
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Athias

For example, where do you get this money to hire people to go to homeless people and show them your sheet? 
It's in sheet 37.

What if a large number of the homeless refuse the significant portion of the jobs on your sheet?
There's 90 jobs on the list.  They would need a good reason to reject all 90 jobs.

What if they don't have the skills--barring employee training programs
Employers have training programs for prospective employees already put in place.  If they don't have the skills for one job, then they try a different job.  There's 90 jobs on the list.  They'll find something that they like.

As I understand and learned, population increase would lead to an increase supply of labor, not necessarily an increased demand for it. 
It leads to both.  If you work for a nuclear power plant for instance, as the population triples, the energy demands triple as well.  As that happens, the number of people who need to manage the energy supply also needs to triple.  This is explained by the fact that the US population is growing, but unemployment is going down.  This is because job count tends to go up with population increase.  More people means more jobs that need to be filled, but also it means more jobs available for people.  Otherwise as the US population increases, unemployment would almost always increase with it.

Wouldn't the increasing population worsen crowding?
If the US had 1 billion people in it, it's population density would be around 100 people per km2.  To put that into perspective, the population density of the UK is roughly 3x this.  The UK isn't exactly the most crowded place in the world, and America's population density would still be a third of that.

Wouldn't the government be provoked into subsidizing additional labor?
With the exception of federal employees, how?

No, the average "household" saves at least 10% of their earnings if they're in the middle/upper middle class/rich income bracket.
If your middle class or rich, your saving more than 10% probably.

Your plan is targeting the poor.

Who's selling stock? How did they get the stock to start? Can they afford to purchase stock? (Penny stocks excluded of course.)
Whoever had the stock to begin with.  The poor, if they pursue my plan would get enough money from their jobs to buy stock.

I'd say $60,000 per year is a fair salary.  It's not going to be expensive.
$60,000 x 5000 = $300,000,000 a year for doing three months work. That's not expensive?
I said $60,000 per year.  Given that they are working 3 months, every homeless liberator gets $15,000 for helping out 100 homeless people.

15000* 5000 (the number of liberators) = 75 million.  For the federal government, this is not expensive; about 25 cents per taxpayer.

Wait, so your calculation presumes that each homeless person will be dragged out poverty in a single day's time?
My calculation assumes that the homeless person gets hooked up with a job opportunity on the first day, they take their time with the courses, all with the government taking a hands off approach to the person's progress out of poverty except for asking questions if they get stuck on the way, then a homeless liberator helps them out with advice and potentially whatever they need.  It only takes one day to sign up for a course, and then the homeless person does pretty much the rest.

If you're removing income tax, then how does that result in "more taxation for the government"?
Sales tax and capitol gains tax.  These taxes are harder to dodge for immigrants and rich people, and given that our population would skyrocket with open borders, we can have less taxes but more government revenue because there would be more salaries paying taxes to the government.

Will sales tax and capital gains tax provide the revenue the government solicits to meet its obligations?
According to my calculations, yes.

 Furthermore, if savings are to increase, wouldn't tax revenue from sales tax decrease?
No because the poor would get better jobs that increase their overall salary.  Some of the money they would spend on better nesseseties, some they would spend on luxuries, some on investments.  These all would get taxed one way or another.  Some they save, but there's more money overall in their checkbooks so they can do more things with it.
#49
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
There is a productivity wage gap, but it's not as dire as your references make it appear once context is considered. James Sherk's report offers said context.
Sure, the EPI data was flawed. I'll buy that. But one of the criticisms of the EPI report is chiefly the point that I am trying to make. When we are concerning ourselves with non-supervisory and production jobs, there is a discrepancy between pay and productivity (1). The BLS data also showed this. Would this affect employment prospects? I would imagine so if the jobs in question are subject to this discrepancy.


"Mental illness" (we can discuss the merits of its classification as an "illness" in another venue) can range anywhere from depression or anxiety to schizophrenia. So the cost of rehabilitation would be heavily contingent on the scope of mental illness. The cost of taking this task on would also be reflected in compensation. And of course, I won't ignore the competition of the non mentally-ill. But state-sponsored programs for homeless rehabilitation are more like detention centers--a conclusion I've drawn mostly using anecdotal evidence.
State-sponsored vocational rehabilitation programs are far from detention centers. I don't know exactly what program you refer to when you describe homeless rehabilitation as such either. But, I think that we can agree that private enterprises would likely never want to create a holistic "homeless rehab" program to get people placed into jobs. The homeless can't pay for it. 

Don't underestimate the detriments of depression or anxiety. They cost employers (2) and are major predictors of gainful employment (3). The cost of depression alone is pegged to be $210 billion dollars per year (8). Employers worry about the cost of accommodating mentally ill people, cohesion with other coworkers, and absenteeism (4). Those with depression are often blamed for being unproductive when compared to their peers, too (4). 

There's also the issue of severity. Homeless people are more likely to be victimized by sexual predators and perpetrators of assault. These traumas tend to worsen mental health issues. A 2015 HUD study concluded that 25% of the homeless population had a severe mental illness using head counts from 2015 (or roughly 140,000 people) (5). Other studies tend to conclude that a higher proportion of the homeless population suffers from extreme mental illness.  My original post also shows that there were other barriers to employment too, such as incarceration and persistent stigma against homeless people. Image is also a problem. If someone showed up to an interview for any position, they would be expected to look somewhat presentable. Without showers or clean clothes, the homeless cannot meet this expectation 100% of the time.
 

Manual jobs are always in high demand, and without a price control to stifle what would otherwise be available job opportunities, employers and firms would have more incentive to hire members of the homeless demographic.
The homeless population is aging and may not be suited to manual labor given the wear-and-tear of age and poverty that make them more prone to on-the-job accidents (6). Strapping young people are more likely to take these jobs and outperform their older counterparts. Plus, the homeless are precluded from the workforce for quite a few reasons that my original post highlighted and that I've already written above. These don't suddenly vanish because manual labor jobs have lower entry-level requirements than other sectors. Also, the homeless aren't competing with no-one. What about undocumented immigrants and penal labor? What about sheltered workshops that are allowed to pay their employees sub-minimum wages (and often no more than a few cents an hour) (7)?


Your reference mentions a select group of "cronies" who, by function of their economic practices, are not private. Whenever public money is involved, they can no longer be considered private, only extensions of the apparatus which allows for said crony functions.
Are purely un-subsidized profit-generating institutions going to spend their limited resources rehabilitating the homeless when there are plenty of other highly qualified candidates for jobs? Who will pay for these rehabilitative institutions if they do exist? The homeless? If the private companies are interested in rehabilitating the homeless, they would have already shown this support through their investment. 

The state already does this--or at least, it claims to do this. From your own observation, can you argue that it has had a substantial impact?
I'll put it this way. I would not have been able to pay for higher education without Voc Rehab. A certain member of my family would have never landed a job without Voc Rehab's support, and he is now in the process of being promoted to a full-time position. Finding jobs in FL with a diagnosis is hard. I'll say that and no more. 

I think it's pertinent to consider the morality of the means rather than the morality of the ends.
I concur. I think most people would agree that homelessness is something that should be solved. I don't share this particular view that the homeless are simply unwilling to be employed or that they are at fault for the situation they find themselves in. In the words of Malachi Constant:

"I was a victim of a series of accidents, as are we all."

Can we really control for the effect the private sector would have on the rehabilitation of the homeless when government oversight, regulation, and downright incompetence remains a constant factor?

I don't know what specific laws would prevent companies from starting businesses that served the homeless besides the obvious fact that doing so would be economic suicide. There is no profit in providing services unless they are paid for, and the only way that can happen is through people's hard-earned dollars. I know of few homeless people who would be able to buy their way into these programs and eventually pay for a residence. This is the reason that the public sector is championing the rehabilitation movement, private businesses don't want a part in them, and that's not necessarily bad, but "thems the breaks." 


I hope I don't come off as disrespectful.


#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
there is a discrepancy between pay and productivity

Productivity is not a static value, otherwise, the stock market would never change. You can produce something that is in low demand.
#51
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Well.

Function dictates ability and therefore levels of achievement.

Nonetheless, just answer a question:
Do you think that money is  an integral part of society  or separate from society?

It's just interesting to see how  other discussions within this thread tend to disregard the human issue and solely focus upon the academic issues of monetarism. National debt and debt in general, seemingly become a mathematical and statistical  exercise rather than a social concern.

I personally cannot see how the perceived problem of debt can be addressed unless one also takes into account, perceptible social inequalities.

Nonetheless, I still hold that the monetary system mirrors human ability and therefore as such, is utilised as a stabilising and controlling mechanism that gives order and stability to society.

#52
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
You are conflating the bottom line of the company with the productivity of the individual workers. Stock prices can increase via stock buybacks and policies that endear the company to investors. 70% of Aon's staff suffered a paycut to preserve dividends to stockholders (1). Productivity, then, is probably going to decline as beleaguered workers start firing up their resume and looking elsewhere for comparable work with a higher salary. Yet, investors might think twice about dumping the stock because their dividend is preserved, and in the ill economy in which we live (figuratively and literally) it's surprising that no layoffs are occurring . Fluctuations in stock have also been attributed to top-level management decisions, government bailouts, speculation driving up prices of a particular stock, etc. This might not be true in the long run, as the economic output of a company may sink, preventing future dividends, but in the short term, stocks are not indicative of business success, nor are they a fair predictor of worker productivity. In the long run, it's not true either. If a company employed legions of quality workers, but continues to struggle due to failures at the top level of management, then stock prices will markedly depreciate in the long term even if the workers are effervescent and industrious. If a company has a proven track record of financial success and eluding folly, then the price of their stock may increase even in the face of layoffs (which, as you can probably imagine, decreases productivity of an overall company and individual workers who are beset by financial worries). Many a company with venerated status have been able to pull their stock prices out of a rut with layoffs, with AOL, Hewlett-Packard, and Cisco being among them (2).

In summation, the productivity of a workforce is integral to business success and can drive up stock prices, all else being equal. But, other business decisions have an outsized impact on the stock prices, illustrious companies can drive up stock prices in the long run despite seemingly passing the event horizon into business collapse, and numerous other factors play into stock prices.

Besides, this isn't really my point. My point was that, on average, wages lag behind productivity in about 60% of the workforce (i.e. non-supervisor and production roles).



#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@blamonkey
Lol, that post was a whole lot of pedantic nothing. Productivity is a completely useless economic statistic without clarification of what is being produced.

I can be very productive at mashing down the stuffing in my chair as I sit in it for 12 hours a day, producing mashed chair stuffing. Of what economic value is that to anyone or any consumer?

Productivity is a statistic the government would use to justify tax increases in lieu of a  statistic that shows any actual real-world value. Total fluff.

Why should I care if the productivity of, say, buggy whip makers declines?  It matters not to most of the world.

What about if the productivity of the workers at medicine companies that produce the medicine I have to take daily to stay alive drops? That's bad for me and everyone else in the world that needs it.

Productivity is NOT a static value without clarification. Useless fluff out of context.

In some contexts, productivity itself is a very bad thing. Take the productivity of Chinese recycling plants knowing that China dumps the waste excess into the Ocean.

A decrease in the productivity of those workers is a great thing for the world (and the sea animals).

Cool miner productivity is another good example.

#54
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
So, the product is what is important. Okay then. You like your computer, right? The people who produced that computer probably didn't get compensated the full worth of their labor. The same could be said for 60% of the workforce. That's my point. This has nothing to do with taxes. I made that argument to prove that the private sector fails to compensate people enough for a hypothetical "homeless rehab program" run entirely by businesses that Athias seemed to have posed (although, he only obliquely referred to the private sector solving homelessness, so maybe that's not accurate). Sure, it isn't the strongest point (the fact that the homeless cannot pay for such rehabilitation is likely more important,) and the gap is not as extreme as previously thought, but nonetheless, it exists. 

Incidentally, taking any argument out of context is pedantic. 

#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@blamonkey
I'm not taking any issue with what you wrote actually, it was while reading your 1st source, the pedantic academic paper glorifying productivity for productivity's sake by assuming in the thesis all productivity, regardless of the product, is assigned a similar wage. "Increases in productivity have long been associated with increases in compensation for employees."  that kind of statement is useless without the context of what is being produced. A coal miner will be compensated much less per unit produced than a person working at a California energy plant where blackouts are common. I didn't really mean to direct it at you.

The academic paper constantly brings up the term deflator without clarifying what it is. They don't even make a casual pass at explaining the why of the lack of demand for products among the studied industries in the paper.

It just reminds me of the type of misleading and flawed economic academic papers  used to justify the 77 cent "wage gap"


#56
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, sorry about that. 
#57
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Wait, you edited your comment. Let me address those new points, starting with the GDP deflator. 

For what it's worth, the term "deflator" refers to a method by which inflation is calculated. As it is used in the study, the consumer deflator refers to measures to correct for inflation in consumption data, and the producer deflator refers to measures to correct for inflation in production data. 

As for your first argument, the study compares a percentage increase in productivity with subsequent wage gain. They find that for supervisory positions tend to have a one-to-one increase in wage per percentage increase in productivity. This is not the case for about 60% of the workforce. To calculate the net increase in productivity, the study relies on the net domestic product divided by hours worked to calculate percentage increases in worker output and compare that to compensation. You seem to care about the product being made or service being provided. The BLS data from my previous post delineates disparities by industry and finds that certain economic sectors suffer more from the gap than others, but for Retail, Information, Manufacturing, and a sundry of other sectors, this discrepancy is true (1). If you want micro level data, here is a list of the 25 most underpaid jobs per the market value calculated by Glassdoor (a job-searching website) (2). 

But again, my point was that the supposed private-sector solution for solving homelessness was not a possibility. There is plenty of data that finds other explanations for this discrepancy, and I'm not refuting that insomuch as I am documenting that in some instances, private industries do not pay for the full worth of their workforce, which makes some jobs unattractive to potential employees. Compounding this issue is the fact that homeless people cannot pay for rehabilitation. 

Sources

#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@blamonkey
private industries do not pay for the full worth of their workforce

This is wrong.

For the exact same reasons studies falsely claimed women were willing to work for less pay with the exact same job output as men.

If it was true, companies would hire only women, or the homeless.
#59
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
?

Workers are not always compensated fully for the profit they generate. I never said anything regarding women, the homeless, or any other demographic. 

Your claim seems to be that if women are willing to earn less, companies will exclusively hire women to reduce expenditures and by extension bulk up profit margins. If pay were the only factor that employers cared about, maybe you would be correct. However, qualifications, image, background checks, and innumerable other factors play into whether someone is hired. Pay is likely more important for low-skilled, minimum wage labor which is why women are over-represented in minimum wage jobs (1). Also, there is the matter of the pool of applicants available for hire. Not every job has a potential woman hire.

Incidentally, measuring the impact of implicit bias in hiring is simple. There is ample evidence suggesting that a traditionally feminine name on a resume substantially lowers the chance of a callback from an employer all else being equal (2) (3) (4).


#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Unlike the homeless and women, there does exist a group that actually is willing to work for less pay with the exact same job output.

Illegal linvader labor.

Unlike women and the homeless, there are plenty of businesses that will hire ONLY illegal labor exclusively, and no one else because of that fact.

Nowhere in America will you see competitive businesses hire only women or only homeless where men could have the exact same job output (or better) for the same pay.

I currently work as a man in a vastly dominated female industry. My job is insanely easy and secure because very few men compete for my job, as a result, I get paid very well if only to keep me from leaving. If the women were willing to do what I do, for less pay, you can bet immediately, from a gigantic pool of waiting women, I would be replaced. Yet the opposite is actually the case. Why do you think that is? Do you really think my value as a token male in that industry is that high?  That they just keep me employed there and "overpay me" because I have testicles instead of ovaries? If it really was the case that women produce more for less pay, why am I comfortable in a job overwhelmingly dominated by women?  I verily outperform most of the women, and that is the reason, not because I was born with a penis. Were it not true, my employer would easily have 100% females employed instead of 93% considering the insanely low amount of males capable of performing my job duties competently.
 
Again, I wake up every day as a man with full job security, knowing full well that the claim "women produce more for less pay" is an absolute bullshit claim in my industry.
None of my clients request my services because I have a penis. It's because I outperform the hundreds of women with job applications for my spot. I've actually found most women to be much less competent and less ambitious. Their incompetence is the reason for my complacency, and believe me, I am a very lazy person.

The same claim about women also applies to the homeless. While there are many problems to address with the homeless, claiming the homeless have untapped work value that job creators simply refuse to capitalize on for whatever reason you might concoct is bonkers considering how many job creators will accept illegal labor (especially homeless illegal labor) in a heartbeat if the government will let them get away with it.