Debate Resolution: "The United States ought to institute a federal jobs guarantee"

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Debate Resolution: "The United States ought to institute a federal jobs guarantee"

PRO:

Speaking from a purely economic perspective (culturally we conflate money with morality), homeless people and prisoners cost the state roughly $20,000.00 per person per year.  School children in the USA receive a subsidy of roughly $15,000.00 per child per year.  Homeless people & prisoners & school children are unproductive members of society (jobless).  It would be a great boost to the economy (culturally we conflate money with morality) if we found some jobs for these individuals (since we also tend to conflate laziness with immorality).

Of course a "jobs guarantee" probably doesn't mean "mandatory labor camps".

CON:

Speaking from a purely economic perspective (culturally we conflate money with morality), a deep, primal fear of becoming homeless and a deep, primal fear of being sent to prison contributes immensely to economic productivity.  This fundamental and essential primal fear is what keeps the working class (80% of the country) going to jobs they hate, overlooking safety violations, taking verbal abuse from customers and managers, and accepting extremely low wages (keeping consumer prices competitive).

If these workers were "guaranteed a job", then they would walk away from these wretched, dead-end, often physically dangerous jobs (with no retirement or health guarantees) and the nation's entrepreneurs would go out of business.  These businesses would probably be replaced by government-run replacements because the government would have a huge surplus of employees due to their "jobs guarantee".  This would lead to a totalitarian state, and everybody knows that totalitarian state = teh evil.

Therefore, "The United States ought to institute a federal jobs guarantee" = "totalitarian state" = evil.
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Brutal, what if the government were to be the employer of last resort ?  This would create near full employment and livable wages for all workers who are serious about wanting and holding a job.

That is, give everyone who has applied for unemployment insurance, or anyone who wishes to work, a job providing public services. There is an inexhaustible list of services that we could use, such as maintenance and clean-up of roads and bridges, public buildings and public spaces, child and elder care so no one would be prohibited from getting a job because they have to care for their children or parents, transportation services so everyone could get to their job.  The list is truly endless.

At $15 per hour, these jobs would not be cushy. They would require 40 hours of hard, regular work per week. They would be true jobs and, at the same time, the government employees would be free, and encouraged, to take jobs in the private workforce. Private employers looking for workers would have to compete for them, offering better wages, working conditions or benefits.

If a worker does not live up to the requirements for the job, is prone to come to work late or call in sick too often, they would be fired just like any other employer would do. A private company could hire these malcontents at whatever wage they wish (there would be no minimum wage) but they would have to put up with the shoddy work ethics that were the cause of the termination.

For this, we would eliminate all unemployment insurance, welfare, housing subsidies and food stamps.  Everyone who wants to work would be able to work as there would be a variety of transportation options as well as plenty of child- and elder-care available.  All could be subsidized or free.

In exchange for a guaranteed job and to help to pay for the program, all tax deductions could be eliminated (simplifying taxes to one page) resulting in no costs of tax preparation and reduction of the size and complicated job of the IRS.

We could have a beautiful, well-maintained America with everyone who wants a job, working and earning a livable wage.
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i would support a guaranteed job program, now that i think about it, because it would make folks more productive. i wouldn't want them just picking up liter and such though, id want them to be working for the private sector and subsidized by the government, so that it's not pointless work. if it was pointless work, it's basically just a handout with little to show for it. also, i wouldn't want the job to pay fifteen bucks... id want it to be more like eight bucks, maybe ten.... that way it's viewed as a last resort job. 
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't think a family could survive on a $8 ~ $10 per hour job, Nate.  That's only $17 ~ $21 thousand per year, working full time..  In no way could a working mom afford childcare in order to work for an income like that.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,432
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not against communities of people instituting employment of last resort as AddledBrain put it.
If it proves advantageous, other communities should follow, But I dislike big government being involved in matters that citizens 'ought be able to fix themselves.
I 'really think that removing the autonomy, power, and identity of states over time was a mistake.
Pandemic - Makes sense for government to 'offer some guidance.
Hurricane - Makes sense for government to 'offer some guidance.
Flood - Makes sense for government to 'offer some guidance.
Famine - Makes sense for government to 'offer some guidance.

Immigration, well, now that states identities and laws are mixed so much, states 'have to get involved in other states business, and though it goes against my grain, it makes sense for big government to have an active role in controlling immigration, and stopping illegal immigration.

Which ruins much of the narrative of local right, that I like.
Or rather shows how corrupt 'I think it has become.

Rambling,
Anyway, I'm not against communities of people instituting employment of last resort as AddledBrain put it.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@AddledBrain
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of the conundrum, but have you considered how we could handle the 10% (33 million out of 330 million)?

AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@3RU7AL
  Brutal, people with low IQ are ultimately employable.  This is being proven by industry today.  They love and take pride in their precision of repetitive jobs.  Employers like that they rarely call in sick, and can be trusted to do their jobs competently and thoroughly.

  There are many jobs that would bore higher IQ workers and, over time, would be done less and less adequately or accurately by a worker with a higher IQ.  No, I think lower IQ Citizens are an asset to the workforce.  There are plenty of jobs for them.


Anyone with an IQ below, say, 75 would be treated the same way as they are now.  It's a disability that must be handled.  Often they are institutionalized.