Job Guarantee

[LinusK]

@Waymore

A job is created when there is need. Guaranteeing a job means either A) guaranteeing an individual that there will be a need for his or her services, which is making a prediction that may or may not come true, or B) disconnecting work from its raison d’etre, with all the attendant unintended consequences.

Mechanization makes labor way, way less valuable than it use to be. That’s a huge part of the problem behind unemployment. I’m not sure how to fix it, but a job guarantee isn’t the solution.

“A job is created when there is a need.”

That seems to be factually untrue. During the most recent recession, there were lots of people with needs. Some needed transportation, others needed clothes for their kids, others needed to make rent or mortgage payments. Often those needs went unmet, because people didn’t have jobs.

Ironically, if they’d had jobs, they would have been able to meet their needs, and by doing that, they would have been able to create more jobs for more people.

[kaylasdad99]

@Waymore

A job is created when there is need.

“Need for a job” counts as need.

[Waymore]

A job is a need for labor and/or expertise. If there is no need for either, there is no job.

[LinusK]

@Waymore

A job is a need for labor and/or expertise. If there is no need for either, there is no job.

You seem to be sticking to your point, but you’re not addressing any counter-arguments.

Are you really saying that, for example, in the Great Depression - when people were homeless and hungry - the reason there were no jobs is that nobody needed homes or food?

[Waymore]

@LinusK

You seem to be sticking to your point, but you’re not addressing any counter-arguments.

Are you really saying that, for example, in the Great Depression - when people were homeless and hungry - the reason there were no jobs is that nobody needed homes or food?

No, I’m saying that a job is created by a need for labor, skill, etc.

Assume a job needs to be done. To accomplish this, you need two parties. 1) an employer who is willing and able to compensate an employee for filling the need (of labor, expertise, etc.) 2) an employee willing and able to fill the need.

If there are no such needs in my area which I can fill, then I will be unemployed. A job guarantee would essentially equate with saying “there will be a need you can fill in your area.” But if such a need existed, I wouldn’t be unemployed and wouldn’t need a job guarantee.

[Voyager]

@Waymore

No, I’m saying that a job is created by a need for labor, skill, etc.

Assume a job needs to be done. To accomplish this, you need two parties. 1) an employer who is willing and able to compensate an employee for filling the need (of labor, expertise, etc.) 2) an employee willing and able to fill the need.

If there are no such needs in my area which I can fill, then I will be unemployed. A job guarantee would essentially equate with saying “there will be a need you can fill in your area.” But if such a need existed, I wouldn’t be unemployed and wouldn’t need a job guarantee.

However there are needs for things to be done, like filling in pot holes, which are unmet because of the lack of will of government to find revenues to pay someone to do them. (If you doubt this you have not driven in San Jose recently.)
So the question is whether there is someone willing to pay. Anyone who has survived a layoff knows that the work doesn’t vanish because the people did, and there is plenty of need, just unwillingness to pay. Since we probably don’t want to force industry to pay, government as employer of last resort makes sense.

If you don’t want to use tax money for jobs, fine, but don’t say there is no need.

[LinusK]

@Waymore

No, I’m saying that a job is created by a need for labor, skill, etc.

Assume a job needs to be done. To accomplish this, you need two parties. 1) an employer who is willing and able to compensate an employee for filling the need (of labor, expertise, etc.) 2) an employee willing and able to fill the need.

If there are no such needs in my area which I can fill, then I will be unemployed. A job guarantee would essentially equate with saying “there will be a need you can fill in your area.” But if such a need existed, I wouldn’t be unemployed and wouldn’t need a job guarantee.

Jobs are not really created by “need”, though, are they?

I mean, Donald Trump might not need a mansion overlooking Central Park, but if he wants one, he’ll get it. People might not need Apple Watches, or pet rocks, or 300 pairs of shoes, or hair transplants, but if they want them, and can afford them, they’ll get them. And when they do, they create jobs. Specifically, jobs making mansions, watches, shoes, and transplanting hair.

On the other hand, no matter how much somebody “needs” something - food, shelter, medicine, whatever: if they don’t have any money, they’re not going to get it. Which means no jobs will be created.

So a better statement would be: jobs are created when people with money either want or need stuff.

[robert_columbia]

@Voyager

However there are needs for things to be done, like filling in pot holes, which are unmet because of the lack of will of government to find revenues to pay someone to do them. (If you doubt this you have not driven in San Jose recently.)
So the question is whether there is someone willing to pay. Anyone who has survived a layoff knows that the work doesn’t vanish because the people did, and there is plenty of need, just unwillingness to pay. Since we probably don’t want to force industry to pay, government as employer of last resort makes sense.

If you don’t want to use tax money for jobs, fine, but don’t say there is no need.

However, by the time that the money is found, the government is going to require that all pothole fillers have at least a master’s degree in transportation science or construction technology and then start a program so that by 2025, new pothole fillers will need a DPP (Doctor of Pothole Practice) degree.