Federal Job Guarantee

[Industrialsize]

Doing “ something” can be much worse than doing nothing at all. Shouldn’t any legislation that offers a “jobs guarantee” outline what those jobs will be?

It is a naked and shallow attempt by Sanders to buy votes. It isn’t a bad idea, it is a horrible idea. Government will then be in the business of competing with private enterprise for labor. Private enterprise will be providing the funds, through taxation, to pay people not to work in private enterprise. That will grossly distort the labor market.

Amongst dumb ideas, this is a doozie.

What a terrible idea:

• As part of the Green New Deal, we need millions of workers to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure—roads, bridges, drinking water systems, wastewater plants, rail, schools, affordable housing—and build our 100% sustainable energy system. This infrastructure is critical to a thriving, green economy.
• At a time when our early childhood education system is totally inadequate, we need hundreds of thousands of workers to provide quality care to the young children of our country.
• As the nation ages, we will need many more workers to provide supportive services for seniors to help them age in their homes and communities, which is where they want to be.

 

[Perados]

Agreed. It can be redefined to show whatever you want. At any given moment, it can or cannot include:
1. The underemployed.
2. Those who have given up.

It reminds me of the Cost of Living Index, which is based on the costs of household items in order to put a number on "inflation", and is used to adjust benefits paid out. Maybe it included steak at one point, but now it includes chopped hamburger instead...

A few years back inflation got "adjusted"...
It's not that easy to replace steak by hamburger. They actually orientate on what people consume and how much.
The question is how much... do you buy a new car every 7 years, or every 5? This would make a big difference.
But even this isn't the most efficient way to influence the inflation rate...

And again the best way to influence a statistic is to change the definition...
What is inflation? - price increase is the easy answer, but how do you measure it? Not every price increase is an inflation.

If we have an innovation and therefore a price increase, it's not an inflation.

For example:

Currently I sell a gallon of milk for $1, but now I'm able to offer a milk with more vitamins and even is able to heal cancer and I sell the gallon for $1,20... in this case my price increase is connected to a higher value of my good. This good is no longer comparable to my old one... this isn't inflation.

In a different case, I sell my average milk and my employees demand more money. This costs increase will force me to sell my milk for $1,20... now we have inflation.



But what if I change just small, unimportant parts, like the package? I no longer sell milk in 1 gallon, but in a 6pack of 0.5 litres... I argue that this will increase the comfort of the customer and therefore will sell it for $1,20 instead of $1.
An increase of comfort means it's not an inflation


You are free to decide what is an innovation and what inflation...

 

[Klingsor]

Doing “ something” can be much worse than doing nothing at all.

Or much better. After all, it's not that high a bar.

Shouldn’t any legislation that offers a “jobs guarantee” outline what those jobs will be?

I would imagine it will, though no one's consulted with me about it.

It is a naked and shallow attempt by Sanders to buy votes.

Then at least he's learned what it takes to become president nowadays.

It isn’t a bad idea, it is a horrible idea. Government will then be in the business of competing with private enterprise for labor.

Somehow, I was under the impression government *does* compete with private enterprise for labor.

Private enterprise will be providing the funds, through taxation, to pay people not to work in private enterprise. That will grossly distort the labor market.

You mean, make it more like it is now?

 

[554279]

Its a general measure and is very useful. It is a measure over time, you can use it to compare employment prospects for different time periods and yes it does measure the relative numbers of discouraged workers.

3.6% unemployment is unheralded and rather stunning and indicates a thriving economy.

I wouldn't use the word "unheralded", as it has been been equal to or lower on numerous occasions. It also climbed back up.

Compare Today's Unemployment with the Past

 

[Thikn2velvet1]

What a terrible idea:

• As part of the Green New Deal, we need millions of workers to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure—roads, bridges, drinking water systems, wastewater plants, rail, schools, affordable housing—and build our 100% sustainable energy system. This infrastructure is critical to a thriving, green economy.
• At a time when our early childhood education system is totally inadequate, we need hundreds of thousands of workers to provide quality care to the young children of our country.
• As the nation ages, we will need many more workers to provide supportive services for seniors to help them age in their homes and communities, which is where they want to be.

Yes it is a terrible idea. We are at 3.6% unemployment now, where will these workers come from?

So we are going to build more government pre schools in order to handle all the pre schoolers? Again we are at 3.6% unemployment, where are they going to find all this untapped labor?


Please answer where one might find all this labor?

 

[Thikn2velvet1]

I wouldn't use the word "unheralded", as it has been been equal to or lower on numerous occasions. It also climbed back up.

Compare Today's Unemployment with the Past

Yes it is unheralded since WW2. And yes it will climb back up, eventually. If you are just arguing to be obtuse, have at it with others. I am right and I won’t get into your endless argumentative discourse.

 

[Thikn2velvet1]

Or much better. After all, it's not that high a bar.



I would imagine it will, though no one's consulted with me about it.



Then at least he's learned what it takes to become president nowadays.



Somehow, I was under the impression government *does* compete with private enterprise for labor.



You mean, make it more like it is now?

Arguing just to argue? I know where this leads. Have a pleasant day and go argue with others.

 

[Klingsor]

Arguing just to argue? I know where this leads. Have a pleasant day and go argue with others.

Sorry, I forgot: No arguing in the Politics forum.

 

[IntactMale]

Yeah, it would be a real shame if we had more jobs than we had people to fill the positions. If you missed your first day of economics 101 then you'll understand how that kind of a situation would be processed by the law of supply and demand. Imagine a world in which people were fairly compensated for their work, even generously compensated. What a tragedy, right?

 

[Thikn2velvet1]

Yeah, it would be a real shame if we had more jobs than we had people to fill the positions. If you missed your first day of economics 101 then you'll understand how that kind of a situation would be processed by the law of supply and demand. Imagine a world in which people were fairly compensated for their work, even generously compensated. What a tragedy, right?

We do have more jobs now than there are prospective workers. People are fairly compensated for their work. They are generously compensated for their work today, as we speak.

You won’t be able to name one job where a worker is underpaid, given the value of his/her skills. Just saying people are underpaid is just that, a few words without value.

Offering a recession type jobs program whereby jobs are going unfilled NOW is bad policy.

And to be fair, running a huge budget deficit when we are at full employment is bad policy.

Go have fun arguing now.

 

[554279]

Yes it is unheralded since WW2. And yes it will climb back up, eventually. If you are just arguing to be obtuse, have at it with others. I am right and I won’t get into your endless argumentative discourse.

I just said I wouldn't use the word "unheralded".

Don't act like you're an unbiased character here. You have a track record, much like everyone else.

There is no arguing to be obtuse, other than yourself.

 

[Thikn2velvet1]

I just said I wouldn't use the word "unheralded".

Don't act like you're an unbiased character here. You have a track record, much like everyone else.

There is no arguing to be obtuse, other than yourself.

Have a great day!

 

[554279]

Have a great day!

Likewise

 

[IntactMale]

We do have more jobs now than there are prospective workers. People are fairly compensated for their work. They are generously compensated for their work today, as we speak.

You won’t be able to name one job where a worker is underpaid, given the value of his/her skills. Just saying people are underpaid is just that, a few words without value.

Offering a recession type jobs program whereby jobs are going unfilled NOW is bad policy.

And to be fair, running a huge budget deficit when we are at full employment is bad policy.

Go have fun arguing now.

You said yourself that we have 3.6% unemployment. Do you think that those 3.6% of people don't want jobs?

People are not compensated fairly for their work. Wages have been stagnant since the 80's, even your party agrees with that, even if they don't think its a problem.

We are not at full employment, you said that yourself.

Go have fun arguing now? Why are you acting like a little bitch when someone makes a comment about your bullshit. That was the first comment I made on this thread. Meanwhile you're posting bullshit on every thread in this forum. Who the fuck are you not to expect a response. An asshole who can't back up his claims, that's who.

 

[Thikn2velvet1]

You said yourself that we have 3.6% unemployment. Do you think that those 3.6% of people don't want jobs?

People are not compensated fairly for their work. Wages have been stagnant since the 80's, even your party agrees with that, even if they don't think its a problem.

We are not at full employment, you said that yourself.

Go have fun arguing now? Why are you acting like a little bitch when someone makes a comment about your bullshit. That was the first comment I made on this thread. Meanwhile you're posting bullshit on every thread in this forum. Who the fuck are you not to expect a response. An asshole who can't back up his claims, that's who.

I now understand. You are poorly educated.

Full employment:

For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate.[8]

I know numbers and definitions. You don’t.

Have a nice day.

 

[Thikn2velvet1]

There are more job openings than there are people looking for work. Apparently this is the first time in history. Crazy stupid is offering a job guarantee when there are now no workers left to employ:

The number of job openings in the US rose to 7.488 million in March 2019 from a nine-month low of 7.142 million in the previous month, easily beating market expectations of 7.240 million. Job openings increased in a number of industries, with the largest gains in transportation, warehousing, and utilities (+87,000), construction (+73,000), and real estate and rental and leasing (+57,000). By contrast, a decline was seen in federal government openings (-15,000). Job Offers in the United States averaged 4388.64 Thousand from 2000 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 7626 Thousand in November of 2018 and a record low of 2264 Thousand in July of 2009.

 

[IntactMale]

I now understand. You are poorly educated.

Full employment:

For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate.[8]

I know numbers and definitions. You don’t.

Have a nice day.

No, you don't understand. 97% is not the same as 100%, not even close to six sigma, but you don't know what that means. Either way, it doesn't really get to the point of the matter. You're the same person who will claim to fight for the working man, but then won't make the argument for the working man in this case.

You don't know numbers or definitions. You accept a definition of "full employment" in which less than 100% of employable people are employed. Every time you post on this forum your confirm your idiocy.

Keep throwing insults though, since you can't make an argument that holds water.

 

[554279]

It's not a road filled with Krispee Kreme doughnuts either.

Tight labor market continues in 2018 as the unemployment rate falls to a 49-year low : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Part of the summary from the report.

"One takeaway is that even though unemployment rates have declined to the lowest levels in nearly 50 years, many of those who are unemployed have been without work for an extended period. For example, many unemployed people have been actively searching for a job for 27 weeks, 52 weeks, or even 99 weeks and longer. At the same time though, the number of unemployed job losers continued to decline and employment rose for most major occupational categories in 2018."

The number of people working multiple jobs hovers around 5% (which most people will not do if they are making such spectacular wages).

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

 

[Thikn2velvet1]

No, you don't understand. 97% is not the same as 100%, not even close to six sigma, but you don't know what that means. Either way, it doesn't really get to the point of the matter. You're the same person who will claim to fight for the working man, but then won't make the argument for the working man in this case.

You don't know numbers or definitions. You accept a definition of "full employment" in which less than 100% of employable people are employed. Every time you post on this forum your confirm your idiocy.

Keep throwing insults though, since you can't make an argument that holds water.

Have a wonderful week!

 

[wallyj84]

Yes it is a terrible idea. We are at 3.6% unemployment now, where will these workers come from?

So we are going to build more government pre schools in order to handle all the pre schoolers? Again we are at 3.6% unemployment, where are they going to find all this untapped labor?


Please answer where one might find all this labor?

One again, the unemployment rate is a misleading statistic. Look at the labor force participation rate. It is very low, much lower than it has been in a long time.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Not all of this is due to a bad economy, please see my link below explaining the labor force participation rate and why it is so low, but the fact that it isn't rising with unemployment going down is a sign that something is very wrong.

5 Reasons Why People Dropped Out of the Labor Force and Won't Return

The way you're harping on about this makes me think you're a Trump supporter and want to protect his record, but this isn't about Trump. The LFPR has been low since the great recession. Obama didn't fix it and Hillary wouldn't have fixed this problem either. This isn't an attack on Trump. It is a comment on the weaknesses of the US economy that go well beyond who is in office.