Skip to main content
27 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 22, 2019 at 15:33 comment added LN6595 In the US infrastructure projects are often marketed as a palatable way to create government jobs.
Oct 28, 2017 at 9:38 history tweeted twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/924208656543113216
Oct 25, 2017 at 7:58 comment added Layna As a side-note, the German welfare-system has got "1-Euro-Jobs", where people get paid one euro per hour on top of their welfare-money, mostly to offset extra-costs like wear and tear on clothing and transport to the workplace. There is a law in place that these may NOT replace actually paid jobs, but that is rarely truly enforced. This shows: Gouvernment-funded jobs may actually COST fully paid ones!
Oct 24, 2017 at 17:28 answer added R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE timeline score: 1
Oct 24, 2017 at 15:00 answer added MSalters timeline score: 3
Oct 24, 2017 at 13:32 comment added Hobbes The government as 'employer of last resort' was common in Communist countries (nintil.com/2016/07/30/…), giving rise to lots of pointless make-work jobs.
Oct 24, 2017 at 11:31 comment added gerrit to the ones actually paying for UBI, you appear to be assuming UBI would be funded by income tax. As admitted by many proponents of UBI, that won't work very well. Consider the proposals to fund this through taxing robots or through a commons capital depository instead.
Oct 24, 2017 at 7:06 history protected Philipp
Oct 24, 2017 at 3:41 comment added Todd Wilcox Some advocates of UBI argue that it would enable people who would like to contribute to society in ways that do not pay well to do so. This would include all kinds of artists, local politicians, volunteers, farmers, etc.
Oct 24, 2017 at 2:34 answer added Rupert Morrish timeline score: 5
Oct 24, 2017 at 0:29 comment added user4012 @blip - I see you met some of my fellow software programmer co-workers :)
Oct 24, 2017 at 0:00 comment added user1530 One thing to consider is that 'having a job' is not necessarily 'contributing to society'. There are plenty of jobs that actively damage society.
Oct 23, 2017 at 22:28 comment added Craig Tullis I definitely do NOT believe in everything Adam Smith espoused in The Wealth of Nations, including objectionable ideas about race and equality. But I'm not obligated to embrace those ideas in order to also embrace the notion that a free market economy, for all of it's ills, is still the best solution. What I do think is potentially a game-changer is the coming robot-driven economy, in which most humans could become economically irrelevant.
Oct 23, 2017 at 22:24 comment added Craig Tullis I mean, the Communist Manifesto is newer than Adam Smith, and I certainly don't believe it's chock-full of great ideas. "New" doesn't automatically mean "better," although sometimes it can mean that. The problem with a guaranteed job is sort of the same as the problem with guaranteed money in any form, which is that it tends to kill individual incentive and ultimately make those receiving it worse off than they were before. I strongly believe in a social safety net, while recognizing that the welfare system in the U.S. has been, by and large, a disaster. There must be a better way.
Oct 23, 2017 at 22:20 comment added Peter M. - stands for Monica @Craig - So you assume that there was no economic knowledge gained since Adam Smith? Is it possible that Keynes also read Smith, and added some more understanding? But again, this is about politics, and preferences we all have about how society should solve the problems (and what the problems are).
Oct 23, 2017 at 22:03 comment added Craig Tullis @PeterMasiar Sorry, Adam Smith guy, here, for the most part. Fairly late in the period we call The Great Depression, unemployment rates in places like France were significantly lower than in the United States, where the New Deal held sway, and the recovery was more sluggish. Of course unemployment is only one metric. There was also escalating protectionism, high and rising tariffs on imported goods, and so on during that period, in all countries.
Oct 23, 2017 at 21:59 comment added Peter M. - stands for Monica @Craig - re "New Deal extended the effects of the Great Depression by many years" - Keynesian economists would disagree. It is unsubstantiated political statement, not a fact.
Oct 23, 2017 at 21:55 comment added Craig Tullis The New Deal was anything but a job guarantee program. It was the New Deal that led to the saying, "that's great work, if you can get it." Long lines, relatively few jobs. The ones who did get hired were paid relatively well. On top of that, the New Deal extended the effects of the Great Depression by many years.
Oct 23, 2017 at 20:33 comment added David Starkey So you guarantee a job, then that person just goofs off or never even shows up. Do they still get paid? Are they still guaranteed a job? Depending on the answers, it's not that different.
Oct 23, 2017 at 20:03 answer added Steve Smith timeline score: 15
Oct 23, 2017 at 19:31 comment added Relaxed “No incentive to work” might be frequently heard but that's mostly a superficial argument appealing to those who have no idea what they are talking about. A more serious challenge for universal basic income is making the maths work, i.e. funding a reasonably high basic income without massive new taxes and/or making those who currently receive means-tested welfare benefits worse off.
Oct 23, 2017 at 17:00 answer added user4012 timeline score: 39
Oct 23, 2017 at 16:13 comment added Jack Of All Trades 234 @notstoreboughtdirt That's actually what I was referring to when mentioning the new deal. The WPA was a subset of that overarching idea, from what I understand.
Oct 23, 2017 at 16:11 review Close votes
Oct 23, 2017 at 19:06
Oct 23, 2017 at 16:09 history edited Jack Of All Trades 234 CC BY-SA 3.0
Tried to clarify body text to better describe my question.
Oct 23, 2017 at 16:04 comment added user9389 Perhaps you may want to look at the WPA. Not exactly recent, but pretty clearly in line with what you describe.
Oct 23, 2017 at 14:09 history asked Jack Of All Trades 234 CC BY-SA 3.0