Your Government Owes You a Job

[regent]

When did America ever have a self-regulating market? We didn't have it with England and we didn't have with our new Constitution. In short America never had a pure self regulating market, and can anyone name a nation today that does? Most economies today are in degrees not purity.
As I remember Adam Smith changed some of his ideas before he died, as did Jefferson. Ideas on paper and in talk might look good, but in practice they sometimes miss the mark. There is a reason most industrial economies today have a mixture of capitalism and socialism, with regulation. It may be the price a nations pays for allowing people to vote?

 

[georgephillip]

Your support for the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
Perhaps you didn't realize Jimmy Carter was president at that time.

Supporting one piece of legislation signed by Carter doesn't imply hero worship.
I believe the US Economy would be stronger today if congress implemented provisions of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, regardless of who was president at that time.

"The Act set specific numerical goals for the President to attain. By 1983, unemployment rates should be not more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over, and inflation rates should not be over 4%.

"By 1988, inflation rates should be 0%.

"The Act allows Congress to revise these goals over time.

"If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a 'reservoir of public employment.'

"These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector."

Humphrey?Hawkins Full Employment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WHY does Government NEED to meddle in the FREE MARKET in the first place? ANSWER that...THEY should but the HELL OUT.

Because your MARKET isn't FREE of undue rentier influence. Speculators, market manipulators, and vulture capitalists value short-term profits over the long-term stability the US experienced between 1945 and 1970. Speculators routinely game capitalism's inherent instability. When their bets pay off, they keep the profits, and when they don't "government" socializes their losses. That represents a failure of government BECAUSE every government yet devised serves the interests of it richest citizens at the expense of its majority, EXCEPT in times of existential crisis like the Great Depression and WWII. The solution isn't to minimize government; it is to remove the influence of private wealth from the workings of government.

 

[georgephillip]

Starting salary $25.00 an hr.
Six weeks vacation to start
Unlimited paid sick days
Ten paid hoildays per year.
Six paid personal days.

How's this sound....
Would you like anything else...
How about the company pays your housing costs?
Rent or mortgage up to $30,000.00 per year.

If this is not acceptable the company will consider upping it's offer......

Geez..... this site is really attracting the way out lefties.

Actually...

"It may sound expensive, but a JG would pay for itself. “Deficit owls” argue we can afford much more federal spending of this type. Remember, current anti-poverty programs like unemployment insurance pay people not to work, destroying human capital, sales, output, and the tax base. Estimated spending for a national infrastructure JG is $750 billion; bottom-up models, cheaper. JG outlays would replace or reduce the costs of much current anti-poverty spending (roughly $746 billion), with exponential benefits. The Treasury should finance a JG, but national, state or local agencies could administer it."

What do you have to lose except poverty itself?

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Those jobs produce nothing. However, I agree that rather than give people welfare or unemployment, they should be given work to do in exchange for benefits. I also agree that the laziness of prisoners would be greatly reduced by the use of chain gangs.

It's the work to be done that the leeches refuse. Sure, put the welfare recipients to work on road crews filling potholes, they just won't do it. They have to have an incentive, like no money at all if they refuse to work. Now we have a discussion.

Which of the following job "produce nothing?"

"...New Deal employees built dams, bridges, roads and parks. Similar efforts have succeeded in Sweden and South Africa. Congressman Conyers has proposed creating enough public works for full employment, targeting decaying, unsustainable infrastructure.

"But JG employees needn’t construct trains or solar panels.

"Locally administered, non-capital-intensive programs have thrived in Argentina and India.

"Economist Pavlina Tcherneva has extensively researched Argentina’s decentralized strategy, which emphasized childcare, eldercare and community gardening, empowered women in particular and swiftly slashed extreme poverty by 25 percent.

"A bottom-up JG could bolster small businesses and nonprofits, and co-ops could apply for JG grants to pay wages.

"Neighborhoods wouldn’t have to bankroll Walmart or McDonald’s."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Chain gangs are relics of Jim Crow and worse.
How do you feel about debtors' prisons?

 

[georgephillip]

the Democrat/Socialist/commie party isn't even hiding it anymore

they are now in your FACE with this socialist/commie shit

fall for it at your own peril and being a free person...that's THEIR PLAN for you

What's YOUR PLAN?
More prisons and wars and carried interest for billionaires?
Is that FREEDOM in your mind?
Are you frightened by the fact you are one of the superfluous people to the rich parasites you constantly suck up to?
Is that what you can't FACE?

 

[regent]

Actually...

"It may sound expensive, but a JG would pay for itself. “Deficit owls” argue we can afford much more federal spending of this type. Remember, current anti-poverty programs like unemployment insurance pay people not to work, destroying human capital, sales, output, and the tax base. Estimated spending for a national infrastructure JG is $750 billion; bottom-up models, cheaper. JG outlays would replace or reduce the costs of much current anti-poverty spending (roughly $746 billion), with exponential benefits. The Treasury should finance a JG, but national, state or local agencies could administer it."

What do you have to lose except poverty itself?

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Those jobs produce nothing. However, I agree that rather than give people welfare or unemployment, they should be given work to do in exchange for benefits. I also agree that the laziness of prisoners would be greatly reduced by the use of chain gangs.

It's the work to be done that the leeches refuse. Sure, put the welfare recipients to work on road crews filling potholes, they just won't do it. They have to have an incentive, like no money at all if they refuse to work. Now we have a discussion.

Which of the following job "produce nothing?"

"...New Deal employees built dams, bridges, roads and parks. Similar efforts have succeeded in Sweden and South Africa. Congressman Conyers has proposed creating enough public works for full employment, targeting decaying, unsustainable infrastructure.

"But JG employees needn’t construct trains or solar panels.

"Locally administered, non-capital-intensive programs have thrived in Argentina and India.

"Economist Pavlina Tcherneva has extensively researched Argentina’s decentralized strategy, which emphasized childcare, eldercare and community gardening, empowered women in particular and swiftly slashed extreme poverty by 25 percent.

"A bottom-up JG could bolster small businesses and nonprofits, and co-ops could apply for JG grants to pay wages.

"Neighborhoods wouldn’t have to bankroll Walmart or McDonald’s."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Chain gangs are relics of Jim Crow and worse.
How do you feel about debtors' prisons?

During the New Deal one government agency, the WPA built 651,000 miles of new highways, 124,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, 18.000 playgrounds, 125,000 public buildings, including 41.300 schools. That was one agency, another agency built dams airports and other things we still use today. That building was done in lieu of welfare to the able bodied.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WHY does Government NEED to meddle in the FREE MARKET in the first place? ANSWER that...THEY should but the HELL OUT.

1. Capitalism can only exist with government support. Courts, police, infrastructure, etc. are all required for it to work.
2. Regulation is not Meddling, it's necessary. Unregulated Capitalism will soon destroy itself, which is why no nation on the planet allows for such a thing.

Start your education with Adam Smith. He understood both of those basic points, and wrote of them.

Invisible hand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Invisible hand (disambiguation).
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (October 2013)

In economics, the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor used by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace. Individuals can make profit, and maximize it without the need for government intervention.[1] The exact phrase is used just three times in Smith's writings, but has come to capture his important claim that individuals' efforts to maximize their own gains in a free market may benefit society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions. Smith came up with the two meanings of the phrase from Richard Cantillon who developed both economic applications in his model of the isolated estate.[2]

He first introduced the concept in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, written in 1759. In this work, however, the idea of the market is not discussed, and the word "capitalism" is never used.[3] By the time he wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Smith had studied the economic models of the French Physiocrats for many years, and in this work the invisible hand is more directly linked to the concept of the market: specifically that it is competition between buyers and sellers that channels the profit motive of individuals on both sides of the transaction such that improved products are produced and at lower costs. This process whereby competition channels ambition toward socially desirable ends comes out most clearly in The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 7.

The idea of markets automatically channeling self-interest toward socially desirable ends is a central justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy, which lies behind neoclassical economics.[4] In this sense, the central disagreement between economic ideologies can be viewed as a disagreement about how powerful the "invisible hand" is. In alternative models, forces which were nascent during Smith's life, such as large-scale industry, finance, and advertising, reduce its effectiveness.[5]

Invisible hand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you either have not read him or you have comprehension problems ...

He is lying in an attempt to prove he is intelligent.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

1. Capitalism can only exist with government support. Courts, police, infrastructure, etc. are all required for it to work.
2. Regulation is not Meddling, it's necessary. Unregulated Capitalism will soon destroy itself, which is why no nation on the planet allows for such a thing.

Start your education with Adam Smith. He understood both of those basic points, and wrote of them.

Invisible hand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Invisible hand (disambiguation).
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (October 2013)

In economics, the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor used by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace. Individuals can make profit, and maximize it without the need for government intervention.[1] The exact phrase is used just three times in Smith's writings, but has come to capture his important claim that individuals' efforts to maximize their own gains in a free market may benefit society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions. Smith came up with the two meanings of the phrase from Richard Cantillon who developed both economic applications in his model of the isolated estate.[2]

He first introduced the concept in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, written in 1759. In this work, however, the idea of the market is not discussed, and the word "capitalism" is never used.[3] By the time he wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Smith had studied the economic models of the French Physiocrats for many years, and in this work the invisible hand is more directly linked to the concept of the market: specifically that it is competition between buyers and sellers that channels the profit motive of individuals on both sides of the transaction such that improved products are produced and at lower costs. This process whereby competition channels ambition toward socially desirable ends comes out most clearly in The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 7.

The idea of markets automatically channeling self-interest toward socially desirable ends is a central justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy, which lies behind neoclassical economics.[4] In this sense, the central disagreement between economic ideologies can be viewed as a disagreement about how powerful the "invisible hand" is. In alternative models, forces which were nascent during Smith's life, such as large-scale industry, finance, and advertising, reduce its effectiveness.[5]

Invisible hand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you either have not read him or you have comprehension problems ...

He is lying in an attempt to prove he is intelligent.

He left the conversation, does this mean we want be friends??

 

[georgephillip]

This Government owes ME and the people NOTHING but Respect, Dignity and LIBERTY. Period.

Takes this shit to the EU you ******* clown.

Ready for that bad news? This government confers respect, dignity, and liberty on the 1% of voters who fund its politicians' election campaigns and retirements. Maybe you'll find what you're looking for in Poland or Ukraine?

"America’s workers would not be subjected to low wage jobs if they were assured of employment at non-poverty wages. Maintenance of full employment with available jobs offering livable wages would accomplish that goal. To get from here to there would require the United States to comply with the terms of an existing law, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978."

Federal Law Requires Job Creation - NYTimes.com

and you fall for that..maybe you like being OWNED by others who will be your masters... but not many in this country do
yet thankfully
you are loyal comrade to the state...scary

Do you understand every state ever created, including ours, has been OWNED by the Vile... Masters of Mankind?

"All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book03/ch04.htm

For forty years, the richest among us have been concentrating their wealth and political power, and they have no intention of liberating you from your chains.

 

[georgephillip]

You have a right to contract with others in an employment capacity, but you do not have a right to a job. That would mean that others must provide their capital, their property for your benefit, which would be a violation of private property.

I think the argument being made is public resources would be mobilized to provide jobs as well as JG (Job Guarantee) grants to small businesses, coops, and non-profits. In addition, "a JG (program) would implement a universal guaranteed wage--effectively the new minimum--and employees could join or leave in response to private sector booms and busts."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

 

[Politico]

They owe me a lot of things. A job isn't one of them.

 

[MACAULAY]

When did America ever have a self-regulating market? We didn't have it with England and we didn't have with our new Constitution. In short America never had a pure self regulating market, and can anyone name a nation today that does? Most economies today are in degrees not purity.
As I remember Adam Smith changed some of his ideas before he died, as did Jefferson. Ideas on paper and in talk might look good, but in practice they sometimes miss the mark. There is a reason most industrial economies today have a mixture of capitalism and socialism, with regulation. It may be the price a nations pays for allowing people to vote?

......................................................

The above is a post with which little ought to be contested.

It clearly implies that America has done pretty well in the past with its system, whatever it is. We all agree with that...as it became the greatest society ever on Earth...all unquestionably based on Christian ideals, Jeffersonian philosophy, and the profit incentive.

But, I believe the poster meant to imply a failure of some kind...and that it was necessary to try something else. I want to believe he didn't mean to say the this, the greatest society ever, needed to change itself all together...I hope he didn't say that, but I am harassed by doubts.

"Big Government" today is a code word for Socialism.

The evils of capitalism have always been known, and there has always been a struggle to combat them.

But this American System remains, though imperfect, the best thus far devised by human intelligence....and it is a surprise to me that so many seem to want to change it to a system which looks suspiciously like the failed experiment in the U.S.S.R.

 

[regent]

When did America ever have a self-regulating market? We didn't have it with England and we didn't have with our new Constitution. In short America never had a pure self regulating market, and can anyone name a nation today that does? Most economies today are in degrees not purity.
As I remember Adam Smith changed some of his ideas before he died, as did Jefferson. Ideas on paper and in talk might look good, but in practice they sometimes miss the mark. There is a reason most industrial economies today have a mixture of capitalism and socialism, with regulation. It may be the price a nations pays for allowing people to vote?

......................................................

The above is a post with which little ought to be contested.

It clearly implies that America has done pretty well in the past with its system, whatever it is. We all agree with that...as it became the greatest society ever on Earth...all unquestionably based on Christian ideals, Jeffersonian philosophy, and the profit incentive.

But, I believe the poster meant to imply a failure of some kind...and that it was necessary to try something else. I want to believe he didn't mean to say the this, the greatest ever, needed to itself all together...I hope he didn't say that, but I am harassed by doubts.

The evils of capitalism have always been known, and there has always been a struggle to combat them. Nobody is to be blamed if they don't like those rich kids.

But this American System remains, though imperfect, the best thus has best the best thus far devised by human intelligence....and it is a surprise to me that so many seem to want to change it to a system which looks suspiciously like the failed experiment in the U.S.S.R.

Nope, I think we have the best of all systems, but what system is it?
As people change the system so the system must change to meet that change. It has been difficult to keep capitalism capitalistic. As new regulations emerge to maintain capitalism a new misuse of capitalism also emerges, it is a never ending game. As Friedman admitted capitalism runs on greed and so it should, but the greed would kill capitalism if left unregulated.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

People Before Profits !!! Lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have a right to contract with others in an employment capacity, but you do not have a right to a job. That would mean that others must provide their capital, their property for your benefit, which would be a violation of private property.

I think the argument being made is public resources would be mobilized to provide jobs as well as JG (Job Guarantee) grants to small businesses, coops, and non-profits. In addition, "a JG (program) would implement a universal guaranteed wage--effectively the new minimum--and employees could join or leave in response to private sector booms and busts."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

I know I could make a better argument for a negative income tax than you can for a job guarantee program.

 

[Antares]

This Government owes ME and the people NOTHING but Respect, Dignity and LIBERTY. Period.

Takes this shit to the EU you ******* clown.

Ready for that bad news? This government confers respect, dignity, and liberty on the 1% of voters who fund its politicians' election campaigns and retirements. Maybe you'll find what you're looking for in Poland or Ukraine?

"America’s workers would not be subjected to low wage jobs if they were assured of employment at non-poverty wages. Maintenance of full employment with available jobs offering livable wages would accomplish that goal. To get from here to there would require the United States to comply with the terms of an existing law, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978."

Federal Law Requires Job Creation - NYTimes.com

Stupid ****, you should learn to read.

HERE IS WHAT YOUR "LAW" dictates.

Explicitly states that the federal government will rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve the four goals.

Instructs the government to take reasonable means to balance the budget.

Instructs the government to establish a balance of trade, i.e., to avoid trade surpluses or deficits.

Mandates the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to establish a monetary policy that maintains long-run growth, minimizes inflation, and promotes price stability.

Instructs the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to transmit an Monetary Policy Report to the Congress twice a year outlining its monetary policy.

Requires the President to set numerical goals for the economy of the next fiscal year in the Economic Report of the President and to suggest policies that will achieve these goals.

Requires the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to connect the monetary policy with the Presidential economic policy.

Humphrey?Hawkins Full Employment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Stephanie]

the Democrat/Socialist/commie party isn't even hiding it anymore

they are now in your FACE with this socialist/commie shit

fall for it at your own peril and being a free person...that's THEIR PLAN for you

What's YOUR PLAN?
More prisons and wars and carried interest for billionaires?
Is that FREEDOM in your mind?
Are you frightened by the fact you are one of the superfluous people to the rich parasites you constantly suck up to?
Is that what you can't FACE?

I'd rather be free to suck to up to who ever I want than be OWNED by this government who you will call, master...I've lived 60 years, worked now 45 of them (still working) and I never needed anyone to find me a job, and not once did I need this government to do it either..
your free to find a country that gives you this, you will probably live in poverty(that's their idea of fixing income equality) making everyone poor, while your govenmenl live lavishly, but you don't seem to mind...the only government can give jobs it to SUCK It's money from you to pay for it..you like sucking off your taxpayers more than the rich? how honorable is that

 

[Moonglow]

We all know we is just selling ourselves to the highest bidder for work, kinda like prostitution...

 

[georgephillip]

the Democrat/Socialist/commie party isn't even hiding it anymore

they are now in your FACE with this socialist/commie shit

fall for it at your own peril and being a free person...that's THEIR PLAN for you

What's YOUR PLAN?
More prisons and wars and carried interest for billionaires?
Is that FREEDOM in your mind?
Are you frightened by the fact you are one of the superfluous people to the rich parasites you constantly suck up to?
Is that what you can't FACE?

I'd rather be free to suck to up to who ever I want than be OWNED by this government who you will call, master...I've lived 60 years, worked now 45 of them (still working) and I never needed anyone to find me a job, and not once did I need this government to do it either..
your free to find a country that gives you this, you will probably live in poverty(that's their idea of fixing income equality) making everyone poor, while your govenmenl live lavishly, but you don't seem to mind...the only government can give jobs it to SUCK It's money from you to pay for it..you like sucking off your taxpayers more than the rich? how honorable is that

Without government and its ability to tax, you would have no job, no money, no security that you could not provide for yourself, and you likely wouldn't have lived for sixty years.

The problem isn't government; it's the influence rich parasites exert over government.

Currently, rich individuals and corporations shelter billion$ out of reach of all government while they invest millions buying the best government money can buy.

They didn't earn those billion$ without government provided infrastructure, and they didn't horde those billion$ without their political whores writing favorable tax and trade legislation, legislation that has produced economic stagnation for the US middle class since 1989.

If you're content with your wage slave existence, go for it but stop confusing it with freedom.

 

[georgephillip]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

"A right to a job may sound outlandish, but it’s common sense. You need dollars to eat, and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.

"If the government wants to protect property with cops, courts, and prisons, issue a single, common currency, and tax and fine us in it, it should at least guarantee we can work for our own dollars.

"Politicians ramble about equality of opportunity and the dignity of work, but to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we need boots.

"And lest our boots stomp each other’s necks in senseless competition for too few jobs, we need a job guarantee.

"A job guarantee isn’t that radical.

"Thomas Paine proposed one in 1791.

"In 1944, FDR included the right to a living wage job in his Second Bill of Rights and his Republican opponent promised state-ensured employment.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the right to work and philosophers Rawls and Dewey advocated government provide enough work.

"LBJ deliberated a JG and Martin Luther King Jr., demanded one."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Since US Capitalism prefers extracting wealth as opposed to producing wealth leading to a situation where median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1989, it becomes clear that US capitalism no longer delivers the goods for a majority of its citizens.

The democratic solution calls for government to provide what the private sector is no longer capable of providing.

There is a word for what yo just described, communism. Why do you think it is going to work better now than it did in the past?

Wait, I know, you finally figured out how to make magic money work, right?

Would you be any less skeptical (or sarcastic) if you became convinced a JG program "could be funded entirely from the savings and additional revenues it would generate"?

http://www.philipharvey.info/fundingjob.pdf

 

[georgephillip]

The govt owes me nothing. Govt owes the constitution an apology.

Why do you imagine government exists?

"Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an 'economic bill of rights' which would guarantee eight specific rights:
Employment, with a living wage
Food, clothing and leisure
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Social security
Education
Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American security, and that America's place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice."

Since government currently affects every human activity in many ways, your apathy isn't conducive to Tranquility or promoting the general Welfare.

Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia