Government Sponsored Jobs Program

The problem was the gaps in provision. You'd perhaps have to twin a national rate with wages councils, providing a means to avoid the subsequent problems

That you can't see the folly behind your creative destruction error doesn't impress. I'll give you another 2 years!

 

This is false because the producers of metal can just expand their mining operation by hiring a new worker to mine (I think?) And the price won't go up because supply and demand will both go up.

Well consider that the people buying the goods made by the recruited worker, they will have less money since they bought the good and not spend that money elsewhere, all locally to the recruited worker (unless the goods produced are online...). So it balances out.

 

What's unlimited?

 

The jobs your manifesting out of thin air. If there limited, they'll be competition for them. Hello? Scarcity?

You'd know that if weren't so busy switching between accounts.

 

How would they compete for them. bribe the agency? The only way to get them is to be a reasonably good business, or be a competitor of one locally

 

A limited number of positions 100% subsidized? There's no question they'd be competed for, smaller carrots have been fought over, take HUD grants for example. There were mills of people writing requests to get these grants. Rooms fool of people, hammering away on the keyboard chasing a prize that never existed.

There's no free lunch, it's the same issue you have in every thread.

 

The only way businesses find them is through notifications through the agency, and that's restricted to local businesses. There is no wasteful way to compete for these jobs.

 

Expanding operations and hiring a new worker and then actually increasing supply takes time. In the meantime, if they are worried about a shortage caused by the increase in demand, they will have to raise prices. If they do not, a producer will not get the metal he needs, and there will be lack of production there.

You have to see where the new money will go (which we cannot possibly know for sure, hence the hypotheticals). New money is given to the mine to employ another miner. That miner is not just going to buy the metal he mines, he is going to buy food and other essentials first, then whatever else he wants to spend his money on. Whatever he buys he is increasing the demand for and raising the price. If he spends his new money on food, food prices will rise. If he spends money on gas, gas prices will rise (ceteris paribus of course). The people who do not get the new money will have to pay more to get food and gas and everything else, and because they have no increase in income they will not be able to afford the same amount of goods as before. Their purchasing power has fallen as a result of the new dollars given to and spent by the miner.

This is no better than just taxing them directly. Inflating the money supply, for all intensive purposes, is a tax. It is a tax on purchasing power and savings.

 

What's an automatic stabiliser? (Didn't find your post for a while sorry)

how are economic efficiency and equity being hurt? Will the added bureaucracy be inefficient? Well that's countered by putting the rest of the population to work. Are you also saying that it's unfair to give a business a fully subsidized worker to its competitor? That's countered by giving them both a subsidized worker

 

Automatic stabilizers is the nature in which government policies dampen fluctuations in real GDP. The progressive tax system is such.

 

What automatic stabiliser do you propose?

 

I do not know what automatic stabilizer Reiver proposes, but a progressive income tax system is one example of such. When the economy expands, revenue increases; when the economy contracts, revenue decreases. A type of progressive income tax system that is rather efficient is a negative income tax structure.

 

Not trying to be rude, but I wasn't talking to you.

 

1st off Goverment is paid for by our tax dollars, so the scout would be paid by us taxpayers this is like giving yourself a paycheck from your your own personel income when you dont have a job

2nd name one entity the Gov. has run succesffully just one

All of the gov programs that are running are from our tax dollars a lot of them no longer exsist but were still paying for them.

small buisness and private sector are the backbone of our economy not the Gov.

 

I need economics-based arguments as to why this won't work.

What is economically wrong with doing this?

I've never heard of a bureaucratic failure in government. I've heard of laziness, but people still get their licenses to do what they need. What percent of the time do government agencies fail to do simple monitoring jobs as well as filing jobs?

That fact really doesn't matter, it doesn't mean government can't be useful in aiding it.

 

bureaucratic failure happens all the time my wife runs a daycare many times the parents that are on assistance that actually need it get kicked off all the time

we call in and the gov says we did not recieve that paperwork this is after it has been sent in 4 times, or they go thru so many people it gets piled up on a desk till some one gets to it.

another example my son had to take his test for permit we were told to be there between 9:00 am and 11:00 am we arrived at 9:30am their were 15 people in line for the same test the gov employee looked around the corner and annouced i can only give two more tests the rest of you will have to come back next week for in our town they are only thier once a week. now all of us took of of work for this day.

our small town is only allowed to give out 25 written driving permit tests per week this is in a town of 4500

 

He's right though. One would want as much demand management to be automatic. Social expenditures provide an example. As unemployment rises, unemployment benefit expenditures naturally rise (ensuring an immediate fiscal impetus). Discretionary action raises the risk of exaggerating business cycle movements. Due to bureaucratic weaknesses, any action is likely to be fully active when the economy is recovering (risking over-heating problems)

The information requirements for your programme to work are immense. You either have to have an overly simplistic approach (corrupting the internal labour market practices adopted), or go with something advanced that threatens further macroeconomic stability

 

Doesn't matter how much you tweak the parameters, the nature of the problem hasn't changed at all. The size of the firms and notification methods are irrelevant.

It was Ford, GM etc, now it's only for "local business"?

First, get consistent. Second, what does "local business" even mean? (I assume it some backhanded "buy local" argument, in which case I find this an even worse idea). If you meant small businesses, they'd have even more incentive to waste resources chasing these jobs since their cost per employee relative to their revenue is much higher.

 

Isn't the lack of competition wonderful?

 

You ignored most of my questions/criticism... please respond to those.

Well anyway government can't get rid of human error, so just accept mistakes. When I say bureaucratic failure I mean a total failure to distribute licenses or function in some way. Not minor errors akin to messing up an order at a restaurant.

 

By local I mean businesses around the recruited worker... which could be Ford or GM or whoever.

So what's your problem with the plan?

 

Did you propose an automatic stabilizer?

Or why do I need an automatic stabilizer?

Yes the information requirements are large, but if it can close out the unemployment rate, that will more then compensate for the loss of production. Also in the future technology will take over.

 

I'm stating that, if you want to refer to a labour policy that stabilises demand, you should refer to an automatic stabiliser. Your proposal won't achieve it. It will create bureaucratic noise.

The information requirements are more than large. They are immense. The damage to the market that you can create will also therefore be substantial

 

Ok, I'll calculate how many jobs in the agency will be needed.

124500000 unemployed americans
mutiplied by the monthly filing cost: 1 (how many products/services they produced a month)
124,500,000 papers to be filed
divide by a month: 30
4150000 filed papers a month
Divide by work hours in a day: 7
592857.1428571429 (about) papers filed per work day
divide that by a reasonable estimate on how much a worker can file: 20 papers an hour
29642 workers needed to file those papers
take into account it takes significantly more paper work to add more workers to the program, plus additional unseen filing labor costs, so add 3000
32642 total workers needed to manage all the recruited workers
divide by the unemployed workers statistic: 124,500,000-------------------------------------------
multiply by a 100 |
0.0238095238095238% Percent of useless bureaucratic workers per useful recruited worker |
<---------------------------------(before you multiply 100)---------------------------------------------|
so 2.380952380952381e-4 bureaucratic workers per 1 recruited worker
100 divided by this number
420000 recruited workers per one needed bureaucratic worker

This is affordable. (any errors?)

 

Yes. It isn't about counting numbers. Its about ensuring good employer-employee matches whilst ensuring current labour market practices aren't corrupted. You continue to go for overly simplistic solutions whilst ignoring the complexity of our labour markets