Government Sponsored Jobs Program

i will respond, im working at present, i will respond to all questions/criticism when im done working

 

It creates a bad set of incentives and would lead to a huge amount of resources being wasted chasing the imaginary carrot.

Like I've already said... It's like all your other ideas, poorly thought out. Why don't you remind us again how stealing is no different than buying something? That was lots of fun.

 

Local vicar reckoned stealing was morally fine, as long as it was in a supermarket. He had an economic rationale too. It would be a correction for their market power, increasing the likelihood of local family firm survival. Them religious fellows! Got to love'em

 

Circumstances matter, especially if the gains out weigh the consequences as severally as it would for a man who's family is starving. No exchange with that man over food would be euvoluntary.

He referred to a thief breaking into a persons home and how wonderful that was for the glass maker and the insurance provider.

 

Give me an example of a business wasting resources trying to get a sponsored job.

I do the best I can with these ideas, then I hand them over to everyone else to criticize them and shape it to that criticism. You only say it's poorly thought out because you're anti-government and you hate the idea.

 

You mean this program won't find good labor matches? Well since their income depends on it, any worker will do their best at whatever job they get.

How would labor market practices be corrupted?

 

Already did. HUD Grant application factories.

Uh-oh, your true colors are showing. I know you're just itching to spew your MMT crap.

 

It can't. The government hasn't got a clue how these labour markets operate.

For your policy to be relevant it has to be attractive to employers. By being attractive it will also impact on the internal systems that they utilise. That's an extra-market interference that will assuredly develop inefficiencies (unless you assume that firms are crap and make it up as they go along)

 

What happened at with the HUD Grant application factories?

What doe MMT mean? Can we please avoid this disrespectful dialogue?

 

Entire businesses were created that did nothing other than hire people to fill out applications for HUD grants. Those were also supposed to "go to the people who needed them", but no one passes up free money and people will compete for it. It's a matter of fact.

Don't play coy, you've been trying hard to watch your tone and semantics since I said something but the gig was up a long time ago.

 

What happens when you get a bad match? give me an example of one and how it would operate.

What are the internal systems they utilize? How will it being attractive impact them? How does it breed inefficiencies?

 

Inefficiency. Be it for the employer with a worker incapable of meeting productivity demands, or an employee unable to fully utilise his/her human capital

We're going around in circles! This is about the internal labour markets that you haven't factored in. Highly complex systems that utilise human resource management systems specific to the company. Your system would be more suited to a less developed economy that is characterised by crap jobs only

 

Why is it so important? Lets say we have a simple manufacturing job. All you have to do is screw one part into another part on your line every time one part of the product goes by. Do we really need to analyze their personality to get them to do a simple job like that?

 

There's no such beast nowadays. Organisational knowledge makes every job part of a complex process. You're decades out of date

 

Well if an uneducated Chinese person can get a job manufacturing iPhones anyone can.

 

Again, you're showing ignorance of the reality of our manufacturing and how we deliver high productivity.

 

Very few of these jobs exist and because they're so easy to do, the positions that are available already fill quickly. There's no shortage of cogs.

It's obvious you've never worked at or with a large company these days, the amount of money they spend trying to find the right person for the right job, is staggering.

 

Exactly, so the contract manufacturer hires the lowest cost labor on the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1_XAuJ8qCc

 

Well there are low skill manufacturing jobs aren't there?

 

Not many. Manufacturing involves complex processes. The government certainly will be handicapped in understanding its nature. It also doesn't help if the government is encouraging low skilled manufacturing. Given we are capital abundant, comparative advantage informs us that we should be shifting resources away from such production. A government subsidising low skilled labour will therefore be substantially increasing inefficiency (and harming the available gains from trade)

 

in answer to your question about gov scout finding jobs for people


lets say you are working and for easy calculation lets say you earn 100 a month (i now this is not reality but it will make it easy to show you how are money is used)

100 a month you have approx 30 percent coming out which leaves you 70.00. now in order for you to have a scout we need to add to that tax. Now how is that possible when the gov is spending more than it takes in. secondly if everyone wants the gov to help them with programs, now we have 85% of the population depending on gov taking care of them with programs, which leaves 15% to pay for all the gov services. how much do you think tax is going to be for those 15%? for if everyone wants the gov to take care of them the tax would be extreme. every service the gov provides comes from us paying prop tax,sales tax,buisness tax, etc. its not free, nothing is free in this world someone somewhere is paying for every service.

the gov has never cut a program that earns them cash that i am aware off, and if they have they have redirected the cash to some other program, they seem to rob peter to pay paul and when you do this its only a matter of time before everything comes crumbiling down.

in response to your except mistakes if you went into a store and ordered something for a special occasion and you found out the employee or owner never ordered it or did not care would you just except the mistake? so why should we except a mistake from a gov service?

if private sector runs business it does a 100% better than gov. and at less cost for the gov pays 10.00 for a pencil they dont look for deals private sector does

 

I'll concede that this program does have some inefficiencies due to the large amount of information needing to be handled, but consider that the inefficiency is minutely small, you only need one bureaucratic worker per 420000 sponsored workers, (check back a few pages for the full calculation so you can check my work) even if I made an error it's also countered by the fact that you are putting people to work that would be doing nothing before.

Now yes you will have to raise the percentages of various taxes, but you are only taxing the same amount of money you put into the economy. This means that for every 25000 yearly circulated dollars you put into the economy, you take 25000 yearly circulated dollars (YCD from now on) out again. So taxes aren't technically increased for the average American,

Now you claim that 85% of the country will be on government programs, well that might be true if government expands that far, and if it does, it better have a dam good reason, but this program will not expand government that far. You might think that every time someone becomes unemployed they will come to this program, but this will only be used in significant surges in unemployment in an area. Also workers in the program will still be in the labor market if businesses start offering higher wages due to the high employment, and we could always start cutting sponsored workers during a amount of job offers. That will protect against too many people jumping on the program.

The government will be taxing out the same amount of money it puts in through printing, so taxes won't technically be raised.

Bureaucratic mistakes just mean you get your license next week, nothing big like that. And it still functions properly as far as I know, and I mean that in that it hasn't completely failed bureaucratically to do it's job.

This plan puts business in charge of basically 99% (look at the statistic above) of the manpower used in this program. This, in comparison, grows the private sector by a large amount, 7-8% of the unemployed Americans seeking a job, about 12 million, and grows government by 0.0296745454545455% of America's work force, (that's the amount of government jobs needed divided by the amount of jobs in the labor force) 32642 people.

 

How would you feel if this program educated workers to take that job economically?

 

Why bother with "make work" at all? If you want an absurd demand side solution just give $10,000 to every unemployed American with the proviso they have to spend it and not save it.

 

Sorry, don't understand the question. I can say, however, that the government is in no position to 'economic plan' a more desirable skilled equilibria. They simply do not have the information. Their limited to policies such as provision of merit goods (e.g. ensuring universities do not close down science departments because they're more expensive to provide). Training subsidies can of course be provided. This is typically just a reference to general versus specific training (i.e. because of imperfect training, firms will underprovide general training as they cannot guarantee that they will get any of the gains from the human capital investment. The worker, empowered by the human capital, can simply jump ship and get a different job)