We should not have any government safety nets (food stamps, WIC, etc) amirite?

How is a government provided job not a safety net? Lolol

by Anonymous 2 years ago

I know so many people who are physically/mentally/psychologically able to work but just choose not to because they're fine with living off of government supports. I agree with OP except for genuinely disabled people.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

that's kind of beside the point that jenny is making though. OP said "there should be no government safety nets!" and then as an alternative lists two government safety nets.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

The only way a 22 year old woman can have her own apartment in many cities is if she doesn't know who the father of her children are.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

>there is definitely some fine tuning that would need to happen Yeah, like discarding the idea and thinking about something that actually works.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Honestly why not just throw out the "job guarentee" bit and just do UBI? Surely that's the simplist thing to do if your concern is bureaucracy. Job guarentees mean the government is going to have to maintain a steady rate of projects that match the talent pool. That takes a lot of bureaucracy.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Is government supplied employment not a form of a social safety net? It's still a government intruding to ensure the livelihood of its citizens.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

These sound like goals, rather than strategies or actions that could be implemented. The government should make sure all our health needs are met at a quickly and are affordable for those at the poverty line. See how worthless that opinion is?

by Anonymous 2 years ago

It might be much more expensive for the government to get involved in creating jobs in all kinds of sectors for unemployed people than to just keep the current system. Not everyone can do the same work and there currently aren't nowhere near enough low-skilled jobs where the government can just place a person. Not to mention all the issues you get when someone doesn't turn up or wastes all their money on things other than rent and food.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Consider the fact that some people are disabled and unable to work. Wouldn't they need services like food stamps, SSI, or some form of house assistance (be that public housing, or section 8)?

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Capitalism won't allow it. It's a balancing act that much of the ability for people to be above others and products to be reasonably cheap is dependent on the working class making as little as possible. The value of the dollar is largely based on the hours of human lives exchanged for it. I think you are on the right track but I think we just need to build cities which embrace automation, eliminate monetary exchange and distribute resources equally. Workload minimized so everyone only has to work a few hours a week and would be free to work in other non required ways to help society (research, entertainment, etc) or simply enjoy life more. I think this is really the only long term solution. To be fair though I'm not sure Capitalism will allow this either. At least not until it fails more and people actually see the problems.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Point 1 is a lovely idea, the problem is it can cost a hell of a lot to run. People are needed to arrange and oversee it all and many people will have zero motivation. Have the option there, but not forced in any way at all. You can end up with companies having a rotating number of cheap/free "apprentices" with this kind of setup too.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

There's around 5.8 million unemployed people in the US, let's keep in mind some don't want a job or can't have one, so say about 5 million. How is the government gonna pull 5 million jobs out of their ass to guarantee to people

by Anonymous 2 years ago

For someone to be counted as "unemployed", they have to be seeking employment. 5.8 million people are unemployed, meaning that all 5.8 million of those people want and can attain jobs.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Head on over to China, the government there seems like it would be more your style.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Wow this is horrible

by Anonymous 2 years ago

That would be horrible! 75% of the population is terrible at working.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

these sound like "safety nets" to me

by Anonymous 2 years ago

That minimum wage thing is something that people say a lot, but I don't think that would ever work. For it to work, you'd have to put in so many other rules that it would be impossible. You'd also need some way to make the number of jobs proportionate to the available housing.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

It's not the worst idea I've ever heard, but what exactly do you hope to get out of it? Unemployment is generally pretty low. People who really need it would be mainly the elderly, disabled, and single parents. Trying to make them ditch diggers doesn't sound like a win.

by Anonymous 2 years ago