I think we can solve excess homelessness and poverty very easily give any able bodied citizen regardless of past history holding them back from work in the private sector (no experience, criminal record etc) a job doing something productive for the public good paid for by tax dollars of course but there is ALWAYS something that can be done, landscaping, wash govt vehicles, light duty construction for public facilities even litter pickup etc. I think leaving employment up entirely to the private sector is why we have so much homelessness and poverty in capitalist countries. A guaranteed job for those willing to work seems like a good idea.
Yes great idea
No you socialist
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
+1 y
Not just for the homeless people anyone who needs a job and can't find one. This can include students or people between jobs. The work would have to be productive I am not talking about digging holes and filling them back up again.
Updates
+1 y
And no i am not talking about replacing the private sector workforce this is just for those who fall between the cracks and are unemployable at the moment
My country (United States) founding documents said it is the job of the government to provide for the common good, welfare, and serve the public (offer opportunities, education, etc.), and built a nation, until recently, that prized virtues like hard work, sacrifice, effort, and the opportunity (key word) to follow dreams & ambitions.
Somehow this has transformed into treating society into infants who believe their comfort, satisfaction, and needs are another's responsibility, resulting in an increasingly obese, divorced, drug-addicted society who wants to blame someone else when they're not given (another key word) solutions to their problems.
An example of this being many who have iPhones, 75-inch TVs, WiFi, designer accessories, and also government "food stamps", in a government subsidized apartment, continually mooch off the government, and make little effort to better/grow themselves, because the government no longer gives opportunity, but spoon-feeds adult infants.
This sums it up: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." (JFK, 1962) - focus on how you can serve to better society as a whole.
"Do good 'cause God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship Him, you're not doing it for God, really. You're doing it for yourself because that's what makes God happy." (Victoria [wife of Joel] Osteen) - the job of the creator of the universe is to make you happy & take pleasure in your happiness.
@SirRexington you asked a question, and without waiting for a reply, decided your reasoning is automatically complete, absolute, and there is no other answer, then proceeded to claim I have no argument, despite not giving me a chance to present one.
This would be like a judge saying "all the evidence is here, you have no counter argument, because I've decided, so I'm going to label you guilty before you even have a chance to respond to my question." #narcissism
#hypocrite your initial comment did the same thing. And you use the same protestant ethic nonsense designed to keep people working stop them from questioning what's really at stake. God is not real and even if he was, living your life as if he was is a waste of time. What matters is the material world. Life is short and we only get one of it so we collectively should prioritize living in a cooperative society where no one is left behind. We are all at war, fighting a battle against pain, insecurity and our own problems. As soldiers navigating the battlefield that is existence it is our duty to pick up our fellow comrade in arms. In order to make sure we as soldiers are all well fed, housed and given ample opportunity to push forward, we must cease being so selfish and stop only looking out for number 1.
Those capable could provide guarantees of food, providing they are given the management rights, not made to feel guilty over not providing cars, houses etc for the entire world. We'd have to limit the number of children of the people supported to one, max two, for that to be feasible. A guaranteed job, not in that sense - no one stops anyone from working/doing something useful, and (western/democratic) governments do provide finance for useful projects. In that sense, the jobs are guaranteed, but not to the level of assuring a good or comfortable livelihood, which gets hard with uncontrolled overpopulation (quantity does not breed quality by any automatic link - it breeds strife, unless you educate the majority to significant levels) It gets sticky if you consider ghetto people or 3rd world families with hardly any resources and 3-4-5-6 or more children they saddle the world with (it is manageable as of now, but for how long - we don't know, and I don't believe we should be risking the finding out of what could happen if there were 2 or 3 bad seasons of crops). It'll sound strange, but not starring st the sun lets your eyes (like with skin exposure to it) get brighter, you then see more in dim light, and your brain gets used to processing more information - needed to produce the means of living we are all after (comfortable, globally, would be possible if China, India, the Middle East, Africa and South America - stopped damaging their eyesights and skins by UV exposure - it is a type of a suicidal tendency incompatible with safety (or even sanctity) of life)
Even posting this question shows ignorance on how economics work. A company cannot work without getting a profit. You simple cannot pay employees who are not needed for running the company. Companies in any country compete on an international market. As markets change and develop, so do companies. Increasing automation and just-in-time systems lessen the need for employees. Salaries would go down to a very low level, making everyone poor and with no way to improve their life. There would soon be a lack of goods on the market. The ultimate result would be the same as in every communist country ever: starvation and misery. Black markets and organized crime would stand to profit, and in a authoritarian state, those are usually run by the political elite.
The public sector should really not exist at all, as it is parasitizing on the the private sector. This suggestion would expand it enormously. Money comes from the private sector only.
That is your opinion, libertarians want to privatise everything including the roads and basic public services like police, fire, sewer, water systems etc thank God most of the voting population isn't like this.
Money does not come from the private sector. The private sector is merely a means for money to exchange hands. Money is created through a central authority and if it didn't then currency would be unstable, vulnerable to corruption by other emerging currencies and highly exploitive of small businesses and working class people.
Are there problems with the Federal Reserve? Hell yes. But the problem with the Fed is that its a private institution not regulated by the government. The Treasury Department should be in control if you ask me. It was Andrew Jacksons famous last words that said, "at least i killed the banks". The Founders stressed greatly against the privatization of money creation.
Nice thought but you can't just invent a job for no reason... and bottom line, the government can't create jobs. It just taxes citizens and takes their money. Every "job" you say the government is just giving away really means more taxes are being taken from citizens to just make up a job.
Real jobs create money... create tax revenue. Government jobs are just leeches... taxing the productive.
Real jobs fund and power themselves because they are productive and generate a good or service. Apple for example. We aren't paying taxes to make Apple exist. Apple exists because it creates products people use and want. People pay money for their products and that creates all the jobs. The jobs exist because the product is in demand. It is part of the economic engine that powers the country.
A government job is funded totally off of the backs of tax payers. The less government jobs the better.
Also, many homeless are actually drug addicts... so them just "having a job" doesn't really address the real issue. This is just good intentions... at the cost of others but it is a vast over simplification.
@CreamySeed... You want to be rid of homelessness. Here's the steps
1) People stop bitching about sending illegal immigrants home. A majority of homeless in some states ARE illegal immigrants who can not work. And as they can't qualify for welfare got nothing.
2) Instead of repeatedly jailing criminals set up programs so that they earn skills. Have the government put programs in place - like co-ops - so minor criminals can work for companies & earn an employment record so maybe they can actually get a job after getting released.
3) Instead of supporting people who don't want to work on welfare have routine screenings to remove the leeches and put surplus money into useful programs such as support for veterans and seniors who once contributed to their countries & are often left to scrap pennies together.
4) Welfare is widely abused in some countries. Crack down, screen eligibility more harshly, etc. That way money again can go back to more useful programs such as maintaining asylums and mental health centers that can house people who have disabilities & what not who oftentimes end up on the street cause there's nothing for them.
Yeah, you know, like venezuela did. This is not functional. A job that is unneeded is not only not helpful, its detrimental causing massive resource drain, extra costs to businesses which slows advancement, lowers wages, raises costs of product, and raises the requirements needed to get a job to begin with (if you have a guarntee job, this will raise the requirements of advancement i. e. no one moves up unless they have connections which breeds nepotism, incompetence and inefficiency potentially causing the business to collapse and lose even more jobs. The other option is that you have to have ever more experience and degrees which will mean only the rich and/or older/skilled workers get a job (we already have this issue in the US).
In addition to all of that homeless people are not homeless because they cannot get a job for the most part. It is true that this can affect short term homelessness, but many homeless people are homeless by choice either because of drug addiction (in which case the issue isn't jobs its social services, family etc.), bad home life (those who are homeless usually come from a fatherless home), etc.) The other issue is once you get use to a certain life style its very hard to break out of that (a man did an experiment and found a homeless man who had no drug issues, who had no mental issues and gave him a million dollars and a team of people to help him make wise investments. He ended up not only homeless again, but also in debt.).
So this is an over simplified solution that simply doesn't take into account the very complex nature of economics let alone human nature.
Listen the fuck up okay? Don’t use Latin American countries as your scapegoat when you don’t know what the fuck is going on okay? My parents fled an authoritarian country from South America and it was authoritarianism mixed with America the fire nation’s intervention that screws us all over. please don’t come at me with that white superiority complex using us as your pawn. Guess what Norway does it too and they’re all good right? Learn some goddamn economics Jesus
@Chrissydamusicgirl Listen the fuck up, I don't give two fucks whom you want to blame, who you want to hate, if you want to blame america and white people for all of your problems be my guest, but don't fucking tell me what I said. I never once stated that, I never stated anything about "white superiority"(your racism is showing), I stated venezuela went that route and among other poor choices it ended poorly. Do you know why I said that? Because it happened, that was a statement of fact, their was no question their, no opinion.
As for norway, "don't scapegoat when you don't know what the fuck is going on okay?", norway doesn't do this. They are more capitalist then the US is, their prime minister even came out and said as much. Why do you think they where pissed when Trump lowered corporate tax rates and restrictions on business? Because it made us competitive again, prior to that businesses where leaving to other countries like norway which while having a massive welfare state, is actually far more capitalist and businesse friendly (well, for established businesses. Taxes and regulations still hurt up and coming businesses in scandinavia).
@Chrissydamusicgirl Now if you want to blame the US for the shit storm that is latin america go for it, its not true of course, its not going to solve any problems, but you can do it if it makes you feel better blaming others instead of admitting that rampant corruption is the main issue. I mean venezeula was the richest south American nation and one of the richest in the world and no US intervention caused their downfall, socialism did (the same as it did to white nations that adopted it). Do some research before you attack people and spew racism and hate. I find it hilarious that people who know nothing of economics are the first ones to accuse others of not knowing anything about economics. Go listen to nobel prize winning economist milton friedman, or Thomas sowell, or Yaran Brooks, or just look up any of the youtube videos or articles from the foundation for economic education. That way you actually can claim to know at least something of what your talking about.(but of course you won't because the uneducated are uneducated for a reason (its because your ideology matters more then the truth ever will so you will just keep repeating the same false statements for the rest of your life while everything falls apart around you and the only thing you have to justify it is blaming america and white people and anything and everything but the actual problem). Even Brazil has admited their brief foray into socialism was a mistake, the least you can do is admit it as well.
@Chrissydamusicgirl Also where the fuck did this white superiority accusation come from since I never mentioned anything other then this being a failed policy in venezuela? I mean your aware that socialism was created by Karl Marx, a white guy, and was tried in Russia largely viewed to be white (arguablly Asian but most live in eastern Europe), Ukraine (white), Moldova (white), Germany (white). So yeah, learn history while your learning about economics and stop projecting what you do onto others (racism I mean, stop projecting your racism).
I did suggest something like this decades ago, and I'm fairly conservative. That things like food stamps should not be free. People should either be required to have a full time job, or work for the government and they could be paid via food stamps as much as they need and cash for beyond what reasonable food would be.
It would be ratio, so someone not able to find a job would work for 40 hours a week for the government doing things like the CCC that need to be done, where the work needs to be done and you have to work for your food stamps and pay.
Most anti socialist people could actually support that, as we are against people getting stuff for free.
Of course if you can't work, say your on disability then you don't have to work. Those that can work would be required to work to get food stamps, and/or pay.
What your describing though, guaranteed is essentially what the CCC was.
The trick with guaranteed government jobs is they move around, its not likely going to be in the same area all the time so people will have to be willing to travel or commute sometimes.
For anyone opposed to this idea, they need to take a second and think about what they are saying. We (America and likely every other developed nation) already have such a program; the military. The military is closest thing to a jobs program the government has, now all we have to do is expand that to a variety of other roles and positions outside the realm of defense spending, say for instance, green infrastructure, technology and development, research and community services.
We live in society together, you are not "paying for other people's lifestyles" we are coexisting in a society that accepts we all have lives and that in order to live those lives to the fullest resources and basic services must be made accessible and available to everyone in that society or else we are living in a society not built on civility but rather a dressed up version of Hobbes "state of nature" where its man against man, all against all and life is "chaotic, nasty, brutish, violent and short".
A government is not a business, it cannot provide a commercial job. It can incentivise job makers, and give tax breaks and assistance. But of it's own accord it cannot produce roles.
You're also confused about poverty and homelessness. Many of the working poor are in a job - but homeless and in poverty because of debts, crisis and personal circumstances; not because of employment.
You should maybe help out at a food bank or homeless shelter sometime. Wipe some of that idealist naivety from your mind,.
No, because that would screw up the job market, everyone would want the free workers that the state pays for. We have tried it here in sweden and it sucks for everyone except for a few selected employers who both get labor and money from the state. The unemployment who are assigned a job will be stuck in a job where they have no value and no real time to get out. It's a form of slavery, since they won't have time to search for a real job, go to job interviews or study. You basically make their situation permanent for a great majority of the people involved. Do not implement this stupid system.
The government can't give a lot of "homeless" free housing, because they don't want to have to follow anyone's rules. In some cities, they've been keeping track of government encounters with homeless folks (such as when they clear out an encampment) and they bring in councilors to discuss housing, drug and alcohol treatment, etc. Some people have been offered free housing and services more than 20 times and have refused, because they want to be able to get drunk or high all day.
Until we have the political will to force people to choose between a job, treatment, or jail, we have no chance of solving the problem. And some on the left are fighting for FEWER restrictions, which will result in MORE addicted, jobless homeless.
After WW2 the UK introduced compulsory National Service where all able bodied men under a certain age had to join one of the armed forces.
I think it's a good way to get discipline into younger people. Military service may not be the best answer, but most countries can use the manpower for domestic improvement and service improvement. Simple litter collection can make a huge difference to a society. There's enough projects that need manpower and unemployed able bodied people. It's not a "socialist" concept. The discipline would be an essential part of growing a strong economy following service. Opening their own businesses or working for an employer still needs discipline.
It was called National Service and Conscientious Objectors had a non-military option that benefitted the country in the aftermath of the largest scale war the planet has seen in recorded history. Society in general needed rebuilding and it was a good way of doing it.
Do you have something against being involved in activities that benefit everyone rather than being able to focus on your own selfish, narcissistic desires at the expense of humanity as a whole?
Actually yes I do. In fact if I had a big red button that when pushed kills everyone on the planet except me and my family. Ide happily push it and end you all. Ha! Ide still push it if it costed me my OWN life to make it work.
There are enough jobs but half of them don't pay a sufficient amount for anyone to live off of. I would be opposed to government providing everyone with jobs because the taxes needed to pay for it would cause skyrocketing inflation. A better solution would simply be to maintain a minimum wage at a high enough level that people can live off of it. $15 an hour would do the trick. Yes that will also cause some inflation but not nearly as much as people would think. A 50% increase in wages from $10 to $15 an hour would result in about 5% in inflation excluding price gauging.
Nope, but if you have enough like minded people in your city that are willing to open their wallet to do that then start a charity to employ your local residents, house, and/or feed them. There is nothing sloping you from raising money via donations to employ people to walk around picking up trash on the streets, pressure cleaning side walks, becoming a tree city USA and planting trees all of your city, raising money to buy an empty lot and then turning it into a community garden/food plot, cleaning road signs or bus stop windows, building habitat for humanity communities for the homeless to live in, etc. If it is something you want done, then get to work and make a non-profit corporation and start raising money. Why are you waiting for government to do something the way they want when you are already free to do yourself if you just got off your ass.
It’s illegal to be homeless on the streets. Their human but they don’t contribute to society while still getting the benefits. Freedom, safety, healthcare, all this shit... I say round up all the homeless people for breaking the law and give them real jobs and tell them if they fail then we’ll put them in real work camps where they are forced to do honest labor for the betterment of society.
Sure it sounds cruel but you deal with junkies by forcing them into a closed environment and a new scheduled way of life. Do the same for these homeless. Give them healthcare and jobs and everything but if they fail or drop out treat it like youth last chance programs and then ship them to the camps.
So what? You give them a job and services to get going for a few months and then hold them accountable if they fail. One way or another problem solved.
No it won't they'll be wasting the resources given to get more drugs then go back to whee they were. They need rehab first otherwise they will fail 100/100 times.
12.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
There was something called CETA back in the 80's and 90's. Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. It was similar to the WPA they had in the 40's. It was a make work government scam. My friend's brother was in it. He said that he would show up in the morning and get signed in, then he was assigned enough work to last about an hour. Then he and the other guys would take off for the rest of the day. They had to come back at 5PNM to sign out. It was a real waste of money, just like everything else Biden wants to do.
There's people out there that's basically scamming the system to get money. I kinda doubt guaranteeing government jobs is going to make any difference.
Besides there's already lots of min wage jobs people can apply for. They choose not to.
The biggest reason I would say is because they keep giving stuff to the homeless. Shelter, food, and clean syringes so they can dope up safely.
Like what's going to motivate them to get a job when you're offering this much assistance?
If you wish to give money to lazy, and unproductive, go ahead but don't expect the rest of us to be forced at the point of a gun to give away our hard-earned money to a bunch of worthless lazy bums, drug addicts, and other misfits.
Some people cannot work. Others refuse to work, and many others will seldom even show up, except to get paid, do far more damage than good, and will never be worth the money they are paid. As a take-off of Herbert Spencer, the ultimate effect of supporting lazy bums and other misfits is to populate the world with lazy bums and misfits. At that point, there is a total collapse of the world economies and 5 to 7 billion people die of neglect and starvation.
First of all it should be everybody, not every able-bodied person. Ableism shouldn’t be a part of such a proposal. I like the idea of a guaranteed job it would just have to be a conditional thing w performance and be temporary (like 2 years) transitional thing to gain experience and references to enter other public or private workforces. Also private workforce’s can work with minimal exploitation if we abolish the prison industrial complex and shift away from capitalism
You know a lot of homeless people just don't want to work? Another subset of the population has severe mental illness that makes them unfit for any sort of employment.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's already services offered by the government that help you get a job.
As long as it's not exploiting people then yes. The danger is employers would not take on staff if they could get a free employee with the government paying their wages. It can be hard enough for ordinary people to find work without having to compete against a pool of free labour. As for working for the government isn't that the role of civil servants?
Why do sooooo many think that the GOVERNMENT should give them this, and that? How about if some LAZY, Freeloader FCKS, get off their LAZY ASSES, and GET A FCKING JOB? MILLIONS of jobs, and companies PLEADING for workers, if you aren't to lazy, and useless!
No, and I will tell you why. When I went to school, I made a conscious decision to work my socks off so that I would get a decent living. Why should a layabout slob who skived school have the same opportunities as someone like me? I believe if you want something, you damn well work for it.
