Helping the poor in a better way than unemployment benefits

[zapy97]

well I have been thinking about this topic a lot and I have come up with ideas to do things better in terms of the unemployed so I guess I will list he ideas and leave the main idea there. this is open debate but please keep it civil.

Unemployment benefits:

money for practically nothing in most areas, my require having no home, very costly

my idea #1: Government business constructor:

GBCA or Gov' business construction agency is formed, agency would be responsible for creating a business like say a steel mill, which it then funds the steel mill a little bit creating job while having a qualified CEO. CEO changes each year the most successful "CEO" is then given the business when it has paid back the money that it cost to create it in the first place.

draw backs: could be costly in short term but might fail.

My idea #2: Gov business starter.

the Gov business starting agency is formed. a "qualified" individual goes to a GBSA agents office to get the government to fund the start up of his/her business, thus lowering the unemployment rate in the long run. which the government gets money back plus interest.

these are my ideas they are rough but I would like to be able to experiment with them, sadly I might not be able to at the rate things are going.

[ROFLCopter64bit]

There is one thing I hate talking about things relating to the government.

No matter how good of a plan or how much attention you try to give the government, they never listen.

The closest thing I could possibly think of grabbing the governments attention is one of those petition things online.

Great idea, but i'm afraid like anything else that goes in an everyday life it will go unnoticed by officials.

[Endeavour]

So basically the government should start businesses to employ all unemployed people? How does this work in the current system? You say they could start something like a steel mill. How could a regular, non-government funded steel mill compete with this government funded steel mill? It would only cause more problems, as each new government funded company competes with the regular ones, putting them out of business, creating more unemployment, which means more government companies. Eventually everyone works for the government.

[ROFLCopter64bit]

So basically the government should start businesses to employ all unemployed people? How does this work in the current system? You say they could start something like a steel mill. How could a regular, non-government funded steel mill compete with this government funded steel mill? It would only cause more problems, as each new government funded company competes with the regular ones, putting them out of business, creating more unemployment, which means more government companies. Eventually everyone works for the government.

In Australia, what we did was that we phoned up what, about 15,000 businesses and asked if they had any available job positions, and if they did they would give an unemployed person that spot. We managed to get 60,000 people jobs.

[Person012345]

Unemployment benefits:

money for practically nothing in most areas, my require having no home, very costly

False.

messagenottooshort

[Tex_NL]

So basically the government should start businesses to employ all unemployed people? How does this work in the current system? You say they could start something like a steel mill. How could a regular, non-government funded steel mill compete with this government funded steel mill? It would only cause more problems, as each new government funded company competes with the regular ones, putting them out of business, creating more unemployment, which means more government companies. Eventually everyone works for the government.

Totally true.

To pay a person benefits costs a certain amount per year. Setting up a business, managing that business, paying wages and paying benefits to those now unemployed due to false competition costs a lot, lot more. In the end everything revolves around money.

[ramses]

When I was unemployed for a longer than usual period of time, I had to work two days a week to continue receiving benefits.

This kept me out of trouble and gave me a lot more skills to add to my resume. That was more than twelve years ago, never been unemployed since.

[comham]

There's nothing wrong with giving unemployed people money to live on while jobseeking. The problem at the moment is that there are no jobs, not that people are lazily spending their free money on crack and whores and aren't applying for jobs.

As for the others, yeah, the government does need to spend money to make jobs. Right now that's not happening due to certain governments favouring austerity.

[Tex_NL]

Last time I was unemployed (about 5,5 years ago) I was offered schooling for free. I didn't even have to ask for it, they asked if I was interested. Of course I was; it kept me busy and improved my chances finding a new job.

[pharoahjared]

So basically the government should start businesses to employ all unemployed people? How does this work in the current system? You say they could start something like a steel mill. How could a regular, non-government funded steel mill compete with this government funded steel mill? It would only cause more problems, as each new government funded company competes with the regular ones, putting them out of business, creating more unemployment, which means more government companies. Eventually everyone works for the government.

not true if you build something like infrastructure or work in a public services(which be government run monopolies anyway).

the New Deal, the government provided many jobs

Edited April 27, 2013 by pharoahjared

[ZedNova]

not true if you build something like infrastructure or work in a public services(which be government run monopolies anyway).

the New Deal, the government provided many jobs

That's what i was going to say, maybe instead of devoted billions for bailouts, maybe the government could have given out some money to Construction companies to improve their local infrastructure. And they could hire unskilled or unemployed workers to do some grunt work, mixing cement, carrying materials, ect.

I'm just wondering if anyone is willing to do that nowadays...

[Leonov]

I love the premise of the New Deal. Give the unemployed the task of rebuilding/maintaining our current infrustructure. A creative Solution to an otherwise difficult problem.

[Endeavour]

I love the premise of the New Deal. Give the unemployed the task of rebuilding/maintaining our current infrustructure. A creative Solution to an otherwise difficult problem.

At the cost of taxpayer money. There is always a problem.

[Leonov]

At the cost of taxpayer money. There is always a problem.

A little off topic but, taxpayer money that didnt go to the federal reserve debt? and instead was used for the american people? Ill take that any day of the week. Please look up the real purpose of the federal reserve and youll see the New Deal was good.

"will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it 'Fascism,' sometimes 'Communism,' sometimes 'Regimentation,' sometimes 'Socialism'. But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.... Plausible self-seekers and theoretical die-hards will tell you of the loss of individual liberty. Answer this question out of the facts of your own life. Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice?" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Edited April 28, 2013 by Leonov

[pharoahjared]

At the cost of taxpayer money. There is always a problem.

Seeing as we out spent the USSR finding some money to rebuild the infrastructure of the US shouldn't be to hard.

[bsalis]

Didn't know you were a fan of big government zapy97.

If memory serves, you were an avid supporter of Romney in the last election.

[zapy97]

the ideas were to basically give a loan to start up a business and eventually get the money back from the business that is the main principal of my ideas

that is what I really wanted to talk about was the principle, besides employing more people by creating businesses allows money to flow which is what any economy needs "the flow of money"

[bsalis]

How will the government know (better than anyone else) that any given business venture will be profitable? They will not be able to re-pay the loan unless they make a profit right? Many new businesses routinely fail.

If a business venture has a good chance of being a success, investors will lend money or buy shares (equity) to start it. No need for government intervention.

If a government wants to help business, the best thing they can do is get out of the way. Such as reducing regulation, taxation and price manipulation. They should also put an end to rent seeking and other favorable arrangements for the big end of town that unbalance the playing field.

[LukeTim]

The issue should be less about "helping the poor", and more about eliminating being poor as a possibility... thereby no needing to help anyone since they can then help themselves.

A fantastic welfare policy I recently discovered from The Green Party in the UK reads thus:

"Everyone to receive a basic Citizen's Income to allow everybody to make meaningful choices between paid employment, part-time work, self employment, volunteering and encourage a better balance between work and everyday life."

ie, work is no longer something that must be done for the sake of survival - security is guaranteed - but it is something we can choose to do because it is meaningful to us. I know people are going to comeback and say "somebody has to do the jobs nobody wants to" and things like that... but who said those jobs had to be done solely by specific individuals?

I do probably need to consider this more before a fully formed idea can take shape in my head... but I firmly believe that to hold people's lives to ransom, until they work for it, is wrong, and we need some immense change to stop it... because it is no longer necessary.

Edited April 29, 2013 by LukeTim

[comham]

Yeah, citizens income/universal income/dosh for everyone seems like the way forward when the political will can be mustered. Afaik the maths works out and it's affordable.

[shand]

"Everyone to receive a basic Citizen's Income to allow everybody to make meaningful choices between paid employment, part-time work, self employment, volunteering and encourage a better balance between work and everyday life."

Basically you are encouraging a negative tax, the simplist way of doing it is to look at everybodies net tax and knock off £5,000 a year. So really what you are looking at is just lowering the tax, and giving those who aren't paying tax benefits. to me this sounds like the same system we have right now, but with a different name and no obligation to try to gain employment - in otherwords if you are happy eating smart price noodles in a poorly heated house you can sit around and sponge off the rest of society.

Actually nobody needs to do the jobs people dont want to do. in the situation where work is not required for survival then you can be picky "you want me to clean the gents loo in the club, you better pay me loads!". unpleasant jobs would the work of those wanting to get the most money, not of the desperate. (Note: unpleasant is a different thing for each person, if you have a subset of people who really like wiping poo then that would obviously drive the price down)

Truely unpleasant jobs will likely be taken over by technology - its cheaper to set up a hose to wash down the toilets then to hire a go-getter willing to charge extra for the unpleasantness.

consider the "thought experiment" we used to play growing up (and still do). the "would you x for £Y" activity. imagine a kid, perfect for this, they dont need the money for food, bills just luxuries. How much would you have to pay a kid to clean your office each morning? now, imagine that kid didnt want to buy a chocolate bar with their weekly pay check, but adult "toys" (a new computer, a car, a holiday) you'd stuggle to get cheap labour.