NYC crime down 90% in less than 3 decades

[Cow Poke]

You'll have to clarify what 'business-friendly' policies you are thinking of. The only major piece of legislation the Republicans have passed has been the tax scam that gave billions of dollars in tax breaks to multinationals and rocketed up the national deficit and the debt.

Generally I think "employee friendly" policies are better for employment than "business friendly" policies are (which usually boil down to making ridiculously wealthy people even more ridiculously wealthy).

A good example of a policy that might help with employment substantially is Bernie Sanders' new proposal that the government act as an 'employer of last resort' where it would offer minimum wage jobs to anyone who wanted them. That seems likely to me to reduce unemployment.

What goods or services will the government be selling on which to make the profit to pay these "employees"? And what will these "employees" be doing?

[Starlight]

What goods or services will the government be selling on which to make the profit to pay these "employees"? And what will these "employees" be doing?

During the Great Depression, FDR had them building roads. There seem to be quite a lot of roads in the US which need fixing up, and quite a desire to spend a lot of money on infrastructure development, so that seems generally a good match.

But in general, the government could basically provide jobs doing almost anything. Planting trees, manufacturing basic goods, picking up rubbish, mowing lawns etc. Economically, the government doesn't really need to make much money from selling goods produced by these people for it to be worth it, because if they weren't employed the government would be paying them welfare which would cost a relatively similar amount anyway.

In the US the government employs ~17% of the workforce which is pretty low for OECD countries (21% average), with Sweden at 30% and Norway at 36%. Given the US unemployment rate is ~4%, then assuming that half of the unemployed people voluntarily take the offer of basic employment, the US government would go from employing ~17% to ~19% of the workforce, not a huge difference when international rates are compared. If and when certain manufacturing/road building/gardening companies started by the government reached self-sufficiency they could each be spun off as private enterprises. It strikes me as a good way of planting seed businesses that the private sector can then grow.

I also like the aesthetic and conceptual symmetry of the government already acting as a "lender of last resort" for the banks, and potentially now acting as "employer of last resort" for the workers. It's a nice safety-net-around-the-edges: When things are working fine, private industry ticks over fine and people don't need the government and it stays out of the way, but when things are going wrong, the government is there is give the necessary nudge to prevent disaster and help things get back on track.

[Cow Poke]

During the Great Depression, FDR had them building roads. There seem to be quite a lot of roads in the US which need fixing up, and quite a desire to spend a lot of money on infrastructure development, so that seems generally a good match.

But in general, the government could basically provide jobs doing almost anything. Planting trees, manufacturing basic goods, picking up rubbish, mowing lawns etc. Economically, the government doesn't really need to make much money from selling goods produced by these people for it to be worth it, because if they weren't employed the government would be paying them welfare which would cost a relatively similar amount anyway.

In the US the government employs ~17% of the workforce which is pretty low for OECD countries (21% average), with Sweden at 30% and Norway at 36%. Given the US unemployment rate is ~4%, then assuming that half of the unemployed people voluntarily take the offer of basic employment, the US government would go from employing ~17% to ~19% of the workforce, not a huge difference when international rates are compared. If and when certain manufacturing/road building/gardening companies started by the government reached self-sufficiency they could each be spun off as private enterprises. It strikes me as a good way of planting seed businesses that the private sector can then grow.

I also like the aesthetic and conceptual symmetry of the government already acting as a "lender of last resort" for the banks, and potentially now acting as "employer of last resort" for the workers. It's a nice safety-net-around-the-edges: When things are working fine, private industry ticks over fine and people don't need the government and it stays out of the way, but when things are going wrong, the government is there is give the necessary nudge to prevent disaster and help things get back on track.

There are SO MANY problems with this post, I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just leave you to your fantasy.

[Starlight]

There are SO MANY problems with this post, I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just leave you to your fantasy.

That's fine, I don't expect you to be able to come up with objections instantly, so take time to think about it. Also, bear in mind, you don't need to object to something just because I support it.

[rogue06]

During the Great Depression, FDR had them building roads. There seem to be quite a lot of roads in the US which need fixing up, and quite a desire to spend a lot of money on infrastructure development, so that seems generally a good match.

I think the last Administration tried the "shovel ready jobs" route and even later chuckled about how they never really existed -- and yet all the money was still spent.

[Starlight]

I think the last Administration tried the "shovel ready jobs" route and even later chuckled about how they never really existed -- and yet all the money was still spent.

Um, this article points out the problem was that the money was never actually spent. The infrastructure budget dropped massively rather than getting stimulated.

I would comment though there is potentially an important difference between: 1) Short-term stimulus programs of the kind Obama wanted to try in order to undo the recession rapidly ("Find 10 million jobs for people with shovels! Stat! Get them all working ASAP!") where there is urgency associated with rapidly trying to scale up the stimulus and the scale it down again after a couple of years; as compared to 2) a permanent program the exists providing jobs for unemployed people which doesn't typically fluctuate rapidly in the number of people it's providing jobs for (it's not expected to deal with recessions but rather for 'normal' economic times like the present) so year to year the number of people it's providing jobs for might fluctuate by 10% (rather than the ten million percent that a short-term anti-recession program tries to deal with) so more sensible medium and long-term planning can be done.

[Roy]

During the Great Depression, FDR had them building roads. There seem to be quite a lot of roads in the US which need fixing up, and quite a desire to spend a lot of money on infrastructure development, so that seems generally a good match.

They could build a big wall...

[Starlight]

They could build a big wall...

All the unemployed MAGA people in the red states could be shipped down to a camp in Texas, and they could wear their red MAGA hats while shoveling dirt.

Honestly, I would be completely okay with that. They wanted a wall? They can build it! I would be even quite happy to have them get paid minimum wage while they built their stupid pointless monument to ignorance. I would even give an award to whoever of them could make the wall the biggest. If they can shovel it high enough to stop airplanes from bringing Mexicans across the border I'll pay them double.

[seer]

You'll have to clarify what 'business-friendly' policies you are thinking of. The only major piece of legislation the Republicans have passed has been the tax scam that gave billions of dollars in tax breaks to multinationals and rocketed up the national deficit and the debt.

That is just leftist tripe, lower taxes, less regulation will help businesses grow and invest. I see it in my company already. The tax cut I got will put $1,300 in my pocket for the year. See Star, you are not in the business world, I am.

A good example of a policy that might help with employment substantially is Bernie Sanders' new proposal that the government act as an 'employer of last resort' where it would offer minimum wage jobs to anyone who wanted them. That seems likely to me to reduce unemployment.

And Sanders is about as ignorant as you, talk about national deficit and the debt...

[Mountain Man]

There are SO MANY problems with this post, I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just leave you to your fantasy.

Like all arguments in favor of big government socialism, what he proposes sounds great in theory, but every time it has ever been attempted throughout history has always ended in disaster, at least for the citizens. The politicians, of course, being at the top of the food chain, make out like bandits, which is why, I suspect, so many governments are eager to repeat the experiment despite (or perhaps because of) the predictable and inevitable results.

[Cow Poke]

That's fine, I don't expect you to be able to come up with objections instantly, so take time to think about it. Also, bear in mind, you don't need to object to something just because I support it.

I object to it because it's insane. Stupid. Idiotic. The fact that you support it is not surprising at all.

[Starlight]

what he proposes sounds great in theory, but every time it has ever been attempted throughout history has always ended in disaster, at least for the citizens.

As far as I am aware, an open government offer of employment for as many unemployed people as wanted it (also known as a "job guarantee"), has not been implemented many times "throughout history". To the best of my knowledge it's been implemented a grand total of 3 times, all in the 21st century, and only partially and in response to particular circumstances those three times, rather than as a general economic policy.

I assume you're just doing your normal idiotic and ignorant rant on general principles against all things that strike you as vaguely left wing, and that you aren't actually talking about anything of relevance.

And Sanders is about as ignorant as you, talk about national deficit and the debt...

The Republicans this year increased defense spending by $80 billion without blinking. Since that is money being basically set on fire (or exploded, if you prefer that metaphor), I would have thought people who pretended to be concerned about debt and deficit would be screaming about it. But no, apparently setting fire to $619 billion a year in "defense" spending just wasn't enough for them and they had to up it to $700 billion a year of taxpayer money being wasted.

A back of the envelope calculation suggests that the government providing jobs to the unemployed might cost somewhere in the vicinity of that $80 billion per year... that the congress was perfectly happy to completely waste on ludicrously over the top "defense" spending. I guess it comes down to whether you prefer your taxpayer money gets used to gratuitously slaughter people in the middle east and fund overpaid defense contractors sucking at the taxpayer teat like Bill the Cat, or whether you'd prefer a few million currently unemployed Americans were provided with jobs.

[Cow Poke]

The Republicans this year increased defense spending by $80 billion without blinking. Since that is money being basically set on fire (or exploded, if you prefer that metaphor), I would have thought people who pretended to be concerned about debt and deficit would be screaming about it. But no, apparently setting fire to $619 billion a year in "defense" spending just wasn't enough for them and they had to up it to $700 billion a year of taxpayer money being wasted.

I think the Republicans deserve to be tied to a wagon wheel and horsewhipped for their fiscal irresponsibility. Feel better?

[lilpixieofterror]

That's fine, I don't expect you to be able to come up with objections instantly, so take time to think about it. Also, bear in mind, you don't need to object to something just because I support it.

How about the fact the US didn’t get out of the Great Depression until WWII?

[seer]

The Republicans this year increased defense spending by $80 billion without blinking. Since that is money being basically set on fire (or exploded, if you prefer that metaphor), I would have thought people who pretended to be concerned about debt and deficit would be screaming about it. But no, apparently setting fire to $619 billion a year in "defense" spending just wasn't enough for them and they had to up it to $700 billion a year of taxpayer money being wasted.

Except all the real money is in entitlements, and the American population seem to want a very strong military. BTW how much did Obama increase the debt/deficit - were you screaming about that?

A back of the envelope calculation suggests that the government providing jobs to the unemployed might cost somewhere in the vicinity of that $80 billion per year... that the congress was perfectly happy to completely waste on ludicrously over the top "defense" spending. I guess it comes down to whether you prefer your taxpayer money gets used to gratuitously slaughter people in the middle east and fund overpaid defense contractors sucking at the taxpayer teat like Bill the Cat, or whether you'd prefer a few million currently unemployed Americans were provided with jobs.

When China comes breathing down your back, don't call us.