What if we lived in a society were you were guarnteed a job?

[Jayson]

With the exception of people who can't work what if you lived in a society were all you had to do to get a job is apply for one. All you had to do to start your own business was a apply for a grant for the government?

I think manual labor jobs would all of sudden become a better paying job because you would have to entic people to do that kind of work as oposed to taking a cushy desk job somewhere. I think the big corporations would still exsit but you would see more competition since the risk of starting a business would disapear. If you failed at your business all you had to do is apply for another grant or go take a job somewhere else.

Jason

 

[Danoz]

With the exception of people who can't work what if you lived in a society were all you had to do to get a job is apply for one. All you had to do to start your own business was a apply for a grant for the government?

I think manual labor jobs would all of sudden become a better paying job because you would have to entic people to do that kind of work as oposed to taking a cushy desk job somewhere. I think the big corporations would still exsit but you would see more competition since the risk of starting a business would disapear. If you failed at your business all you had to do is apply for another grant or go take a job somewhere else.

Jason

The hypothetical environment in question would require a large centralized governing system with unlimited resources (e.g. Star Trek) to ensure the basic needs of all people are met (and then some). Personally, I think in this kind of society you'd see a lot of free-rider syndrome; for instance, do you really think the Federation would have scores of people signing up to fight the Dominion in hand to hand combat? Or signing up for factory jobs? Unlikely. The federation is really a public service. Jake, for instance, could spend his entire life as a writer (whether he was popular or not) and live well off the Federation.

To look into your question even further, if all you had to do was "apply for a job to get one" --- there would also have to be an abundance of labor jobs (literally endless) and a means to pay the workers for their efforts. I mean, in this fictional world-- clearly you couldn't just "apply" to be a medical doctor and end up doing surgery shortly after; competition would still have to exist in the workplace, and if higher skill and risk jobs aren't rewarded with better compensation, what is the motivation beyond Star Trek-style altruism to do anything but say, "I'm a philosopher/poet. I work one day a year. Paycheck please!"

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Er, anybody can start a business here without applying for anything. Not that you will necessarily be successful.

I am against giving people jobs they aren't qualified for.

However, there should be a system in place so we can find work for people when the private sector can't or won't provide jobs for them. I think the best way to go might be to induce businesses to hire people and give them on-the-job training, with some kind of probationary period in case the job doesn't work out.

I understand some states have done this already, but businesses have gamed it by treating the workers as peon temps, dumping shit work on them, not training them at all, and then tossing them at the end of the probationary period. So, shit like that would need to be thwarted.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I understand some states have done this already, but businesses have gamed it by treating the workers as peon temps, dumping shit work on them, not training them at all, and then tossing them at the end of the probationary period. So, shit like that would need to be thwarted.

Welcome to Italy.

 

[Danoz]

I understand some states have done this already, but businesses have gamed it by treating the workers as peon temps, dumping shit work on them, not training them at all, and then tossing them at the end of the probationary period. So, shit like that would need to be thwarted.

Well, forcing businesses to hire people they don't want or need doesn't make much sense anyway (assuming that's what you're talking about-- which I'm not sure it is). And, according to my buddy who works in steel, temp agencies are pretty hit and miss as to whether you'll get an employee who cares enough to work hard. Ultimately, businesses need complete control over who they hire and fire. I'm not saying some companies don't abuse this kind of situation (*cough* unpaid internships *cough*) but there's two sides to every coin.

 

[Avon]

yay! communism sounds awesome!!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I understand some states have done this already, but businesses have gamed it by treating the workers as peon temps, dumping shit work on them, not training them at all, and then tossing them at the end of the probationary period. So, shit like that would need to be thwarted.

Well, forcing businesses to hire people they don't want or need doesn't make much sense anyway (assuming that's what you're talking about-- which I'm not sure it is). And, according to my buddy who works in steel, temp agencies are pretty hit and miss as to whether you'll get an employee who cares enough to work hard. Ultimately, businesses need complete control over who they hire and fire. I'm not saying some companies don't abuse this kind of situation (*cough* unpaid internships *cough*) but there's two sides to every coin.

It's not forcing. The businesses would get benefits for it--tax breaks, whatever. The idea is to get people to work and get them some skills they can use in the future. They work, they get paid, the business gets more productivity and tax breaks, and the government isn't paying them to sit at home. Should be a win all the way around for less expense than unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.

 

[Danoz]

I understand some states have done this already, but businesses have gamed it by treating the workers as peon temps, dumping shit work on them, not training them at all, and then tossing them at the end of the probationary period. So, shit like that would need to be thwarted.

Well, forcing businesses to hire people they don't want or need doesn't make much sense anyway (assuming that's what you're talking about-- which I'm not sure it is). And, according to my buddy who works in steel, temp agencies are pretty hit and miss as to whether you'll get an employee who cares enough to work hard. Ultimately, businesses need complete control over who they hire and fire. I'm not saying some companies don't abuse this kind of situation (*cough* unpaid internships *cough*) but there's two sides to every coin.

It's not forcing. The businesses would get benefits for it--tax breaks, whatever. The idea is to get people to work and get them some skills they can use in the future. They work, they get paid, the business gets more productivity and tax breaks, and the government isn't paying them to sit at home. Should be a win all the way around for less expense than unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.

I get the idea, but I still don't see the incentive from the business perspective. A tax break usually isn't enough to justify the expensive of another full-time (or even part-time) employee, unless the company needs the work (in which case, they'd already have hired someone). If anything, modern factories are getting leaner. I worked in a factory for seven years as a general laborer through high school and college, and that place has more output with literally half the number of employees-- thanks to innovations in automation and bar-code systems to reduce the need for manual inventory. Same thing in the steel industry, and in many of these jobs they actually are hiring-- but they are somewhat dangerous, dirty, and difficult (which makes a little more time on unemployment not look to bad).

I do agree with you in theory about work programs for unemployment benefits-- but I'm not sure how to make it a successful program that benefits all parties involved.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I seem to recall that the former Soviet Union had jobs for people folding napkins on dining cars in trains. Britain has been slow to automate a lot of stuff like ticket machines in train stations and even when this happens redundancies are kept to a minimum which is nice because frankly I'd rather have people doing something than nothing.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Well, forcing businesses to hire people they don't want or need doesn't make much sense anyway (assuming that's what you're talking about-- which I'm not sure it is). And, according to my buddy who works in steel, temp agencies are pretty hit and miss as to whether you'll get an employee who cares enough to work hard. Ultimately, businesses need complete control over who they hire and fire. I'm not saying some companies don't abuse this kind of situation (*cough* unpaid internships *cough*) but there's two sides to every coin.

It's not forcing. The businesses would get benefits for it--tax breaks, whatever. The idea is to get people to work and get them some skills they can use in the future. They work, they get paid, the business gets more productivity and tax breaks, and the government isn't paying them to sit at home. Should be a win all the way around for less expense than unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.

I get the idea, but I still don't see the incentive from the business perspective. A tax break usually isn't enough to justify the expensive of another full-time (or even part-time) employee, unless the company needs the work (in which case, they'd already have hired someone). If anything, modern factories are getting leaner. I worked in a factory for seven years as a general laborer through high school and college, and that place has more output with literally half the number of employees-- thanks to innovations in automation and bar-code systems to reduce the need for manual inventory. Same thing in the steel industry, and in many of these jobs they actually are hiring-- but they are somewhat dangerous, dirty, and difficult (which makes a little more time on unemployment not look to bad).

I do agree with you in theory about work programs for unemployment benefits-- but I'm not sure how to make it a successful program that benefits all parties involved.

I don't believe I used the word "factory" anywhere.

The point is to get people into necessary jobs, where they can be trained. I think part of this would require rethinking what jobs actually require a college degree. You don't need a degree to be a competent programmer or technician or mechanic or a whole host of other skilled jobs. You just need the right aptitude (something that can be tested for, I think) and the right training.

Look to the industries that are expanding or likely to expand in the future, and get people into those.

I would also not be against the government being an "employer of last resort," when the private sector simply refuses to step up and provide jobs, even with tax breaks and abatements. There's always work to be done.

Yeah, none of the above is going to happen, so I might as well shut it, right?

 

[Sean Aaron]

I would also not be against the government being an "employer of last resort," when the private sector simply refuses to step up and provide jobs, even with tax breaks and abatements. There's always work to be done.

I'm sure the White House has plenty of napkins to fold, so it's a plan.

 

[SPOCKED]

yay! communism sounds awesome!!

^

 

[Mr. B]

With the exception of people who can't work what if you lived in a society were all you had to do to get a job is apply for one. All you had to do to start your own business was a apply for a grant for the government?
...
If you failed at your business all you had to do is apply for another grant or go take a job somewhere else.

Small businesses fail pretty often already and those are generally run by reasonably motivated people with their own capital. It doesn't make much sense to put the taxpayer on the hook for every failed business... especially when there will be so many more of them.

Of course that whole issue doesn't even touch another important factor... businesses need customers. In many fields, there are barely enough of those as it is.

 

[sojourner]

With the exception of people who can't work what if you lived in a society were all you had to do to get a job is apply for one. All you had to do to start your own business was a apply for a grant for the government?

I think manual labor jobs would all of sudden become a better paying job because you would have to entic people to do that kind of work as oposed to taking a cushy desk job somewhere. I think the big corporations would still exsit but you would see more competition since the risk of starting a business would disapear. If you failed at your business all you had to do is apply for another grant or go take a job somewhere else.

Jason

Who said all those automatic jobs aren't manual labor jobs?

 

[Danoz]

I don't believe I used the word "factory" anywhere.

The point is to get people into necessary jobs, where they can be trained. I think part of this would require rethinking what jobs actually require a college degree. You don't need a degree to be a competent programmer or technician or mechanic or a whole host of other skilled jobs. You just need the right aptitude (something that can be tested for, I think) and the right training.

Look to the industries that are expanding or likely to expand in the future, and get people into those.

I would also not be against the government being an "employer of last resort," when the private sector simply refuses to step up and provide jobs, even with tax breaks and abatements. There's always work to be done.

Yeah, none of the above is going to happen, so I might as well shut it, right?

Not at all, thanks for clarifying.

I actually agree whole-heatedly, but I think a lot of this should be done in the last couple years of high school. I completely disagree with this idea that every person graduating high school should force themselves into a 4-5 year liberal education degree and go thousands of dollars in debt. I think it needs to be made very clear to incoming freshman that degrees in the humanities (history, philosophy, political science, anthropology, communications) are great-- but they are NOT job-training programs by any stretch of the imagination. We should see an explosion of enrollment at 2 year trade schools for things like engineering, information technology, and countless other specialized and work-ready fields. You don't need a degree, but you DO need education (whether it's on-the-job or otherwise).

I'd love to see the underemployed and unemployed getting credits for these kinds of programs.