Throughout history there are lots of examples where the government has guaranteed a job for anyone willing to work, who wasn’t able to get employment through the normal market based channels.
That disappeared and is never even considered as an option, why not?
In this article there are about 1M NEETs in the UK, which costs about £125bn to maintain.
The market hasn’t found a way to provide profitable employment for them, but wouldn’t it still be better for a government to provide jobs with a 1:1 or 0.8:1 return to costs ratio, compared to leaving them unemployed? Or jobs with intangible benefits like social care or cleaning streets etc etc.
It seems like there is a big benefit from just creating and offering jobs to anyone that wants to work, why is it never considered?
sharkfucker420@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
The other user blamed it on conservative ideology and this is true to an extent. Conservative ideology is like that and does put a heavy emphasis on rugged individual but that ideology exists for a reason. It had to develop out of some need in order to fulfill that need. The truth is full employment is bad for capitalism. It gives workers too much bargaining power. Without the unemployed how will you break strikes? Where will you get your fascist jackboots? How will you prevent workers from leveraging their power for better wages and better conditions?
The fuck you got mine attidude of conservatism developed out of the need to rationalize depriving millions of people and then justify it to those same people. To create a situation where they blamed themselves for their destitution. Or, if you are really smart, you get them to blame immigrants and minorities, or women. Instead of you, the capitalist, who is actually responsible.
It’s particularly convenient because the capitalist isn’t the one paying for it either. You are. Working peoples taxes are used to pay for the survival of people capitalists refuse to employ. As always, they reap the profits while we shoulder the burdens.
Jobs programs in the imperial core are usually created during a recession to manage the damage and then abandoned whenever is most convenient. If not abandoned then purposefully made inept.
eyesaremosaics@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
Yeah there is some measure of “full employment” which is actually about 3% unemployment? I don’t get how that makes sense. But it seems to fit with your argument that if unemployment gets too low then workers pick up more bargaining power. So maybe this definition of “full employment” is really the capitalist view of the limit they will accept, so they give it a label to sound like it is some economic principle that needs to be followed