Military is probably the most diverse employer you can find. Honestly besides C-suite / lobbyists / factory-work there's probably not a single private sector job that doesn't exist in the military. Plus the military will train you; good luck getting Boeing to shell out the money so you can get a pilot's license.
> Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society.
Not doing negative work isn't an option here. How will you handle people that nobody literally wants to work with? How will you handle people that literally cannot understand instruction? Wish I could find the blog posts people have done on Universal Jobs where they can outline people who cannot work.
What are the goal posts here? I'm going off the initial comment of providing literally every single person that wants it a job so that they're able to afford to live. There are no points for only getting to 99% as those remaining 1% will be the RV-ers living in the parking lot.
If we're ok with the goal posts being 99.9% than yeah sure things such as WPA [1] or CETA [2] are great. Probably even expand them to handle the national parks or develop more land into national parks would be neat.
> If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better.
This isn't the option here. It's you have say $50 and can pay somebody (in need) $5 to do something and then pay somebody (not in need) $45 to fix up the mess. Or you could just give $5 to 10 people in need to do nothing. If your goal is to make sure everybody is housed then the second option is way cheaper.
> What are the goal posts here? I'm going off the initial comment of providing literally every single person that wants it a job so that they're able to afford to live.
Yes, so are for it or against it? I can't tell. Arguments like this:
> Not doing negative work isn't an option here. How will you handle people that nobody literally wants to work with?
Are matched with arguments like this:
> If we're ok with the goal posts being 99.9% than yeah sure things such as WPA [1] or CETA [2] are great.
99.9% would be a really great result. I don't believe you can actually have a solution which covers exactly 100% percent of people. People "who can't be worked with" in machining shop can be worked with for example in cleaning services. My wife manages such people. It's very hard and a lot of drama and missed spots and occasional non-showings but everyone who actually wants to work earns enough money to provide for himself. This is subsidized by Polish government, because most of those people have some form of disability which prevents them from holding "normal" jobs. And cleaning is a little cheaper. It's still better than just giving them money for sitting on their ass all day watching tv.
> Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society.
Not doing negative work isn't an option here. How will you handle people that nobody literally wants to work with? How will you handle people that literally cannot understand instruction? Wish I could find the blog posts people have done on Universal Jobs where they can outline people who cannot work.
What are the goal posts here? I'm going off the initial comment of providing literally every single person that wants it a job so that they're able to afford to live. There are no points for only getting to 99% as those remaining 1% will be the RV-ers living in the parking lot.
If we're ok with the goal posts being 99.9% than yeah sure things such as WPA [1] or CETA [2] are great. Probably even expand them to handle the national parks or develop more land into national parks would be neat.
> If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better.
This isn't the option here. It's you have say $50 and can pay somebody (in need) $5 to do something and then pay somebody (not in need) $45 to fix up the mess. Or you could just give $5 to 10 people in need to do nothing. If your goal is to make sure everybody is housed then the second option is way cheaper.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_T...