Communism for some, pay rises for others!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1117/teeu-portlaoise-conference.html

The State may need to contemplate becoming an employer of last resort to tackle unemployment, according the ICTU General Secretary David Begg.

Earlier, the TEEU said it would seek pay rises of at least 5% in profitable enterprises where it represents staff.

Delegates at its annual conference overwhelmingly backed an emergency motion instructing the union to present significant pay claims in all profitable companies and sectors.

With 40,000 members, the TEEU is Ireland's largest craft union and a major player in manufacturing, construction and energy.

Communism for some, pay rises for others! Now why didn`t I think of that! Economic crisis solved!!

Is this the solution? :pac:

TheRealPONeil

Deleted User wrote: »

Communism for some, pay rises for others!

Old News, it's happening since 2011 ...

"60% of survey respondents expect a return to salary increases in 2012"

for some !!

KyussBishop

An 'employer of last resort' i.e. job guarantee is pretty much exactly what the country needs, but is not possible without the EU's help; it is good to at least see it somewhere in Irish political discourse though.

The social cost of unemployment is going to stay with the country for generations if it's allowed to continue, and it causes significant and totally unnecessary suffering to people in society, and damage to society in general too.


Austerity is a policy choice at the EU level, that is being forced on us, and it guarantees massive economic damage, and massive societal damage, with regards to unemployment and much much more.
It is a retrograde policy choice, where arguments insisting on it are based on outdated theory harking back to the days when there was still a gold standard, whereas now we're dealing with a fundamentally different fiat monetary system.

For all the rhetoric (i.e. lies) that "there is no alternative", growing numbers of economists everywhere are screaming out for money creation, to be put into non-financial sectors of the economy (a job guarantee is perfect for this), and to assist in making deficits manageable.
You'll find completely unbacked assertions that there would be hyperinflation, in response to this, but it's bullshít scaremongering/FUD that is not really taken seriously by most economists, and which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You will not find an argument outlining the scale of inflation we can expect, in relation to 'x' amount of money being created and put into a job guarantee program, just FUD, that any money creation is bad; and any potential for inflation, is considered to be intolerable, whereas forcing enormous numbers of people into unemployment (preferably with no unemployment income to fall back on, leading to poverty and homelessness for many), is perfectly tolerable and desired, portrayed as a 'necessary evil', when the people advocating that can't even prove or quantify the damage that would occur through spending 'x' amount on a job guarantee.

It is a sociopathic policy choice that's being imposed on us, and with a clear alternative set of policies that can start us on the way out of this, I'm of the opinion that there can only be the most cynical of reasons for keeping us held in this purgatory, for the benefit of a tiny few.

thebman

You'd have to be an idiot be believe this was possible given our financial situation and the general financial position of other EU countries.

How are you going to pay for it? I'm sure you'll get some BS line like the increase in productivity will pay for it meaning they have no way to pay for it, know it won't be implemented, isn't practical and are just trying to make it look like government are being unnecessarily mean to people for no good reason.

Government would do this in a second if it was affordable, do you know how many votes it would buy?

KyussBishop

thebman wrote: »

You'd have to be an idiot be believe this was possible given our financial situation and the general financial position of other EU countries.

How are you going to pay for it? I'm sure you'll get some BS line like the increase in productivity will pay for it meaning they have no way to pay for it, know it won't be implemented, isn't practical and are just trying to make it look like government are being unnecessarily mean to people for no good reason.

Government would do this in a second if it was affordable, do you know how many votes it would buy?

Try engaging in actual argument, rather than labeling anyone an 'idiot', thanks.

You obviously have not even read my post at all, or are deliberately ignoring key parts of it for the sake of spewing ad-hominem; the EU is not living under a fixed money supply, and I've explained exactly how funding this is manageable, at an EU level, in my previous post.

thebman

KyussBishop wrote: »

Try engaging in actual argument, rather than labeling anyone an 'idiot', thanks.

You obviously have not even read my post at all, or are deliberately ignoring key parts of it for the sake of spewing ad-hominem; the EU is not living under a fixed money supply, and I've explained exactly how funding this is manageable, at an EU level, in my previous post.

Did I quote you? :rolleyes:

I don't really think just print and it will be grand, I promise there will be no hyperinflation isn't really telling anyone how you'd fund it though IMO.

KyussBishop

thebman wrote: »

Did I quote you? :rolleyes:

You labelled anyone promoting the idea of a job guarantee as an 'idiot', and no, you obviously didn't read my post at all as it completely addressed the concerns you brought up in your own post.

thebman wrote: »

I don't really think just print and it will be grand, I promise there will be no hyperinflation isn't really telling anyone how you'd fund it though IMO.

If you claim there will be hyperinflation, back that up; the ECB has printed over €1 trillion thus far, and we have not seen hyperinflation.

The EU are perfectly capable of putting stimulus into non-financial areas, and in using it to make deficits/debts more manageable, and to use those means to fun a job guarantee program.

Gloomtastic!

KyussBishop wrote: »

the ECB has printed over €1 trillion thus far, and we have not seen hyperinflation.

.

Why not? Is the European economy so ****ed that it can soak up all this money and we don't notice? Or are the banks just propping up their balance sheets?

KyussBishop

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Why not? Is the European economy so ****ed that it can soak up all this money and we don't notice? Or are the banks just propping up their balance sheets?

We don't see that, because the economic theories that predicted it are simply wrong; money creation does not automatically lead to inflation, that is a myth.

thebman

KyussBishop wrote: »

We don't see that, because the economic theories that predicted it are simply wrong; money creation does not automatically lead to inflation, that is a myth.

So provide us the links to your correct economic theories so...

KyussBishop wrote: »

You labelled anyone promoting the idea of a job guarantee as an 'idiot', and no, you obviously didn't read my post at all as it completely addressed the concerns you brought up in your own post.

If you claim there will be hyperinflation, back that up; the ECB has printed over €1 trillion thus far, and we have not seen hyperinflation.

The EU are perfectly capable of putting stimulus into non-financial areas, and in using it to make deficits/debts more manageable, and to use those means to fun a job guarantee program.

I don't have to back it up, your the one putting forward that these things won't happen so you can prove it...

You can't walk in and go nah your all wrong, here is my plan which I have no evidence for what so ever, prove it won't work.

KyussBishop

thebman wrote: »

So provide us the links to your correct economic theories so...

I don't have to provide an alternative, to show that what you're claiming is wrong, but if you're interseted, read up on Modern Monetary Theory and Post-Keynesian economics in general.

thebman wrote: »

I don't have to back it up, your the one putting forward that these things won't happen so you can prove it...

Well see, the burden of proof works such that if you claim something will happen, you have to prove it.

thebman wrote:

You can't walk in and go nah your all wrong, here is my plan which I have no evidence for what so ever, prove it won't work.

In making a completey unbacked assertion, in contradiction to events in the real world, this is exactly what you've done.

thebman

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't have to provide an alternative, to show that what you're claiming is wrong, but if you're interseted, read up on Modern Monetary Theory and Post-Keynesian economics in general.


Well see, the burden of proof works such that if you claim something will happen, you have to prove it.


In making a completey unbacked assertion, in contradiction to events in the real world, this is exactly what you've done.

No high inflation and hyper-inflation are real and there are real world, past examples of it occurring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

That you assume it won't exist, is an assumption. One with some pretty nasty consequences if your wrong.

KyussBishop

thebman wrote: »

No high inflation and hyper-inflation are real and there are real world, past examples of it occurring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

That you assume it won't exist, is an assumption. One with some pretty nasty consequences if your wrong.

I did not claim there is no such thing as inflation, I said you have nothing to back your claim that money creation automatically leads to hyperinflation.

The ECB has already printed a trillion euro (a trillion), so where is this hyperinflation?

At what stage would we see hyperinflation from an EU-wide job guarantee either? After it had €10 billion put in? €100 billion? €1 trillion?

thebman

KyussBishop wrote: »

I did not claim there is no such thing as inflation, I said you have nothing to back your claim that money creation automatically leads to hyperinflation.

The ECB has already printed a trillion euro (a trillion), so where is this hyperinflation?

At what stage would we see hyperinflation from an EU-wide job guarantee either? After it had €10 billion put in? €100 billion? €1 trillion?

So your accepting we'll hit high-inflation if you just make money for the craic to pay people to do jobs that add no value to the economy?

Because that is what your trying to sell and there is no reason why anyone with savings should accept it.

KyussBishop

thebman wrote: »

So your accepting we'll hit high-inflation if you just make money for the craic to pay people to do jobs that add no value to the economy?

Because that is what your trying to sell and there is no reason why anyone with savings should accept it.

And again, you're making completely unbacked assertions: The €1 trillion printed by the ECB discredits the idea that money creation automatically leads to inflation.

How many times do I have to repeat that? That totally discredits the idea that money creation alone, leads to inflation.

Scortho

Unfortunately Job guarantee schemes wouldnt work. If we create jobs that arent needed, how are businesses going to sustain the employment when the subsidies are removed?
We already have subsidised work in the form of JobBridge, and look how successful that is.

By subsidising employment, that an employer has no demand for, inefficiencies develop.

Have a look at this video by Milton Friedman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8&feature=related

KyussBishop

Scortho wrote: »

Unfortunately Job guarantee schemes wouldnt work. If we create jobs that arent needed, how are businesses going to sustain the employment when the subsidies are removed?
We already have subsidised work in the form of JobBridge, and look how successful that is.

By subsidising employment, that an employer has no demand for, inefficiencies develop.

Have a look at this video by Milton Friedman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8&feature=related

Good article in this post here, of Friedman's corrupt past (he is pretty much just a propagandist):
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81810710&postcount=49

It would not be subsidizing employment, it would be creating temporary public jobs; we have lots of infrastructure jobs that we could fund, for starters (straight away here in Dublin, we could do with significant improvements in public transport, specifically extensions of local rail transport), and as the money from those projects feeds into the economy it will spur demand in the private sector, spurring more job growth.

You can also create jobs to stockpile products or materials long-term, and release them into the economy slowly over a future period, so that productive effort is not wasted, while still providing useful work to people, and a stimulus of money into the private sector to help private business.

Eventually, as the job guarantee goes on, the private sector will recover and will have enough capacity to absorb all of the jobs, and then the job guarantee will be wound down.

Scortho

KyussBishop wrote: »

Good article in this post here, of Friedman's corrupt past (he is pretty much just a propagandist):
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81810710&postcount=49

It would not be subsidizing employment, it would be creating temporary public jobs; we have lots of infrastructure jobs that we could fund, for starters (straight away here in Dublin, we could do with significant improvements in public transport, specifically extensions of local rail transport), and as the money from those projects feeds into the economy it will spur demand in the private sector, spurring more job growth.

You can also create jobs to stockpile products or materials long-term, and release them into the economy slowly over a future period, so that productive effort is not wasted, while still providing useful work to people, and a stimulus of money into the private sector to help private business.

Eventually, as the job guarantee goes on, the private sector will recover and will have enough capacity to absorb all of the jobs, and then the job guarantee will be wound down.

I'm not going to discuss the Friedman article as it'll drag the thread of course. Feel free to make a new thread though as to why Friedman is wrong.


Anyhow getting back on track your job guarantee scheme sounds more like a capital investment plan. The building of infrastructure would be something which I'd support! For example broadband infrastructure could be improved as could our roads and our light rail systems. These would also improve our ability to attract investment.

I'm slightly confused by your second idea. Why would we stockpile materials and products?
Where would we stockpile them?
Would we have to waste capital on rent?
You mention efficiency but how would it make production more efficient? Companies know what stock they need and when they need it for so are able to order it in ! The only thing that I see worthwhile stockpiling is grit!

KyussBishop

Scortho wrote: »

Anyhow getting back on track your job guarantee scheme sounds more like a capital investment plan. The building of infrastructure would be something which I'd support! For example broadband infrastructure could be improved as could our roads and our light rail systems. These would also improve our ability to attract investment.

I'm slightly confused by your second idea. Why would we stockpile materials and products?
Where would we stockpile them?
Would we have to waste capital on rent?
You mention efficiency but how would it make production more efficient? Companies know what stock they need and when they need it for so are able to order it in ! The only thing that I see worthwhile stockpiling is grit!

The stockpiling material/products is just an alternative set of jobs that could be created, if e.g. infrastructure projects/jobs are saturated, could put people into that alternative jobset; just an example of how the jobs could be created, while buffering (through the stockpile) the effects on the market.

Could put people to work building a publicly owned warehouse for example, to avoid rent while storing it all, and then sell that off to private industry too once the stock is gone.

The primary aim isn't efficiency though, just providing jobs while still trying not to waste the productive effort that people put in (so efficient production would be a bonus, not a primary goal); right now that we have enormous unemployment, we have both inefficiency and social harm through people not earning and spending (and their skills degrading, plus their standard of living and health degrading), and it's also an enormous waste of human productive potential.


If we put money into this (either through interest-free deficit, or money creation), we would experience immediate economic growth due to the influx of money into the economy (through worker wages and their spending), and would be starting our way out of this recession.

SupaNova2

No-one is saying all money creation causes inflation, most of the monetary inflation so far has been to prevent deflation and keep banks afloat.

One of the key parts of Schiff's Hyperinflation call in the US is that China and other foreign nations will stop purchasing US government debt and the FED will have to pick up the slack. The FED monetizing rather than existing dollar holders buying means a lot more dollars end up chasing the same amount of goods.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

No-one is saying all money creation causes inflation, most of the monetary inflation so far has been to prevent deflation and keep banks afloat.

One of the key parts of Schiff's Hyperinflation call in the US is that China and other foreign nations will stop purchasing US government debt and the FED will have to pick up the slack. The FED monetizing rather than existing dollar holders buying means a lot more dollars end up chasing the same amount of goods.

Is there somewhere I can read Schiff's claims on that? The few sources I can find with a quick Google, don't go into this much detail.

Why would other countries stop purchasing US debt like that? That would just cause a slowdown of the US economy, thus hurting the entire world economy, as demand from the US plummets (which has been a giant sink for other countries excess supply for a long time, so everyone has an interest in it).

It seems highly unlikely, that any country would stop purchasing US debt like that, especially seeing as they have the reserve currency.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Is there somewhere I can read Schiff's claims on that? The few sources I can find with a quick Google, don't go into this much detail.

Sorry are you asking a source for Schiff's prediction or a source that shows that the Chinese(or others) are no longer purchasing US debt to the same extent as before?

Why would other countries stop purchasing US debt like that? That would just cause a slowdown of the US economy, thus hurting the entire world economy, as demand from the US plummets (which has been a giant sink for other countries excess supply for a long time, so everyone has an interest in it).

If you doubt getting payed back why would you lend is the question, there are plenty of other things they could do with their dollars to offset a contraction of US demand, buy oil and natural resources for infrastructure projects sounds better than lending money to someone who wont pay back. As the relative purchasing power of the dollar diminishes the relative purchasing power of other currencies increase, so they will still have an export market.

It seems highly unlikely, that any country would stop purchasing US debt like that, especially seeing as they have the reserve currency.

I don't follow, why should they purchase their debt because of them having the reserve currency?

I wouldn't be a libertarian or even close, however any the government becoming the employer of last resort is too much interference in the labour market and I do thing it could lead to something like a modern version of stagflation. It interesting the op has coupled together the two ideas.

Government guaranteed work.
A call for wage increases in some industries.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

It interesting the op has coupled together the two ideas.

Government guaranteed work.
A call for wage increases in some industries.

Yes because increasing wages means you limit hiring more people.

Also government interference in wage setting such as minimum wages for specific jobs i.e you cannot hire a plumber/electrician/taxi for less than the labour courts decide has already bred a huge black market and increased unemployment as a result.

If you pump money into inefficient labour you prevent the correction that is needed to bring down costs. Ireland would remain uncompetitive.

Remember we do not control our currency. I really question the motives and thinking behind these union leaders. If they want communism then come out with it.

Its interesting I am in a union manly because 90% of the people I work with are in the same union, if the unions really are communist in there thinking I would not be happy to be supporting them, I joined the union as a sort of social solidarity with other people I work with.

My thinking on government interference in the labour market.

I believe in having a minimum wage and agreed rates for apprenticeships. After that there should be no government interference with wage rates, however if individually unions manage to negotiate a certain wage rate thats fine, the important point is that the government and by extension the state should not be involved in setting wage rates ( except as employers )

I also think a small amount of profit sharing in profitable company's as opposed to wage increases could be a good idea,

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Sorry are you asking a source for Schiff's prediction or a source that shows that the Chinese(or others) are no longer purchasing US debt to the same extent as before?

Schiff's argument on the issue primarily; it would be interesting to see the details of it.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

If you doubt getting payed back why would you lend is the question, there are plenty of other things they could do with their dollars to offset a contraction of US demand, buy oil and natural resources for infrastructure projects sounds better than lending money to someone who wont pay back. As the relative purchasing power of the dollar diminishes the relative purchasing power of other currencies increase, so they will still have an export market.



I don't follow, why should they purchase their debt because of them having the reserve currency?

The debt is just a tally card of how much one country owes another; it can expand as much as they like, so long as the interest payments stay manageable.

The US are perfectly capable of paying back their debt, and seem to have plenty of willing buyers still, so I don't see why they would hit issues. If they couldn't expand the debt further, that would just be exactly like hitting the upcoming artificial fiscal cliff if they did in any case? (which indeed, is about to set them back into recession, but is a totally artificial political problem)

In either case, there's absolutely no question about the ability of the US to repay their debts.

Also, if other countries stopped buying US debt, and forced the US into fiscal problems as a result, that would be against their interest due to the impact it would have on the value of the USD, meaning they'd get paid back less on their holdings of US debt.

I'd need to see Schiff's writing on this to get a better idea of it, as it seems a bit like a red herring, which I suspect begs the question of hyperinflation (thus possibly being a circular argument, but I'd need to see the original writing, to confirm that).

KyussBishop

mariaalice wrote: »

I wouldn't be a libertarian or even close, however any the government becoming the employer of last resort is too much interference in the labour market and I do thing it could lead to something like a modern version of stagflation. It interesting the op has coupled together the two ideas.

Government guaranteed work.
A call for wage increases in some industries.

How would it lead to a modern version of stagflation? You're presupposing high inflation again; a job guarantee (with government providing the temporary jobs) isn't just as simple as pumping money into jobs (it also has nothing to do with private jobs), and it has mechanisms to ameliorate inflation too.

Deleted User wrote:

If you pump money into inefficient labour you prevent the correction that is needed to bring down costs. Ireland would remain uncompetitive.

Remember we do not control our currency. I really question the motives and thinking behind these union leaders. If they want communism then come out with it.

That 'correction' is slashing peoples quality of living and income, destroying our internal economy, and making imports ever more expensive, in order to turn is into a cheap manufacturing hub, which makes our economy even more unstable/dependent, to other economies (and the US isn't the big sinkhole of excess supply it used to be, so who are we going to export to?).
It also necessitates a period of massive unemployment and social damage to get there in the first place, which is easily avoidable, thus is it wholly immoral too.

It is exactly that we don't have control over our own currency which is the problem, so we need to lobby the EU to act, not just shut up and accept austerity; it is an enormous and gross mismanagement within the EU, that is imposing this on us, with many vested interests deliberately keeping things in limbo, to destroy our economy (and many other countries economies), so that private financial interests can pick at the corpse.

If all we ever discuss, is what part of the budget to tear down, or what state assets to sell to the fraudulent finance industry, then we are already accepting the worst possible outcome.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Schiff's argument on the issue primarily; it would be interesting to see the details of it.

His books or this interview from 2009 would be a good overview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eksf2ScG6yU

In either case, there's absolutely no question about the ability of the US to repay their debts.

Yes they have no problem paying off their debt nominally, after all its denominated in a currency they can print.

Also, if other countries stopped buying US debt, and forced the US into fiscal problems as a result, that would be against their interest due to the impact it would have on the value of the USD, meaning they'd get paid back less on their holdings of US debt.

The options are take a loss on their existing holding of US debt, or further increase their holdings of bad US debt. China have actually sold close to $115 billion of their US debt in the past year, and they accumulated almost no new US debt since 2010. Japan have been the major foreign buyer the last few years.

KyussBishop

KyussBishop wrote: »

How would it lead to a modern version of stagflation? You're presupposing high inflation again; a job guarantee (with government providing the temporary jobs) isn't just as simple as pumping money into jobs (it also has nothing to do with private jobs), and it has mechanisms to ameliorate inflation too.


That 'correction' is slashing peoples quality of living and income, destroying our internal economy, and making imports ever more expensive, in order to turn is into a cheap manufacturing hub, which makes our economy even more unstable/dependent, to other economies (and the US isn't the big sinkhole of excess supply it used to be, so who are we going to export to?).
It also necessitates a period of massive unemployment and social damage to get there in the first place, which is easily avoidable, thus is it wholly immoral too.

It is exactly that we don't have control over our own currency which is the problem, so we need to lobby the EU to act, not just shut up and accept austerity; it is an enormous and gross mismanagement within the EU, that is imposing this on us, with many vested interests deliberately keeping things in limbo, to destroy our economy (and many other countries economies), so that private financial interests can pick at the corpse.

If all we ever discuss, is what part of the budget to tear down, or what state assets to sell to the fraudulent finance industry, then we are already accepting the worst possible outcome.

Explain how government guaranteed employment would not cause inflation eventually.

(1) what rates of pay are you proposing to pay for the government guaranteed jobs.

(2) How would it not interferer with the local jobs market, for example around Christmas retail takes on a lot of short term workers which are then let go in January they are mostly at minimum wage although some pay more. If all the supples labour is take up by a government guaranteed job retail employers will have to pay more than the government guarantee job/min wage to get employees thus causing wages to rise because of government interference which is wage inflation.

(3) Stockpiling goods is a silly idea because if they are stored for any length of time they will problem be obsolete by the time they are released on to the market. ( phone 1 verses phone 4 or 5 ).

I do think the social impact of unemployment is an important subject but I think it needs to be looked at in a completely different way. Have you ever read the right to useful unemployment Ivan Illich.

Scortho

KyussBishop wrote: »

The stockpiling material/products is just an alternative set of jobs that could be created, if e.g. infrastructure projects/jobs are saturated, could put people into that alternative jobset; just an example of how the jobs could be created, while buffering (through the stockpile) the effects on the market.

Could put people to work building a publicly owned warehouse for example, to avoid rent while storing it all, and then sell that off to private industry too once the stock is gone.

The primary aim isn't efficiency though, just providing jobs while still trying not to waste the productive effort that people put in (so efficient production would be a bonus, not a primary goal); right now that we have enormous unemployment, we have both inefficiency and social harm through people not earning and spending (and their skills degrading, plus their standard of living and health degrading), and it's also an enormous waste of human productive potential.


If we put money into this (either through interest-free deficit, or money creation), we would experience immediate economic growth due to the influx of money into the economy (through worker wages and their spending), and would be starting our way out of this recession.

This is the wrong way to go about creating employment.
What we need is stuff that will last.
What are we going to do, build ikea warehouses in every town in the country and stuff them full of raw materials so Johnny can think he is working.
Raw materials that will cost us money to buy in the first place.
Lets say we buy copper. And we stockpile some of these state built and run warehouses with copper. In five years time what happens if the price of copper falls through the floor. We've lost a fortune on the raw materials that we didnt need in the first place. Who picks up the bill?

The way to create employment is by attracting large multinational firms to the country. The construction/fitout of their premises will provide much needed jobs for the construction industry.
The new employees of these firms, will spend their money in the local economy which will create employment in shops, restaurants etc.
According to the IDA "Over 1,000 IDA supported companies in Ireland employ over 146,000 people. These companies accounted for exports of over €115 billion and generate €19 billion of expenditure in the economy." see part 1.6
http://www.idaireland.com/help/

We can also create employment by further supporting jobs created by indigenous companies.
Take for example the Kerry group jobs announcement for the new food research site. The construction of the facility will create a 400 construction jobs, while 900 people, many of whom will be high tech graduates will be employed once the site is fully operational.
It has been estimated that this will help create another 1100 jobs in the greater kildare area.

Surely providing grants to companies, both Irish and multinational is a better idea than providing meaningless temporary state jobs in the stockpiling of materials where they're not even needed.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

His books or this interview from 2009 would be a good overview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eksf2ScG6yU

Yes they have no problem paying off their debt nominally, after all its denominated in a currency they can print.

The options are take a loss on their existing holding of US debt, or further increase their holdings of bad US debt. China have actually sold close to $115 billion of their US debt in the past year, and they accumulated almost no new US debt since 2010. Japan have been the major foreign buyer the last few years.

Haven't had a chance to look at that video, will take a look when I can; ta.

It's interesting that the debt is shifting around, and wondering on the reasons, though I'm not sure it's hugely significant; I don't think there will be any kind of crisis of confidence in the debt (or further deficit), so long as the US economy doesn't downturn (which the upcoming artificial fiscal cliff may make more likely).

KyussBishop

I'll cross-post this in another thread I made on this topic ages ago, since it fits political theory more than it does here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80709362

mariaalice wrote: »

Explain how government guaranteed employment would not cause inflation eventually.

(1) what rates of pay are you proposing to pay for the government guaranteed jobs.

(2) How would it not interferer with the local jobs market, for example around Christmas retail takes on a lot of short term workers which are then let go in January they are mostly at minimum wage although some pay more. If all the supples labour is take up by a government guaranteed job retail employers will have to pay more than the government guarantee job/min wage to get employees thus causing wages to rise because of government interference which is wage inflation.

(3) Stockpiling goods is a silly idea because if they are stored for any length of time they will problem be obsolete by the time they are released on to the market. ( phone 1 verses phone 4 or 5 ).

I do think the social impact of unemployment is an important subject but I think it needs to be looked at in a completely different way. Have you ever read the right to useful unemployment Ivan Illich.

I'll try and explain the inflation part of it well, but I don't think I do a great job of it here; you could check the article I post near the bottom as well, but that's pretty tough going.
Here is also another article, which may be a bit more approachable, but is still quite long (starting at the bolded 'Aggregate demand, Employment and Inflation' header; the bolded 'Conclusion' section is worth a quick look even if you get tired of the rest):
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=14208


Right now we are undergoing debt-deflation, which is peoples wages being spent on paying down debt rather than buying, leading to a loss of demand in the economy which affects business and self-perpetuates, with more people losing jobs and getting in trouble paying debts, leading to even less demand etc..

A lot of the job guarantee money will go straight into those debts for starters (through wages), then more will go into spurring consumer demand back to what it was, bringing private industry back to its previous levels of production over time (with the job guarantee slowing winding down as private industry recovers and reabsorbs workers); so that's already a significant amount of money going back into non-inflationary things.

If people are spending too much money (rather than saving) in relation to what private industry can supply, then that would cause some demand-pull inflation, and that's when you need to step in to counteract inflation (this doesn't come immediately either, because a lot of business will have the extra capacity to soak up demand, before inflation happens, and industry will also grow to meet increased demand over time, reducing inflation).
Remember though, that a significant amount/percentage of money will already be going into non-inflationary areas, so this will be a problem coming only after that (and once the size of the job guarantee goes below a certain level, it may not even be a problem at all); this means a significant proportion of stimulus is non-inflationary, and any inflation is only an incidental side-effect (and is manageable, can be counteracted).

In our current system, inflation is counteracted by allowing unemployment to rise, causing significant social and economic harm that is compounded over time.
In the job guarantee, when inflation is reached (only after a significant fraction goes into debt and reinflating aggregate demand, so we're already making progress with economic problems), one of the mechanisms than can be employed (mentioned more in the article below), is tightening of fiscal/monetary policy (raised taxes, decreased non-JG public spending for instance) to stabilize aggregate demand, and thus inflation.

This may push people out of the private sector (that happens anyway, with our current policies, just people go unemployed instead), due to the cap on aggregate demand, and pushing them into the job guarantee like that, has a temporary downward effect on wage prices (for the lifetime of the job guarantee), also helping curb demand, acting as a counterbalance to inflation.

It shares the burden more equally, rather than just massively lumping it onto unemployed workers, and it actually stabilizes and resolves the economic problems, rather than engaging in massive destruction like austerity does.
So in the end, a job guarantee is a more efficient way to manage inflation, than unemployment is, and it's an automatic stabilizer for some economic problems too, whereas austerity just makes things worse.


As to the other questions:
1: Minimum wage most likely.

2: It's a wage floor, not wage inflation; with the job guarantee set at minimum wage, retailers would just have to either offer that (which they'd need to anyway), or just a little bit higher.

3: You're talking about consumer goods that depreciate over time; that's not what people would need to work on (and indeed, wouldn't be a good idea for stockpiling).

There is an example here, a little bit under the bolded header 'The concept of a Job Gurantee':
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=10554

In the example there, it lists a past example of the US stockpiling wool to provide price stability; that's one random example of non-perishable goods that you can stockpile, you can do the same with any kind of surplus raw materials.

The purpose for that is just to ameliorate the effect it will have on the price of that good in the market, while trying not to waste the productive effort of peoples labour in the job guarantee.
Not wasting labour is a bonus by the way, not an inherent necessity; people can do work instead, which prioritizes social value rather than monetary value too, such as helping the elderly, homeless, and any other kinds of community or traditionally-volunteer services you can think of (but which may not have enough help to make enough of a difference), it really doesn't matter in the end.

It is flexible though, you can aim primarily at regaining money from labour from the JG program (maybe through material stockpiling), to the exclusion of socially-oriented work, or you can mix in socially-oriented work too.


I haven't read that book by Ivan Illich, no, and it seems to be a bit hard to figure out what it's about through Googling, though I gather it (appears to) argue for a lessening of labour, and more meaningful work.

KyussBishop

Scortho wrote: »

This is the wrong way to go about creating employment.
What we need is stuff that will last.
What are we going to do, build ikea warehouses in every town in the country and stuff them full of raw materials so Johnny can think he is working.
Raw materials that will cost us money to buy in the first place.
Lets say we buy copper. And we stockpile some of these state built and run warehouses with copper. In five years time what happens if the price of copper falls through the floor. We've lost a fortune on the raw materials that we didnt need in the first place. Who picks up the bill?

The way to create employment is by attracting large multinational firms to the country. The construction/fitout of their premises will provide much needed jobs for the construction industry.
The new employees of these firms, will spend their money in the local economy which will create employment in shops, restaurants etc.
According to the IDA "Over 1,000 IDA supported companies in Ireland employ over 146,000 people. These companies accounted for exports of over €115 billion and generate €19 billion of expenditure in the economy." see part 1.6
http://www.idaireland.com/help/

We can also create employment by further supporting jobs created by indigenous companies.
Take for example the Kerry group jobs announcement for the new food research site. The construction of the facility will create a 400 construction jobs, while 900 people, many of whom will be high tech graduates will be employed once the site is fully operational.
It has been estimated that this will help create another 1100 jobs in the greater kildare area.

Surely providing grants to companies, both Irish and multinational is a better idea than providing meaningless temporary state jobs in the stockpiling of materials where they're not even needed.

Ah, missed this post initially; if we take on surplus resources on the cheap its not a problem, and we also have our own natural resource we can use up.

The jobs you mention are good, but they aren't going to get rid of unemployment; if we continue into austerity, we are looking at a significantly long time of unemployment for a lot of people, ongoing into the future, with the massive social and economic damage that entails, harming a huge number of people.
With a job guarantee, we can have people reemployed in a very short amount of time.

How would providing grants to companies achieve full employment again? It wouldn't solve any of the root economic problems.

maninasia

KyussBishop wrote: »

Try engaging in actual argument, rather than labeling anyone an 'idiot', thanks.

You obviously have not even read my post at all, or are deliberately ignoring key parts of it for the sake of spewing ad-hominem; the EU is not living under a fixed money supply, and I've explained exactly how funding this is manageable, at an EU level, in my previous post.

Funded at the 'EU' level. Sounds like a pipe dream to me. They can't even get a break on the bank debt, let alone expect the EU to provide makee-upee jobs for all the unemployed.

KyussBishop

maninasia wrote: »

Funded at the 'EU' level. Sounds like a pipe dream to me. They can't even get a break on the bank debt, let alone expect the EU to provide makee-upee jobs for all the unemployed.

This seems a bit of a throwaway/dismissive reply, considering the detail I went to with my previous post.

The EU are the whole problem, and discussion should center around them, and pressuring our government, to pressure them to take proper action (such as undertaking a fully-constructed version of the policies I describe), rather than just accepting things as they are and discussing only what part of our budget/government/services to burn down (when that is totally avoidable).
We've ceded an enormous amount of sovereignty to the EU, and we have no democratic control over what they do here, and they are causing our country to suffer massive economic and social damage, which is deplorable on an enormous level.

We can't just accept the EU lumping us with this gratuitously destructive policy choice of austerity, and limit discourse to the usual TINA line of discussion, because there is an alternative, and discussion of it needs widespread promotion, for change to happen.

It's not just the EU either, it's a significant portion of the financial industry trying to lobby for this and lump it on us, and who are still pumping up property bubbles in other countries, to perpetuate the crisis and extract enormous profits.
They've captured the whole media/public/political discourse in the wake of the crisis, and convinced a significant number of people that being screwed by austerity is good for them, and are successfully muddying discussion for the rest, so it's important to recapture the discourse and to stop talking about living within the constraints of austerity, because we don't have to, there are far better alternatives, and austerity is a deliberately destructive choice.

Work

What makes work meaningful?

Published on June 9, 2009 by Michael F. Steger, Ph.D. in The Meaning in Life

Three men are found smashing boulders with iron hammers. When asked what they are doing, the first man says, "Breaking big rocks into little rocks." The second man says, "Feeding my family." The third man says, "Building a cathedral."

To many of us who study and consult in occupational and organizational contexts, we would call what this third man does meaningful.

There are many perspectives on meaningful work, ranging from Marxist ideas about work that resists the dehumanizing influences of the Industrial Revolution to religious ideas about being called by a transcendent spirit to do Good Work in the world -- with everything in between. I have come to see meaningful work as consisting of three, central components. First, the work we do must make sense; we must know what's being asked of us and be able to identify the personal or organizational resources we need to do our job. Second, the work we do must have a point; we must be able to see how the little tasks we engage in build, brick-by-brick if you will, into an important part of the purpose of our company. Finally, the work that we do must benefit some greater good; we must be able to see how our toil helps others, whether that's saving the planet, saving a life, or making our co-workers' jobs easier so that they can go home and really be available for their families and friends. A growing body of evidence shows that meaningful workers are happy workers, more committed workers, and, in some tantalising ways, better workers.


KyussoBishop I haver read the links in you post but when you get down to the nitty gritty of the personal of job guarantee theory.

If you see full employment as way of counteracting some of the effects of long term unemployment such as family brake up, depression etc then the work has to be MEANINGFUL in the way the quote at the top of my post explains. There is Little to no point in providing a guaranteed job at min wage just to say someone has a job, there are so many holes in the theory, just of the top of my head..is it possible for a single person on the mini wage to provide shelter and food for themselves and to participate in a meaningful way in society( in an expensive city like Dublin)...The cost of child care for an unemployed loan parent....the lose of the shadow work provided by women who are not formally employed, which would then have to be paid for by the state, for example informal care of the elderly or disabled which is often provided by women.

KyussBishop

mariaalice wrote: »

KyussoBishop I haver read the links in you post but when you get down to the nitty gritty of the personal of job guarantee theory.

If you see full employment as way of counteracting some of the effects of long term unemployment such as family brake up, depression etc then the work has to be MEANINGFUL in the way the quote at the top of my post explains. There is Little to no point in providing a guaranteed job at min wage just to say someone has a job, there are so many holes in the theory, just of the top of my head..is it possible for a single person on the mini wage to provide shelter and food for themselves and to participate in a meaningful way in society( in an expensive city like Dublin)...The cost of child care for an unemployed loan parent....the lose of the shadow work provided by women who are not formally employed, which would then have to be paid for by the state, for example informal care of the elderly or disabled which is often provided by women.

A job guarantee can provide any kind of work you can think of, I've only given examples above, which minimize the economic impact.

If people in the job guarantee want to build cathederals, you could pay them to do that, or helping the elderly, or to run a club supporting a hobby they like, to do any kind of adademic research into something they have an interest in etc., anything (though I'm not saying I advocate that, you'd probably have a lot of trouble justifying the expenditure on a lot of these things, in terms of profits, but that doesn't mean they don't contribute positively to society, in ways beyond monetary value).

It all depends on what you view as optimal work really, whether you want to prioritize monetary gains, social gains, personal wellbeing, scientific development etc. etc.; really, you can choose anything when writing up the job guarantee policy (it would be up to government though, to set the possible jobs that could be done).

All of private industry is focused on having to make a profit, which immediately rules out a lot of areas of work, so a job guarantee (or publicly funded work in general) where profit does not have to be one of the motives, is far more flexible in allowing the kind of meaningful work you describe.

So it can actually be made to fit perfectly with what you're saying there, all depending on the range of jobs government include in the program.


Also, those women who informally do shadow work: Do they not deserve some compensation anyway? There's no principal reason why they can't be paid, even through printed money, because it's such a small number of people it would have a negligible (if any, after you consider debt and normal everyday expenditures) impact on inflation.

cson

Can't help thinking of this clip when I look at the thread title...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R7JmZ1q310

What's going on in this country is more in line with socialisation of debt than communism. Ultimately whilst on the face of it, its pretty much across the board in terms of cuts/taxation certain socio-economic groups will suffer more than others - McWilliams is quite good on this from a wealth redistribution perspective.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

If people in the job guarantee want to build cathederals, you could pay them to do that, or helping the elderly, or to run a club supporting a hobby they like, to do any kind of adademic research into something they have an interest in etc., anything (though I'm not saying I advocate that, you'd probably have a lot of trouble justifying the expenditure on a lot of these things, in terms of profits, but that doesn't mean they don't contribute positively to society, in ways beyond monetary value).

Take a private company that makes smoothies. The cost of producing these smoothies is €2.50, and they can easily sell them at €4. In other words they are taking a limited supply of resources(fruit, ice cream, labor etc) and using those resources to satisfy demand. If they can't sell smoothies for more than their costs it means the resources the company used were demanded more elsewhere, and since they will be making a loss they will be forced to release those resources so they can be directed to more useful ends.

Can you not see how leaving the government bid away resources by creating money with no care for monetary profits could lead to waste? Can you not see that this is exactly what happened during the housing bubble? Loans were created with little concern for their profitability, those loans then bid away more and more resources into fueling a wasteful housing bubble.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Take a private company that makes smoothies. The cost of producing these smoothies is €2.50, and they can easily sell them at €4. In other words they are taking a limited supply of resources(fruit, ice cream, labor etc) and using those resources to satisfy demand. If they can't sell smoothies for more than their costs it means the resources the company used were demanded more elsewhere, and since they will be making a loss they will be forced to release those resources so they can be directed to more useful ends.

Can you not see how leaving the government bid away resources by creating money with no care for monetary profits could lead to waste? Can you not see that this is exactly what happened during the housing bubble? Loans were created with little concern for their profitability, those loans then bid away more and more resources into fueling a wasteful housing bubble.

The job guarantee takes a surplus resource (unemployed labour for instance; labour isn't limited right now), and (preferably) puts it to use on other surplus resources, such as raw materials nobody else is extracting, or that they can't sell off (so you can buy surplus on the cheap, limiting private losses there, but not stimulating demand) etc..

I agree that it would be undesirable for a job guarantee to make too much use of non-surplus resources, due to the inflationary effects that would have on prices in private industry (with some exceptions, as resources used for infrastructure can benefit everyone in the long term); it doesn't need to though, as it can make use of surplus resources.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

The job guarantee takes a surplus resource (unemployed labour for instance; labour isn't limited right now), and (preferably) puts it to use on other surplus resources, such as raw materials nobody else is extracting, or that they can't sell off (so you can buy surplus on the cheap, limiting private losses there, but not stimulating demand) etc..

Back to reality, what surplus resources apart from labor are you talking about?

We don't have oil, productive land, or steel lying around not being used, all would have to be bid away from somebody else, and there comes your price inflation.

KyussBishop

KyussBishop wrote: »

The job guarantee takes a surplus resource (unemployed labour for instance; labour isn't limited right now), and (preferably) puts it to use on other surplus resources, such as raw materials nobody else is extracting, or that they can't sell off (so you can buy surplus on the cheap, limiting private losses there, but not stimulating demand) etc..

I agree that it would be undesirable for a job guarantee to make too much use of non-surplus resources, due to the inflationary effects that would have on prices in private industry (with some exceptions, as resources used for infrastructure can benefit everyone in the long term); it doesn't need to though, as it can make use of surplus resources.

But whats the point of " cureing "unemployment by having the current unemployed working at a guaranteed job that pays minimum wage, which is currently 8.65 an hour or approximately 17,500 a year, all that is going to do is create a huge army of working poor in Irish society. How would that benefit society, would people be forced to take up the offerer of a guaranteed job or lose their social welfare benefit or would it be voluntary? how would they pay for childcare while they work at their minimum wage job?

We Would be far better off to enhance and promote ideas like the back to education allowance so anyone unemployed can get a third level education and thus increase th ire skills and productive.

This is an interesting and explaines the hidden ageda of forcing people in to work.


how privatization of welfare services has legitimized a shadow economy and work through mandated community service jobs, leading to the current cost/benefit legacy of welfare privatization utilized by the Wisconsin Works program (W-2). Wisconsin’s program requires women recipients to engage in volunteer work, creating a subsidized labor force for private agencies based on the presumption that work, even meaningless and menial tasks, establishes job-readiness for women on welfare. The Author suggests that we need to begin thinking about how to recreate the framework for providing public services. The community service component of W2 and its actual function powerfully demonstrates how W-2 mothers have become a reserve labor force. But at the same time the contours of W-2 make reserve labor status profitable, not for the mothers, but for the sub-contracted agencies. The relationship between W-2 mothers, the status of community service, and the position of sub-contracted agencies have generated a shadow market as a consequence of welfare privatization. The ways in which these women are held captive to a world without work, a world without skill building, and limited ways out become the grounds upon which sub-contracting agencies generate profit. Under the shroud of “cost effectiveness,” private agencies are reaping the financial windfall of “pimping” the state based on their ability to market their skills at converting welfare mothers into low-wage workers.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Back to reality, what surplus resources apart from labor are you talking about?

We don't have oil, productive land, or steel lying around not being used, all would have to be bid away from somebody else, and there comes your price inflation.

You're starting to be a bit cynical about it now and seek for ways to bash it as a whole; I've already listed some areas where you don't need any resources other than labour, that a portion of the program can be built upon, such as community services and scientific research in general.

You can also provide a job guarantee for agricultural use too, as many grains are good for stockpiling over a long period of time, or work to convert unproductive land into productive land (which would provide unending long-term benefits going into the future, since previously unusable land would then be usable).
You could even start up an entire quarry if you like, to provide construction materials solely for job guarantee infrastructure projects (thus isolating effects from private industry prices); I'm sure there's plenty of opportunity to snap up idle construction resources, on the cheap, since our entire construction industry has tanked.

It's possible to be cynical about it, and make up bad examples as straw-men, to bash down, but that's accelerating towards ridicule rather than actually considering the legitimate jobs it can create, and the idle resources that can be used.

SupaNova2

I'm asking for real world examples of surplus resources in Ireland that could be used.

Where in Ireland can we take unused unproductive land make it productive, grow grain and stockpile it? As for research, do we have large pools of unemployed professors and research labs ready to go? And where are there underutilized or unused productive quarries that no-one else knows about?

KyussBishop

mariaalice wrote: »

But whats the point of " curring "unemployment by having the current unemployed working at a guaranteed job that pays minimum wage, which is currently 8.65 an hour or approximately 17,500 a year, all that is going to do is create a huge army of working poor in Irish society. How would that benefit society, would people be forced to take up the offerer of a guaranteed job or lose there social welfare benefit or would it be voluntary? how would they pay for childcare while they work at their minimum wage job?

We Would be far better off to enhance and promote ideas like the back to education allowance so anyone unemployed can get a third level education and thus increase th ire skills and productive.

This is an interesting and explaines the hidden ageda of forcing people in to work.


how privatization of welfare services has legitimized a shadow economy and work through mandated community service jobs, leading to the current cost/benefit legacy of welfare privatization utilized by the Wisconsin Works program (W-2). Wisconsin’s program requires women recipients to engage in volunteer work, creating a subsidized labor force for private agencies based on the presumption that work, even meaningless and menial tasks, establishes job-readiness for women on welfare. The Author suggests that we need to begin thinking about how to recreate the framework for providing public services. The community service component of W2 and its actual function powerfully demonstrates how W-2 mothers have become a reserve labor force. But at the same time the contours of W-2 make reserve labor status profitable, not for the mothers, but for the sub-contracted agencies. The relationship between W-2 mothers, the status of community service, and the position of sub-contracted agencies have generated a shadow market as a consequence of welfare privatization. The ways in which these women are held captive to a world without work, a world without skill building, and limited ways out become the grounds upon which sub-contracting agencies generate profit. Under the shroud of “cost effectiveness,” private agencies are reaping the financial windfall of “pimping” the state based on their ability to market their skills at converting welfare mothers into low-wage workers.

The way that benefits Irish society, is that the money goes from the job guarantee, into peoples wages, who pay down their debts and gradually alleviate the debt-deflation that is holding our economy down.

As people switch back away from paying down debts, money is freed up to be spent on consumer goods and other stuff, which pumps up private industry again, and as private industry recovers people will move out of the job guarantee program, and back into private industry.

It puts us straight on the path to recovery, and prevents the enormous social and economic damage of unemployment, and the affects that has on peoples health, and also keeps people efficient, because their skills aren't being worn down over time through unemployment.


You don't have to get rid of unemployment either, as it is completely compatible with running a job guarantee alongside it; you can pick and choose your policies here: you can have unemployment benefits that are guaranteed, or you can have unemployment that runs out after a period of time, or you can have no unemployment benefits.
All policies choices there are compatible with the job guarantee, and can be considered as a discussion completely separate to the job guarantee.

It's also completely compatible with Back To Education schemes as well, which can also be considered a completely separate discussion; people can even retrain through the Job Guarantee itself, depending on how it is setup.

There isn't any hidden agenda here; the whole purpose of the Job Guarantee is to get rid of the massive social and economic harm unemployment imposes on people, and there is a huge variety in the number of ways you can configure how it is setup, such that (depending on how it is setup) it can fit almost anyones views on meaningful work, benefits, resource usage, etc..


Also, worth repeating, is that the job guarantee doesn't involve privatization in any way; it would be government funded, and you can keep benefits programs too, without privatizing them, if you want; it's totally compatible with either keeping or getting rid of them.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I'm asking for real world examples of surplus resources in Ireland that could be used.

Where in Ireland can we take unused unproductive land make it productive, grow grain and stockpile it? As for research, do we have large pools of unemployed professors and research labs ready to go? And where are there underutilized or unused productive quarries that no-one else knows about?

Look I've already given examples here, and you're now being demanding on details, for the sake of trying to bash the idea; that's very disingenuous, and it's looking to bring down the tone of the discussion which has (thus far) been good.
Anywhere you look with land that is not being used for farmland (vast vast areas of land with mostly grass), can be used that way, all over the country.

Straight off, in Wicklow, there are disused places where you can mine copper, granite, sulpher, lead and there are quarries all over the country, many disused.

hardCopy

KyussBishop wrote: »

Look I've already given examples here, and you're now being demanding on details, for the sake of trying to bash the idea; that's very disingenuous, and it's looking to bring down the tone of the discussion which has (thus far) been good.
Anywhere you look with land that is not being used for farmland (vast vast areas of land with mostly grass), can be used that way, all over the country.

Straight off, in Wicklow, there are disused places where you can mine copper, granite, sulpher, lead and there are quarries all over the country, many disused.

And they could all cut the grass with scissors.

It seems to be a rip-roaring success in North Korea. Everybody has a job and everybody starves.

KyussBishop

hardCopy wrote: »

And they could all cut the grass with scissors.

It seems to be a rip-roaring success in North Korea. Everybody has a job and everybody starves.

You haven't even read any of my posts have you? You just read 'Communism' in the thread title, then applied that to everything within the thread?

It's not much to ask, for you to post something constructive in the thread, rather than this throwaway type comment that adds nothing (and which doesn't even relate to anything posted in the thread).

Okay you have almost convinced me

An idea I think might work and be compatible with what you propose.

There are a lot of young men ( and some women ) who would like to do an apprenticeship in all sorts of areas but we will start with construction.

The government guarantees that anyone who wants to do an apprenticeship will be provided with the work element so the person can do the apprenticeship.

The government or it could be funded by a philanthropist, give the money to an organisation who set up a not for profit building company and the company keeps building and recycling ( knocking down ) the same set of building so as to provide the work element of the apprentiship... in the same way a model factory could be built for anyone who want to be an instrument tecl/tool maker, the producers would be recycled instead of being put on to the open make, thus meaningful work and training could be provided with out affecting the current markets for the products. Is the the sort of idea you have?

hardCopy

KyussBishop wrote: »

You haven't even read any of my posts have you? You just read 'Communism' in the thread title, then applied that to everything within the thread?

It's not much to ask, for you to post something constructive in the thread, rather than this throwaway type comment that adds nothing (and which doesn't even relate to anything posted in the thread).

Actually I read all of your comments about guaranteed work in token jobs, as practiced in North Korea.

My comments have nothing to do with the thread title.

Can you think of any other countries where job guarantees have been used?

GeorgeClooney

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1117/teeu-portlaoise-conference.html





Communism for some, pay rises for others! Now why didn`t I think of that! Economic crisis solved!!

Is this the solution? :pac:

You appear to confusing communism with socialism. In communism, there is no state and there is no currency.