Jobs = less crime/drug-addiction?

KyussBishop

Since 'insert draconian/violent action' for resolving the problem of 'insert undesirable/dehumanized social group' (in this case 'junkies' and criminals in city center), seems to be the topic du jour, here's a thread with a different idea:
Give these people, who have such poor prospects that they resort to crime or may end up stuck in a cycle of drug addiction - give them jobs.

Slightly radical idea there perhaps but....I have this theory, that the problem of drug addiction (mainly cases where people become stuck and can't function well) and crime, might just have something to do with unemployment and associated lack of future prospects some people have, as a result of that?
(it's disturbing really, that people don't see something this obvious, and direct their anger against whole subgroups of people - 'junkies' in this case - who are probably disproportionately victims of the crisis)

Maybe we don't need to mete out violence to them, or chop off their giblets, in order to resolve this (and other) societal problems?


I know a fair bit about economics and policies that can be used to recover from the economic crisis, and this method of funding (involves no consulting of Europe, no increase in taxes, or public debt, or interest paid on any debts), is likely good enough for government to restaff/expand the public services, and provide a jobs program (doing a whole host of things ranging from infrastructural development, to community services/development - or almost anything you can think of that is societally/economically useful), that could employ not just these people who would otherwise engage in crime and other trouble, but pretty much everyone who is unemployed (massively speeding up resolving of the economic crisis, as well).

All of the above mentioned problems, are caused by the economic crisis and the associated unemployment and drop in public services (and lack of some services, like proper mental health treatment - which has forever been bad here), and these societal problems can not be fixed (only moved around or hidden), without resolving the economic crisis itself.

The method of funding I link to above, is by far the most promising thing I have seen yet, that I think can actually realistically (even in the face of Europe's political problems) provide us with an economic recovery - and help solve all of these worsening societal problems as well.

danniemcq

explain all those execs on coke, the fast food people on weed, the musicians on heroin, the 9-5ers on e.

Jobs do not mean less drugs jobs mean more drugs to cope with jobs!

Specialun

wut

KyussBishop

danniemcq wrote: »

explain all those execs on coke, the fast food people on weed, the musicians on heroin, the 9-5ers on e.

Jobs do not mean less drugs jobs mean more drugs to cope with jobs!

Ok, drugtaking wasn't a good way for me to put it (just referring to the other threads on 'junkies' really), more talking about people who end up taking drugs and/or being homeless and/or resorting to crime, because of unemployment and the economic crisis.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

maybe... just maybe, junkies are junkies because they're junkies.

KyussBishop

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

maybe... just maybe, junkies are junkies because they're junkies.

Or maybe, there's a reason (some precipitating events) for why they became addicted in the first place?

Lack of future prospects, including lack of hope of getting a job, perhaps having become homeless and ending up on the streets; how are you going to get them off the streets and into a life where they can be self-sufficient (not relying on the state, for example), if you don't give them jobs?

BraziliaNZ

I've a great job and I like drugs - discuss

moxin

KyussBishop wrote: »

Or maybe, there's a reason (some precipitating events) for why they became addicted in the first place?

Lack of future prospects, including lack of hope of getting a job, perhaps having become homeless and ending up on the streets; how are you going to get them off the streets and into a life where they can be self-sufficient (not relying on the state, for example), if you can't get them jobs?

Tens of thousands of working class urban folk were jobless over the last 30yrs and teh vast majority never took heroin as an escape route. Its a personal choice to take it, the ones who are junkies now would still be getting high even if they had a job.

Chips Lovell

Having a job means having more money to buy drugs. w00t!

catallus

People who are attracted to drugs will take the drugs. This isn't rocket science, it is the entire basis for drug legislation and damage control; the sad fact of the matter is that there are millions upon millions who will take drugs if they are available, less availability simply means that there are arithmetically less people damaging themselves. In this regard the legislation is a rip-roaring success. Only a small amount of potential drug-users are damaging themselves with drugs.

danniemcq

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ok, drugtaking wasn't a good way for me to put it (just referring to the other threads on 'junkies' really), more talking about people who end up taking drugs and/or being homeless and/or resorting to crime, because of unemployment and the economic crisis.

you have to class alcohol and alcoholics the same way and there is plenty of that in workplaces no matter the job or wage.

People do these things regardless. The only thing it might do is hide it better, behind closed doors you could say

KyussBishop

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I've a great job and I like drugs - discuss

Fair enough - no problems there or with drugtaking in general, just referring to other threads on 'junkies', and didn't want to put 'junkies' in the thread title.

KyussBishop

moxin wrote: »

Tens of thousands of working class urban folk were jobless over the last 30yrs and teh vast majority never took heroin as an escape route. Its a personal choice to take it, the ones who are junkies now would still be getting high even if they had a job.

You're asserting that without anything to back it really - if that were true, crime and related drug addiction wouldn't be such a big problem in the city center; it's not a co-incidence, that these societal problems happened to get a lot worse, once the economic crisis hit.

If you want to reform people who commit crime, and people who may see such little future prospects for themselves that they become addicted to drugs, you need to first be able to offer them jobs to allow them to become self-sustaining again, and you need the services to help them recover too.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Having a job means having more money to buy drugs. w00t!

If that's what they want, fair enough - nothing wrong with that; at least then though, the people who previously did not have job, will then have the resources to be self-sufficient and will have future prospects, and if the drug taking was of a type that held them back, they'd have the resources to get help with that and get on with their lives.

KyussBishop

catallus wrote: »

People who are attracted to drugs will take the drugs. This isn't rocket science, it is the entire basis for drug legislation and damage control; the sad fact of the matter is that there are millions upon millions who will take drugs if they are available, less availability simply means that there are arithmetically less people damaging themselves. In this regard the legislation is a rip-roaring success. Only a small amount of potential drug-users are damaging themselves with drugs.

Ah I wish I left drugs out of the OP altogether - the drug taking isn't the problem, what is the problem, is the lack of availability of jobs, and how that causes some people to drop through societies cracks, and end up either:
1: Resorting to crime, or
2: Getting addicted to a drug that holds them back, preventing their recovery.

If you don't provide jobs, both of these groups might grow and remain stuck, but if you do provide jobs, you get:
1: Less crime, since people can earn money with jobs
2: Both a reason to first try and recover personally (the job offers better future prospects for life in general), and also the means to be self-sufficient (keeping the drug habit if they like - the taking of drugs isn't the root problem).

Chips Lovell

So, you're saying higher employment is a good thing?

moxin

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're asserting that without anything to back it really - if that were true, crime and related drug addiction wouldn't be such a big problem in the city center; it's not a co-incidence, that these societal problems happened to get a lot worse, once the economic crisis it.

If you want to reform people who commit crime, and people who may see such little future prospects for themselves that they become addicted to drugs, you need to first be able to offer them jobs to allow them to become self-sustaining again, and you need the services to help them recover too.

The crime and drug addiction is being carried out by a minority in the low thousands, about 1% of the population of Dublin(1.2m pop). The vast majority, 99.9% are not junkies. The reason the city centre has such a high concentration of them is the fact that all the drug treatment centres are mostly centred along the quays and in D1, drug addicts migrate to the area from all other suburbs for treatment(and abuse themselves).

Offering jobs will not help. I see your point might be to distract them when they have too much time on their hands?
Education is the key, one would want to be pretty thick to take heroin especially after 30yrs of seeing its devastating effects in your own community.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So, you're saying higher employment is a good thing?

I'm saying it's providing higher employment (full employment pretty much) is:
1: Possible right now (as discussed in the OP), and
2: It resolves the problems other threads are talking about, of crime in the city center, without resorting to ridiculous ideas like vigilantism and 'sterilizing junkies'.

KyussBishop

moxin wrote: »

The crime and drug addiction is being carried out by a minority in the low thousands, about 1% of the population of Dublin(1.2m pop). The vast majority, 99.9% are not junkies. The reason the city centre has such a high concentration of them is the fact that all the drug treatment centres are mostly centred along the quays and in D1, drug addicts migrate to the area from all other suburbs for treatment(and abuse themselves).

Offering jobs will not help. I see your point might be to distract them when they have too much time on their hands?
Education is the key, one would want to be pretty thick to take heroin especially after 30yrs of seeing its devastating effects in your own community.

Indeed, I'm not interested in emphasizing crime in the city center, or emphasizing drug addicted people as problematic (they aren't, and that would be oversimplifying a wider problem), again, just referring to all the other threads that are popping up about those topics.

I think making sure there are jobs for available would help, because there will be some proportion of people engaging in crime, who would prefer the safer route of earning money with a job - a lot of these people do not have this option right now, due to the scarcity of jobs, and even if you put them through the justice system, what are they going to do when they come out again? They need jobs.

It's nothing to do with distracting people, it's about giving them the opportunity to earn legitimately, and to break whatever negative cycle they are in. Without jobs, these societal problems just perpetuate and get worse.

I agree with you there, that proper education is important too, and I think funding for that should be provided as well.

Chips Lovell

So we should borrow more money, use that to create a load of new public sector jobs and then all our problems will be solved?

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So we should borrow more money, use that to create a load of new public sector jobs and then all our problems will be solved?

You didn't read my OP, or are choosing to ignore much of it...

KyussBishop wrote:

...
I know a fair bit about economics and policies that can be used to recover from the economic crisis, and this method of funding (involves no consulting of Europe, no increase in taxes, or public debt, or interest paid on any debts), is likely good enough for government to restaff/expand the public services, and provide a jobs program (doing a whole host of things ranging from infrastructural development, to community services/development - or almost anything you can think of that is societally/economically useful), that could employ not just these people who would otherwise engage in crime and other trouble, but pretty much everyone who is unemployed (massively speeding up resolving of the economic crisis, as well).

All of the above mentioned problems, are caused by the economic crisis and the associated unemployment and drop in public services (and lack of some services, like proper mental health treatment - which has forever been bad here), and these societal problems can not be fixed (only moved around or hidden), without resolving the economic crisis itself.

The method of funding I link to above, is by far the most promising thing I have seen yet, that I think can actually realistically (even in the face of Europe's political problems) provide us with an economic recovery - and help solve all of these worsening societal problems as well.

We don't need to borrow any money, or raise any taxes.

Chips Lovell

TAN's aren't debt? Interesting...

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

TAN's aren't debt? Interesting...

TAN's involve zero interest payments - what exact problem do you see with them?

smcgiff

You wouldn't, you know, be taking the odd snort yourself OP?

Nobody is going to employ a junkie, you'd have to create the jobs from within the public sector. To do that will cost money. Back in the day they built work houses and made people build walls.

Any modern infrastructure would entail skilled workers. Your average junkie doesn't come to mind.

I read your fairly lengthy opening post, which then linked to another fairly lengthy post, and you didn't carry enough credibility into that post for me to continue.

If you think ALL the unemployed should be given jobs to stop them becoming junkies, then let me know what you're on yourself.

Gandhi

So TAN's are effectively free government bonds, with a maturity date of the next tax day? A kind of IOU from the tax man?

When someone cashes in a E1M TAN, government tax take for that year is effectively reduced by E1M. What happens then? They increase taxes on someone else by E1M? Cut spending by E1M? Or borrow E1M?

I just don't get the benefit of this.

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

TAN's involve zero interest payments - what exact problem do you see with them?

Well one problem I see is that you don't seem to understand what "zero coupon" means.

Appealing and all as it may sound, there are no "magic beans" type solutions out there where we can just get money for nothing (even for a short term) out of thin air.

KyussBishop

smcgiff wrote: »

You wouldn't, you know, be taking the odd snort yourself OP?

Nobody is going to employ a junkie, you'd have to create the jobs from within the public sector. To do that will cost money. Back in the day they built work houses and made people build walls.

Any modern infrastructure would entail skilled workers. Your average junkie doesn't come to mind.

I read your fairly lengthy opening post, which then linked to another fairly lengthy post, and you didn't carry enough credibility into that post for me to continue.

If you think ALL the unemployed should be given jobs to stop them becoming junkies, then let me know what you're on yourself.

Well, a government provided jobs program, that gave a 'job guarantee' would have to find a suitable job for them - and I don't think them being addicted to drugs would be good grounds for refusal.

Temporary government provided jobs is exactly what I'm talking about (temporary, because such a program boosts the private sector through spending of worker wages, until the private sector absorbs all of the workers), and I've described in the OP, the method for which to fund that.

Heh, I don't think all of the unemployed should be given jobs 'to stop them becoming junkies' I think they should be given jobs, simply because the capability is there, and there is useful work to be done, and just in general because it's all-round better for society, the economy and the country.

old hippy

smcgiff wrote: »

Nobody is going to employ a junkie, you'd have to create the jobs from within the public sector. To do that will cost money. Back in the day they built work houses and made people build walls.

One wonders what the incentive is to give up, in that case.:(

KyussBishop

Gandhi wrote: »

So TAN's are effectively free government bonds, with a maturity date of the next tax day? A kind of IOU from the tax man?

When someone cashes in a E1M TAN, government tax take for that year is effectively reduced by E1M. What happens then? They increase taxes on someone else by E1M? Cut spending by E1M? Or borrow E1M?

I just don't get the benefit of this.

They would have no maturity date - can redeem them at next tax day, or a year later if you like etc. (but yes, they probably would be redeemed at the next tax date anyway); they are like an IOU, yes.

It reduces tax intake, but allows a huge amount of room for expanding spending regardless - any lost tax intake can simply be countered for with reissuing the same amount in TAN's again the next year - so long government isn't using TAN's for too high a percentage of government spending, you can keep on going like this as long as you like.


The benefit, is that government can massively expand spending, and provide full employment with that, and this is exactly what the private sector needs in order to recover economically.
It helps resolve a lot of these societal problems mentioned in the thread, and gets everyone working/earning - ending the economic crisis for us, much faster than how things are now.

One the economy is recovered, government can then wind-down issuance and circulation of TAN's.

ScumLord

KyussBishop wrote: »

Since 'insert draconian/violent action' for resolving the problem of 'insert undesirable/dehumanized social group' (in this case 'junkies' and criminals in city center), seems to be the topic du jour, here's a thread with a different idea:
Give these people, who are addicted to drugs or who have such poor prospects that they resort to crime - give them jobs.

People took far more drugs during the boom when they had disposable income. Drugs and lack of jobs aren't really the source of addicts problems they're just a symptom.

Even if we could find all these jobs and forced junkies to go into these jobs everyday it wouldn't automatically turn them into upstanding citizens full of self worth.

I think these problems start in childhood, these people have to adapt to a life of surviving with little hope of advancing themselves out of their current social standing. Fixing that will go someway to preventing people from becoming addicted to drugs. At the end of the day though, drugs are fun and there are always going to be people who want to take them and there'll be a smaller amount who won't be able to control their use of the drug.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well one problem I see is that you don't seem to understand what "zero coupon" means.

Appealing and all as it may sound, there are no "magic beans" type solutions out there where we can just get money for nothing (even for a short term) out of thin air.

People don't invest in these TAN's, they are paid in them - I know exactly what 'zero coupon' is (as does anyone who can type it into Google).

You need to explain what exact fault you think there is - if someone just implies a fault, without an explanation, that allows them to:
1: Never explain what the actual fault is supposed to be, thus avoiding a counterargument, and
2: Continue to use it as an implied argument, and just say "it's obvious" - turning it into a purely rhetorical argument (which doesn't even have to be true).

So if there's a criticism you have of it, it needs to be explained, not just implied.

ScumLord

KyussBishop wrote: »

You need to explain what exact fault you think there is

The basics of your plan seems to be forced labour for people you see as undesirables.

KyussBishop

ScumLord wrote: »

People took far more drugs during the boom when they had disposable income. Drugs and lack of jobs aren't really the source of addicts problems they're just a symptom.

Even if we could find all these jobs and forced junkies to go into these jobs everyday it wouldn't automatically turn them into upstanding citizens full of self worth.

I think these problems start in childhood, these people have to adapt to a life of surviving with little hope of advancing themselves out of their current social standing. Fixing that will go someway to preventing people from becoming addicted to drugs. At the end of the day though, drugs are fun and there are always going to be people who want to take them and there'll be a smaller amount who won't be able to control their use of the drug.

Well, the lack of job is more likely to be an underlying root cause, in the current economy, rather than a symptom (not for all addicts though, of course) - but yes, I don't mean to emphasize drug use in the thread (it's relevant, but seems to distract from what I'm getting at), crime is a better focus.

Finding jobs wouldn't really be a practical problem at all, since government is more than capable of funding a jobs program for all of the unemployed (using the method described in the OP) - and government could also provide programs for helping addicts improve enough, to manage well in these jobs.

I agree that these problems can start in childhood, and making the funding available (using methods I've discussed) for helping prevent that, could aid in this too.
That may even be a good focus, for some of the types of jobs in the jobs program I advocate - community help and education type jobs, would go some way to doing this, be interesting to hear what suggestions people would have there.

KyussBishop

ScumLord wrote: »

The basics of your plan seems to be forced labour for people you see as undesirables.

Heh - nobody would be forced into a job, but everybody would have the opportunity of being provided one, in the program I advocate.

ScumLord

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, the lack of job is more likely to be an underlying root cause, in the current economy, rather than a symptom (not for all addicts though, of course) - but yes, I don't mean to emphasize drug use in the thread (it's relevant, but seems to distract from what I'm getting at), crime is a better focus.

So if I'm out committing crimes, selling drugs for huge profits, going to parties to sell my drugs, stealing cars and milling it until the things engine explodes, how are you going to convince me to take a minimum wage job sweeping floors?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh - nobody would be forced into a job, but everybody would have the opportunity of being provided one, in the program I advocate.

Unless you force them to work they won't work. So providing jobs to people that don't want them while other cry out for jobs is pointless.

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

I know exactly what 'zero coupon' is (as does anyone who can type it into Google).

Either you didn't understand what it means or you chose to misrepresent it by characterising them as some sort of zero cost measure, e.g.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I know a fair bit about economics and policies that can be used to recover from the economic crisis....

KyussBishop wrote: »

...no increase in taxes, or public debt, or interest paid on any debts.

KyussBishop wrote: »

These seem to be analogous to government bonds (but are not counted as public debt), except they don't carry any interest...

And so on...

KyussBishop

ScumLord wrote: »

So if I'm out committing crimes, selling drugs for huge profits, going to parties to sell my drugs, stealing cars and milling it until the things engine explodes, how are you going to convince me to take a minimum wage job sweeping floors?

I would say that first, there have to be ample jobs available for the people who commit crime, so that they first have an alternative means of earning - I think this could solve the problem for a portion of criminals (especially ones engaging in low-level/petty crime), but certainly not all.

For ones like you describe here, they'd have to go through the justice system, but again - once they get out there need to be jobs available that they can go into, in order to have a way to reintegrate them into society.

I'd also advocate modifications to the justice system, like in Norway, to try and more directly reform inmates into reintegrating into society.

You're right though, it won't work for everybody - but I think it would work for many, and would go a long way to resolving the problems discussed in the thread.

ScumLord wrote: »

Unless you force them to work they won't work. So providing jobs to people that don't want them while other cry out for jobs is pointless.

It would provide jobs for everyone, so those who are already looking for a job wouldn't be left out.

I don't think the idea that they all don't want to work - I don't think that idea is true. For some of them it is, but I think for a lot of them it isn't, and that the problem can still be gradually resolved.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Either you didn't understand what it means or you chose to misrepresent it by characterising them as some sort of zero cost measure, e.g.

And so on...

Explain your criticism - you're only implying that something is wrong, not explaining it, and when you do that, it opens up the ability for you to use this rhetorical way of arguing:

KyussBishop wrote: »

You need to explain what exact fault you think there is - if someone just implies a fault, without an explanation, that allows them to:
1: Never explain what the actual fault is supposed to be, thus avoiding a counterargument, and
2: Continue to use it as an implied argument, and just say "it's obvious" - turning it into a purely rhetorical argument (which doesn't even have to be true).

You need to explain your criticism (not just leave it implied) for others to understand it, and for me to respond to it - just explain it instead of expecting people to enter into a guessing game.

kjl

danniemcq wrote: »

explain all those execs on coke, the fast food people on weed, the musicians on heroin, the 9-5ers on e.

Jobs do not mean less drugs jobs mean more drugs to cope with jobs!

Ah yeah, nothing better to clear up the old monday blues than popping an ecstasy, although the come down in evening traffic can be a nightmare.

Chips Lovell

Simply put, you're claiming this is a zero-cost way of borrowing money. It isn't.

That's before we even get into the whole issue of creating jobs for the sake of it.

ScumLord

KyussBishop wrote: »

I would say that first, there have to be ample jobs available for the people who commit crime, so that they first have an alternative means of earning - I think this could solve the problem for a portion of criminals (especially ones engaging in low-level/petty crime), but certainly not all.

But we had that during the boom, people were working for the weekend, people didn't care at all about their jobs because they could roll from one to the other. I've seen plenty of people with jobs do crime just for the craic of it during the boom no body cared about anything back then simply because there was an abundance of jobs and very little consequences for messing up.

I'd also advocate modifications to the justice system, like in Norway, to try and more directly reform inmates into reintegrating into society.

Rehabilitation would be key and would make a difference. At the moment going to jail is like going to crime collage, you more than likely won't come out reformed and will more than likely be deaper into the crime lifestyle than when you went in.

It would provide jobs for everyone, so those who are already looking for a job wouldn't be left out.

But jobs can't just be made up out of the blue or else we're just spending money to make people busy.

Pug160

Creating more jobs and tackling antisocial behaviour are two separate issues I think. There are no easy answers but trying to lock the gate after the horse has bolted is not the way forward, in my opinion. A lot of those people need a lot of rehabilitation and even then some are too far gone to change. Also, if you start giving people jobs who don't really want them or respect them it will just dilute the integrity of that job. Some jobs don't require many formal qualifications but they're still respected and many people who do them take pride in their work. A good example would be someone who looks after a park.

KyussBishop

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Simply put, you're claiming this is a zero-cost way of borrowing money. It isn't.

That's before we even get into the whole issue of creating jobs for the sake of it.

It's not borrowing money, you don't even understand what it is that the link I put forward is proposing - people get paid in TAN's (Tax Anticipation Notes), and those TAN's are usable to pay down future taxes.
No investors exchanging money for them, no borrowing of anything.

You still haven't explained the exact problem you see with it, you're only implying a problem - without any explanation. At least provide an explanation of the problem you think there is.

KyussBishop

ScumLord wrote: »

But we had that during the boom, people were working for the weekend, people didn't care at all about their jobs because they could roll from one to the other. I've seen plenty of people with jobs do crime just for the craic of it during the boom no body cared about anything back then simply because there was an abundance of jobs and very little consequences for messing up.

Perhaps, but the situation we have now, is that these societal problems are getting worse, and making sure there is ample provision of jobs is part of the solution for resolving these problems.

ScumLord wrote: »

Rehabilitation would be key and would make a difference. At the moment going to jail is like going to crime collage, you more than likely won't come out reformed and will more than likely be deaper into the crime lifestyle than when you went in.

Absolutely - agreed there.

ScumLord wrote: »

But jobs can't just be made up out of the blue or else we're just spending money to make people busy.

There is plenty of work to be done - for starters, we need to restaff the public sector, and there are many infrastructural projects that have been put on the sidelines due to the crisis, that can be revived (and more started beyond them), and there needs to be a whole system put in place for education about and treatment of mental health difficulties, and there is ample room for expansion of services for helping with education about and treatment/rehabilitation of drug addiction, among with many other health-related service and infrastructural expansions that would benefit the country; community redevelopment projects, massive infrastructural changes and R&D for moving away from fossil fuels.

There's a huge amount of stuff that can be done and is worth doing (even changes to the justice system, like large changes to infrastructure to create places more like in Norway); these are just a handful of things, that I'm sure other posters can add to.

Mint Aero

Stupid thread is stupid OP. Some of the hardest working people I know are the biggest druggies going. Probably cos they need to feed their habit

KyussBishop

Pug160 wrote: »

Creating more jobs and tackling antisocial behaviour are two separate issues I think. There are no easy answers but trying to lock the gate after the horse has bolted is not the way forward, in my opinion. A lot of those people need a lot of rehabilitation and even then some are too far gone to change. Also, if you start giving people jobs who don't really want them or respect them it will just dilute the integrity of that job. Some jobs don't require many formal qualifications but they're still respected and many people who do them take pride in their work. A good example would be someone who looks after a park.

Good points, and I think at least that providing more jobs for the facilities/services needed for rehabilitation is a good area for expanding employment (taking from the general pool of unemployed people, not specifically the people with problems).

They are two separate problems alright, though I think ample availability of jobs would help prevent the antisocial behaviour worsening (or slow that down), and also provides those who engage in that behaviour, a solid way to step back into productive society, instead of potentially getting stuck having crime as the primary option.

I think for people who may carry their antisocial behaviour into work, and give some jobs a bad name - I think those people would need to be reformed somewhat first, before entering the jobs program, which should prevent those jobs worsening in integrity.

KyussBishop

Mint Aero wrote: »

Stupid thread is stupid OP. Some of the hardest working people I know are the biggest druggies going. Probably cos they need to feed their habit

Meh - I really didn't want the thread to focus on the drug taking aspect, I don't really think that's all to big a problem, so will edit the OP.

Turtwig

OP,

It'd probably have been better if you started your hypothesis off as "More jobs = less violence and crime."

If people don't have the fear of providing money or food would they be less likely to become involved in the more nefarious aspects of society. Would this also lead to exploring interesting insights into the phenomenon of drug addictions? For instance, would it shed more light on which demographics are the most vulnerable to becoming substance dependent. There, of course, you also have to explore various types of work environments and whether these can lead to anti-social behaviour problems or substance dependence.

Turtwig

Jernal wrote: »

OP,

It'd probably have been better if you started your hypothesis off as "More jobs = less violence and crime."

If people don't have the fear of providing money or food would they be less likely to become involved in the more nefarious aspects of society. Would this also lead to exploring interesting insights into the phenomenon of drug addictions? For instance, would it shed more light on which demographics are the most vulnerable to becoming substance dependent. There, of course, you also have to explore various types of work environments and whether these can lead to anti-social behaviour problems or substance dependence.

And just as I wrote it . . .:)

Chips Lovell

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not borrowing money, you don't even understand what it is that the link I put forward is proposing - people get paid in TAN's (Tax Anticipation Notes), and those TAN's are usable to pay down future taxes.

It doesn't matter if you're selling them or paying people in them, they are still zero coupon instruments. And since you're appeared to acknowledge that "zero coupon" doesn't equal "free money", I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue that there isn't a cost involved.

You can employ all the semantic arguments you want about. But that still doesn't change the fact that you can't get something for nothing. Which seems to be a perennial theme with your proposed solutions. The last time it was printing money.

KyussBishop

Jernal wrote: »

OP,

It'd probably have been better if you started your hypothesis off as "More jobs = less violence and crime."

If people don't have the fear of providing money or food would they be less likely to become involved in the more nefarious aspects of society. Would this also lead to exploring interesting insights into the phenomenon of drug addictions? For instance, would it shed more light on which demographics are the most vulnerable to becoming substance dependent. There, of course, you also have to explore various types of work environments and whether these can lead to anti-social behaviour problems or substance dependence.

Yes, that would have been a much better way to put it (I was trying too hard, to refer to the other threads from today, about 'sterilizing junkies', and vigilantism against junkies/petty-criminals).

I'll try to restate some of this, in a better way (which is difficult though):
My view on the drug addiction, and how that relates to jobs, is that some of people who have fallen out of work, have fallen on very hard times personally as a result of this, some of them even falling into homelessness.

This then, may lead to some of them starting to take drugs in order to cope with and/or distract from their situation, which is a cycle they may get stuck in - the drug addiction (if it gets out of hand) may make it hard for them to work their way back up to employment/stability again, and the general lack of jobs makes this even more difficult again.

This may also help turn some people towards crime (particularly petty crime), who may otherwise not end up that way - some to fuel a drug habit, some for other more complicated reasons.


It's a complicated set of societal problems, and I don't want to generalize about it; I think these are just some of the ways some people can fall through societies cracks, and end up in these situations.

I think that making sure there is ample availability of jobs (through a job guarantee program - which I explained a method of funding in the OP), would both prevent people ending up in these situations, and would give those in that situation, a way out and give them some decent future prospects to look towards (with the side effect, of helping the rest of the unemployed, and the entire economy in general too)

I even think such a jobs program, can specifically put together programs for helping to tackle/aid these societal problems through programs aimed at health and mental health services, and educational/rehabilitative services - all of these additional services would create new jobs too.