Jobs = less crime/drug-addiction?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

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.

Again you're not explaining what your criticism is: What problem do you see, with them being 'zero-coupon'?

TAN's might be zero-coupon, but they are not something that investors buy, they are something that people are paid in; I've never claimed that you get "something for nothing".

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yes you have. You inferred there was no cost, e.g.

"zero coupon (no interest payment)" "no interest paid on any debts".

I've been very clear what my criticism is. You're being misleading.

There you go, right like I predicted earlier, you're now using the "it's obvious" line of rhetorical argument, and are stonewalling/refusing-to-explain:

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).

That you pay no interest on TAN's, does not mean you 'get something for nothing'. Zero-coupon, does not mean 'something for nothing'.

A worker provides his labour, gets paid TAN's, and then gets to pay off part of his tax liabilities, using TAN's - that's not something for nothing.

You're now also trying to switch your argument into a semantic one, where you're going to argue over whether or not you can warp 'zero-coupon' into meaning 'something for nothing', instead of your original attempt, to say that since TAN's are 'zero-coupon', that means "TAN's will not work".
You have not explained the latter, only implied it, and I'm still waiting for an explanation.


To actually try and move this past the stonewalling:
What exact negative thing do you say will happen, if someone has part of his salary (say 20% of it) paid in TAN's?

Gandhi wrote: »

He is not saying the vendor is getting something for nothing, he is saying the government is getting something for nothing (or at least pretends they did). When you do your taxes, and pay the government in TANs instead of Euros, where is the government going to get the Euros to plug the resultant budget hole?

The government can fund the budget hole, with more TAN's - essentially keeping the same amount of TAN's in circulation.

Once the economy has fully recovered, which is judged by having full private sector employment - with all the workers in the government jobs program, having been re-employed in the private sector, after the private sector has re-inflated.
Once the economy has fully recovered like that, government will reduce spending but will keep taxes at the same level (so that spending is less than taxes), and this will gradually reduce the amount of TAN's in circulation, until there are none left.

This lets government extend spending today (with TAN's), in order to achieve economic recovery faster, and reel-in the extended spending (TAN's) once recovery is achieved.

mariaalice wrote: »

That might be the motivation for some but not the majority of drug takers and it is very unjust to the unemployed who don't do any thing like that they just get on with it and manage the best they can( or spend their days numbing there brains with video games ).

True, it would be the motivation only for some drug takers - I don't understand what you mean, when you say "it is very unjust to the unemployed who don't do any thing like that" though? (what is it that would be unjust?)