Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[lookin]

Watched a rerun on the Civilian Conservation Corps earlier this week. It got me wondering whether a similar program could be of any help today.

If my calculations are correct, with a 9.2% unemployment rate, we currently have about 14 million people looking for jobs. I thought I heard that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would help put folks back to work, and I'm not done hoping yet. And I understand that the latest budget deal, with all the business tax loopholes still in place, is supposed to be a good thing too. In fact, I heard a few days ago that businesses are sitting on a record $1.2 trillion in cash! But they still don't seem to be hiring, at least in the U. S.

So what would happen if the government started creating jobs directly? I know some politicians wouldn't be pleased, and would prophesy record unemployment, among other things.

But I don't think they have any specific plans to create jobs, at least not any specific plans that they're willing to share with us at present.

So I keep going back to the possibility of a government program that would actually give folks jobs right here, right now. When businesses decide to start hiring again, the government program could fold, just as the CCC did when the war economy kicked in.

Conservation may not be the place to put people to work today, but I wonder if something like small organic farms throughout the U. S. would be. We certainly could benefit as a country from better nutrition, and if the products from these farms could go directly to local schools, we'd be helping kids, freeing up money for teachers, and improving our health nationwide, all while we're creating jobs.

I was playing around with some numbers and tried figuring out what it would take to bring our unemployment rate down to 7%. That would mean creating jobs for 3.5 million people. I assumed that $2,000 a month per person would provide a worker with food, medical care, a place to sleep, and $500 a month in spending money. Another $500 a month would be put in a savings account that would give the worker $12,000 in cash after two years in the program. That $12,000 could be used for tuition, a car, or a weekend with a few favorite escorts.

$2,500 a month for 3.5 million people would cost $105 billion a year. I know, I know, we're supposed to be saving money, not spending it. But a key reason we're saving money is to create jobs, no? And most of the money spent on the program would be finding its way directly into local businesses, communities, and schools. And that should further reduce unemployment for workers in those communities, while improving the health of the workers and the students who get cheap nourishing food.

It could also start us down the path toward becoming a healthier country, reducing medical costs and improving quality of life.

One of the things that struck me about the CCC alumni was the improvement in their mental and physical health while participating in the program. It also put them in touch with folks from other backgrounds, and taught them that we are much more alike than we are different. That seemed to be worth something too.

Another benefit of the CCC was the fact that, when World War Two came along, there were millions of men who were physically fit, used to taking orders, and knew how to work as part of a team. I hope that we won't need those skills for war ever again, but the possibility may provide some comfort to Leon Panetta, who is worried that cuts to the Pentagon's budget will leave him in a bind.

And, if the corporations who are sitting on $1.2 trillion in cash want to get in on the action, why not let them use some of their extra billions to get a little positive press? If they won't hire U. S. workers directly, let them donate some of their cash to the program in return for being able to declare "We Support Workers, Health, and Kids!" in their advertising and promotion.

I'm sure there's a lot wrong with this idea, and I know I can count on the learned gents of MER to point out the flaws in my reasoning.

[Lucky]

Flaws in your reasoning? Dude, this could devastate the male hooker industry! Let's assume that half of those 14 million out of work are women. That leaves 7 million men. Assume that 1% of them are gorgeous, then you have flooded the market with 70,000 new hustlers. How can the current escorts keep up their rates in the face of that competition? Prices would drop and even more people would be out of work!

[Guest hitoallusa]

One flaw other than that I agree with you.

a weekend with a few favorite escorts.

[RA1]

I wonder how many folks would have become involved with the CCC program if they had had the unemployment benefits and welfare payments we have now? Don't many folks consider FDR and his programs the beginning of the "welfare state"? Didn't Hitler do the same thing when Germany was devastated by severe depression by hiring all those folks to improve the roads, industry,etc. all the while training the same for the military, as you suggest? Don't we have VISTA to do much of what you suggest now?

Can workers be supported on $2500 a month while providing all the services you mention? At the very least they would have to be severely regimented, live in barracks, have communal food, etc. The military is unable to do that now, why should any other government agency (oh, Lord, another government agency) be able to do it?

I like very much how you are trying to look out for your fellow man but we disagree on who should take the lead in doing that. Perhaps you would agree with me that if business would do a better job, the government wouldn't be tempted to try? As a reporter said this morning, I think there is a better chance I will be the starting guard for the LA Lakers and I am 5'6", 60 years old and not very athletic.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest gcursor]

Lookin:

I don't know why everybody else is complaining about your post. I think what you said is brilliant! I agree that we need a good government-run sex worker program! Out of work guys/women are put to work doing what they like to do best and making some good money doing it...sure there will be a small percentage for Uncle Sam (let's call that Uncle Sam's 'finder's fee) and then the rest will be paid out via the local FPC (Fucking Payment Center).

Of course there will have to be some simple guidelines put in place to ensure that FUCKING is done to governmental standards. That is why we will set up the FUCKING ADMINISTRATION BOARD. This group of 7 individuals will come from all facets of life. It will be their job to ensure that any and all sex meets the harsh guidelines set forth by the government. Each person will be judged on their individual merit and extra credit will be given for certain....um...assets, so to speak.

Further people will also be able to schedule appointments with these people through the FCC (Fucking Communications Center). These messages will be lined up with the appropriate people in every area throughout the entire world. It will further be the job of the FCC to ensure that "special requests" are met whenever possible and first authorized by the (FUC) FUCKING USELESS COMMITTEE.

So yes Lookin'....I agree wholeheartedly with you on your posting! Let's start putting people back to work! It can work..it must work! Go out and fuck somebody today and do your civic duty!

[lookin]

Many thanks to those who took the time to respond. Must admit, I hadn't thought through the impact of a government-run jobs program on escort availability, and am grateful to those who did.

Last Sunday, I saw a 60 Minutes segment on Brazil's economy and wondered if all the jobs being created presently might have some impact on the alleged paucity of hot guys in the Brazilian saunas these days. Definitely food for thought.

RA1, as always, you ask some good questions and I'll take a shot at those I can.

I wonder how many folks would have become involved with the CCC program if they had had the unemployment benefits and welfare payments we have now?

Not sure. But we could definitely find out. If the folks who believe our unemployed citizens like it that way are correct, no one would sign up for the program and it wouldn't cost anything. If they're wrong, we could at last put that argument to rest.

Don't many folks consider FDR and his programs the beginning of the "welfare state"?

I think that's true. Full disclosure, though, I'm one who doesn't cringe at the thought of tending to the welfare of all our citizens.

Didn't Hitler do the same thing when Germany was devastated by severe depression by hiring all those folks to improve the roads, industry,etc. all the while training the same for the military, as you suggest?

I think there are similarities, although Hitler focused on improving Germany's military capacity and I'd focus on improving our country's health and nutrition. I also wouldn't bring in the Gestapo to boost productivity.

Don't we have VISTA to do much of what you suggest now?

VISTA is a much smaller program than the one I envision, and is not as focused on health and nutrition. It also doesn't offer the rather large payout I'm suggesting after two years of service. I think the idea of being able to leave with $12,000 after two years would be a draw for lots of folks. I'd also suggest the option of leaving after one year with $3,000.

Can workers be supported on $2500 a month while providing all the services you mention? At the very least they would have to be severely regimented, live in barracks, have communal food, etc.

The $2500 was an estimate, and I'm open to better numbers if someone has them. Barracks-style living and communal food is what I had in mind. I really would start with something very similar to the way the CCC was run, except that it would be open to women as well as men.

The military is unable to do that now, why should any other government agency (oh, Lord, another government agency) be able to do it?

Not sure what you mean by "The military is unable to do that now." While "another government agency" does suffer from the "ick factor", so does the absence of jobs. Or so I am told.

Perhaps you would agree with me that if business would do a better job, the government wouldn't be tempted to try?

I would and do. The government option is merely something to do while we're waiting.

Believe me, I'm not saying this way of creating 3.5 million jobs is an ideal solution. All I'm doing is putting a specific suggestion out there. If anyone has a better idea, I'm all for it. Where I think we keep going off the tracks is not having any plan to solve the problem. The 'national debate', if we can call it that, seems to have devolved into non-specific threats that any action someone doesn't like will cost us more jobs, without ever offering a specific proposal to create them. In my opinion, that approach is nothing more than a rat hole that won't ever get folks back to work, and a buzzkill to boot.

[RA1]

Thanks for your reply. What I meant by the military is not able to do that now is that they cannot feed, house and provide medical treatment for $2500 a month. Never mind the $500 into a savings account every month.

Brazil looks better and better and not just for the guys there. Maybe they can use a pilot.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest DarnTop82]

LOL! 2500 a month? Are you serious? 2k a month is even more laughable. Considering the average rent is around 1100 across the US, some more, some less. Then, you have electric, water and misc things that can take upwards of 400 a month or even more. Health Insurance? I pay 800/month alone for my insurance.

Car payment? try another 300 a month, plus insurance. Gas? 150 a month, groceries 400 a month...

So much for that 2k....Oh wait.

Communal living? No thanks. Should have stopped there.

[Guest DarnTop82]

Not to mention, where are you going to get all this money to pay these workers? By taxing others? EARTH TO THE PUBLIC...the government doesn't CREATE jobs, nor does it CREATE an economy. In order for the government to GIVE to one person, it has to first TAKE it from another.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well not everybody needs a car in the US. When I used to live in a big city. I walked everywhere. Going to groceries was a bit problem. So I bought what I needed a little bit each day. I used to walk 4 miles a day while in college. I was so skinny. I had many different jobs and sometimes took bus and walked to get to my next job. I wasn't pretty enough to be an escort. You can always have a roommate and share the rent. 2500 dollar a month is a lot of money. When you have kids that can be a problem but your spouse can work it's better than nothing in my opinion.

I know a Mexican who has a big farm in Mexico who lives in the US with much less than that. He sends whatever he saves back to his home and he invests it on his farm. He is a rich man. 2500 dollar a month is a lot of money. Although he doesn't get any health insurance.

LOL! 2500 a month? Are you serious? 2k a month is even more laughable. Considering the average rent is around 1100 across the US, some more, some less. Then, you have electric, water and misc things that can take upwards of 400 a month or even more. Health Insurance? I pay 800/month alone for my insurance.

Car payment? try another 300 a month, plus insurance. Gas? 150 a month, groceries 400 a month...

So much for that 2k....Oh wait.

Communal living? No thanks. Should have stopped there.

[MsGuy]

I thought I heard that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would help put folks back to work, and I'm not done hoping yet.

Just give it time, Lookin. I realize this is only anecdotal evidence, but I think the tax cuts may be working. Not a single rich guy of my acquaintance is involuntarily unemployed.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well rich people being able to keep more gives an incentive to people to work hard and spend more. I don't have problems with tax cuts. The problem I believe is that the government contributed in producing jobs in the housing industry that became unhealthy for almost a decade. That industry was not sustainable at all so it crashed and it took many jobs with it. I don't believe we don't have an alternative industry that can re-absorb the lost work force right now. Housing market will not come back as it was right before the crash. We need to promote multiple new sustainable industry.

Rich people having more money gives them an opportunity and momentum to move their cash to a new viable and productive industry. Rich people are rich because they always figure out ways to increase their wealth. If the government can create an environment for these rich people to invest their money at a proper(?) place, not in a high risk businesses, then jobs will come back eventually.

How are we going to solve the entitlements are a big problem right now. I know it's a very sensitive issue. We need to come up with a way to increase the revenue to sustain these entitlements. It is a noble thing to do to take care of those who can't help themselves. This is not an easy issue and I don't know why ideologies keep coming up and distract people. Both democrats and republicans know what they have to do. But they can't because it means that they have to give up some of their illogical and irrational ideology. As Lookin mentioned let's have compassion for one another. Most of all let's stop blaming game. If either ideologies were so perfect, then we would be living in a Utopia by now.

Just give it time, Lookin. I realize this is only anecdotal evidence, but I think the tax cuts may be working. Not a single rich guy of my acquaintance is involuntarily unemployed.