If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Splinter News)   A Federal Jobs Guarantee is widely popular, so you would think it's a perfect issue for the Democrats to run, which is why almost all of them are avoiding talking about it   ( splinternews.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, federal job guarantee, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, New York, professional political class, big policy ideas, New polling data, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand  
•       •       •

1805 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2018 at 6:22 PM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-03-20 04:45:30 PM  
I would think the Dems would be hopping about the UBI truck by now.
 
2018-03-20 04:47:52 PM  

jwa007: I would think the Dems would be hopping about the UBI truck by now.


That and federally legal weed.

They'd win every race that wasn't fixed in a landslide.
 
2018-03-20 04:48:55 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


If the Democratic Party was as interested in their voters' interests as they are about their donors', the GOP would be extinct.
 
2018-03-20 05:09:39 PM  
We as a species have to come to the realization that we have reached the point where not only does a significant portion of the population not have to work, but weeding out under performing people from the workforce is arguably the better direction.

Guaranteed Jobs does not solve any problem we are facing.  It's a nice gesture as a compromise with republicans, but it doesn't change the fact that those jobs aren't going to be worth taking for anyone that needs to feed a family.

The major bonus of it is that the government would be forced to expand some form of medicare or health insurance to cover those employed.  It might end up getting us at least a socialized health care platform.
 
2018-03-20 05:36:03 PM  
"You" would think that. I would think using that as an issue would not only bring accusations of SOCIALISM!111! down so hard the message would get drowned out, but would lose more than a few races for them. Just a guess.
 
2018-03-20 05:39:17 PM  
I want a hamburger... no, cheeseburger. I want a hot dog. I want a milkshake. I want potato chips. I want...
 
2018-03-20 05:41:12 PM  
 
2018-03-20 05:52:33 PM  

Driedsponge: but it doesn't change the fact that those jobs aren't going to be worth taking for anyone that needs to feed a family.


How is this a fact?
 
2018-03-20 05:57:45 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-03-20 06:08:31 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Driedsponge: but it doesn't change the fact that those jobs aren't going to be worth taking for anyone that needs to feed a family.

How is this a fact?


Because if the government garanteed a job they'd essentially have to raise the minimum wage to match, or force at least a portion of people into jobs that paid minimum wage.
 
2018-03-20 06:11:57 PM  

Driedsponge: Because if the government garanteed a job they'd essentially have to raise the minimum wage to match, or force at least a portion of people into jobs that paid minimum wage.


Government can pay whatever wages it wants. Fail to see how this means it's a "fact" nobody is going to want those jobs. Surveys show wide support.
 
2018-03-20 06:24:39 PM  
Democrats won't support this and similarly popular policies because their donors oppose them. They will then pretend that they are not REALLY popular among the all important (and largely mythical) swing voters.

It's the Democratic way
 
2018-03-20 06:25:33 PM  
"Widely popular" and "people would base their vote on" are two very different things in the US. Racism, misogyny and general stupidity tend to fall under the latter, actual policy under the former.
 
2018-03-20 06:25:49 PM  
Gass, grass, ass or GTFO.
 
2018-03-20 06:27:15 PM  
Funded by FEMA?
 
2018-03-20 06:28:28 PM  
This is exactly the sort of thing that Democrats in safe seats should be talking up.  Shift the Overton window, move the conversation to the left.  Republicans have gotten a lot of things accomplished that initially seemed like kooky right wing ideas (because they were) using this very technique
 
2018-03-20 06:29:03 PM  
What? How would that work? I applaud the basic impulse but this seems like a terrible way to go about it.
 
2018-03-20 06:30:45 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: [img.fark.net image 850x400]

If the Democratic Party was as interested in their voters' interests as they are about their donors', the GOP would be extinct.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-03-20 06:31:19 PM  

Norquist Vagprobe: "Widely popular" and "people would base their vote on" are two very different things in the US. Racism, misogyny and general stupidity tend to fall under the latter, actual policy under the former.


Yes, but you have it as part of your platform and then when you win, because people voted for you based on other issues, you implement it.  I don't think very many people voted for Obama because they wanted prison/sentencing reform, for instance
 
2018-03-20 06:32:47 PM  
As long as everyone actually does work then I'm down with a WPA-style entity.  And it could be a compromise to get the conservatives on board by kicking people off public aid who refuse to work (provided they don't have a legitimate disability, rather than just being fat and diabetic).  States like Illinois that are financially broken due to decades of pension shortfalls and bad union contracts could also benefit from this by curtailing their overall state workforce and replacing retired/laid off state workers with federal employees.  This would also help reduce nepotism and patronage.
 
2018-03-20 06:33:17 PM  

Driedsponge: We as a species have to come to the realization that we have reached the point where not only does a significant portion of the population not have to work, but weeding out under performing people from the workforce is arguably the better direction.

Guaranteed Jobs does not solve any problem we are facing.  It's a nice gesture as a compromise with republicans, but it doesn't change the fact that those jobs aren't going to be worth taking for anyone that needs to feed a family.

The major bonus of it is that the government would be forced to expand some form of medicare or health insurance to cover those employed.  It might end up getting us at least a socialized health care platform.


lh3.googleusercontent.comView Full Size

What a guaranteed government job weeding out under performing people may look like.
 
2018-03-20 06:35:14 PM  
And when the person doesn't want to grab a shovel and dig a ditch, what then? What if they don't show up half the time, dock their "free" pay?

This nonsense is based on "polling data" according to TFA.  Was a red bicycle and a unicorn on the survey?

Other great liberal idea:  "free" college for everyone!!

How about a work requirement for welfare. See how far that's gotten?  And can't these clowns see the connection?

Sounds like another idea born of someone who has worked in the public sector exclusively.
 
2018-03-20 06:37:19 PM  
Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is a good idea.
 
2018-03-20 06:37:36 PM  

fusillade762: [img.fark.net image 452x433]


It's such a bummer that Hydra got to him.
 
2018-03-20 06:37:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Driedsponge: Because if the government garanteed a job they'd essentially have to raise the minimum wage to match, or force at least a portion of people into jobs that paid minimum wage.

Government can pay whatever wages it wants. Fail to see how this means it's a "fact" nobody is going to want those jobs. Surveys show wide support.


He's got a reasonable starting point, but the conclusion falls short. If you guarantee everyone a job at better than minimum wage, you've ensured no one will take a minimum wage job (unless they really, really like flipping burgers) unless the government forces them to, which would be wrong. The conclusion is "Therefore the government shouldn't offer guaranteed employment."

No, what the conclusion should be is "Therefore we should raise minimum wage until you can feed a family on it."

I'm for the concept, and I like it better than UBI, or at least think the jobs should pay better than UBI. Take away our concern about feeding our families, our worries about losing a reasonable roof, and the quality of life goes up for everyone.

I'll work because I don't want a bare minimum lifestyle. Most folks will. Some folks won't, because work is, by definition, something you need to pay someone to do. Some folks want to work but lack certain skills or ability to compete in our society. I think there's enough things that need doing we can find them something to do and we can pay them a reasonable wage to do. The biggest obstacle is when you tell someone "We don't have a project fitting your skillset in [insert random state]. If you want to work, you and your family need to get on the relocation train and leave the town you grew up in/are familiar with, or at least be prepared to live in a worker tent and send money home."
 
2018-03-20 06:39:03 PM  
ohtheplacesyoullgomed.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2018-03-20 06:40:19 PM  

jwa007: I would think the Dems would be hopping about the UBI truck by now.


Yeah, the bride that fell apart in Florida was built by professionals....just imagine a bunch of washing detergent eating millennials trying to build one.
 
2018-03-20 06:40:55 PM  
SOCIALIZM!!!!!!
 
2018-03-20 06:41:19 PM  
Just because people support some theoretical concept with no chance of happening doesn't mean they will support it if it actually moved it forward.

Hell, change the polling to "Democrats have proposed X. Do you support it?" and I guarantee you that there would be a lot more opposition. Even before the cries of socialism, etc are added into the equation.
 
2018-03-20 06:42:37 PM  
The unemployment rate right now is so low that this is almost a moot point in the short term.

If you can pass a drug test, do not have a felony record, have at least a high school education, can speak and read basic English and do basic math, can legally work in the US, and aren't disabled in some fashion, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a job that pays above minimum wage.

Of course, a lot of people who want jobs can't meet this fairly low standard.
 
2018-03-20 06:43:07 PM  

dywed88: Just because people support some theoretical concept with no chance of happening doesn't mean they will support it if it actually moved it forward.

Hell, change the polling to "Democrats have proposed X. Do you support it?" and I guarantee you that there would be a lot more opposition. Even before the cries of socialism, etc are added into the equation.


Better: "Black people would benefit from x, do you support it?"
 
2018-03-20 06:43:14 PM  

snowshovel: jwa007: I would think the Dems would be hopping about the UBI truck by now.

Yeah, the bride that fell apart in Florida was built by professionals....just imagine a bunch of washing detergent eating millennials trying to build one.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-03-20 06:43:20 PM  
I'll just put this out there: what's the practical difference between this and the Republican ideas about forcing welfare recipients to work? Doesn't this "guaranteed job" necessarily prevent someone from having the free time to hunt for a better job?
 
2018-03-20 06:43:42 PM  

palelizard: He's got a reasonable starting point, but the conclusion falls short. If you guarantee everyone a job at better than minimum wage, you've ensured no one will take a minimum wage job (unless they really, really like flipping burgers) unless the government forces them to, which would be wrong. The conclusion is "Therefore the government shouldn't offer guaranteed employment."

No, what the conclusion should be is "Therefore we should raise minimum wage until you can feed a family on it."


If Dems have enough power to implement this they have enough power to raise the minimum wage. I suspect the latter would happen before the former. But let's say the min wage isn't raised and guaranteed jobs is implemented - it would put pressure on private sector employers to raise wages as their employees making the minimum wage would now have the option to go earn more working for the government. Which is a good thing.
 
2018-03-20 06:43:45 PM  

palelizard: No, what the conclusion should be is "Therefore we should raise minimum wage until you can feed a family on it."


A family of how many?  Do both adults work?  I don't get why this has become a new benchmark.  If you can't afford to start a family you need to come up with a plan to get to that point.  People need to stop having children they can't afford.  And once we raise minimum wage, then when can we start phasing out all of those benefit programs, like subsidized housing, food stamps, etc?  And what happens when Joe burger-flipper now making $20/hr blows his whole paycheck on a shiny new flat-screen TV and his four kids need school supplies and clothes?  If you're willing to make every wage a living wage then you need to define what a living wage is and be willing to do away with a lot of the current safety net, much of which is there for the working poor.
 
2018-03-20 06:44:08 PM  

palelizard: No, what the conclusion should be is "Therefore we should raise minimum wage until you can feed a family on it."


Except that minimum wage jobs aren't meant for supporting families. They're starter jobs for kids to learn what it's like to have a job and be responsible.

If you have a family and the only job you can find is a minimum wage one, you made some very serious missteps along life's way. The "old fashioned" advice still applies:

- stay in school
- don't have a family out of wedlock
- don't have any more children than you can afford to feed

Apparently this ancient wisdom is lost mainly on liberals who feed on the needy for building their power base, then expect responsible producers to pay for it all.

OR . . . a guaranteed job? Just gravitate to any government position and then you're safe and have a job for life plus, more than likely a pension, unlike most of us in the private sector.
 
2018-03-20 06:44:32 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size


I think I saw this done in House of Cards.
 
2018-03-20 06:45:47 PM  

Free Radical: SOCIALIZM!!!!!!


This would be a very real issue. My conservative father strongly believes that government shouldn't do anything that can be done by a private company. Why? fark if he knows but he never misses an election and donated to candidates he likes.
 
2018-03-20 06:46:22 PM  

jwa007: I would think the Dems would be hopping about the UBI truck by now.


This isn't a UBI. This is a guaranteed job.

The difference is, a guaranteed job dictates how you spend your time. A UBI gives individuals the freedom to spend that time in the way that the individual thinks it should be spent.

With a guaranteed job you have to show up and dig ditches or pick up litter or whatever the government thinks you should do. With a UBI you could be a stay-at-home parent, or a full time student, or even a professional couch potato.
 
2018-03-20 06:47:06 PM  

fernt: Except that minimum wage jobs aren't meant for supporting families.


And CEOs weren't meant to make 300X their lowest paid employee. Whoopdi f*cking doo.
 
2018-03-20 06:47:46 PM  

Shaggy_C: I'll just put this out there: what's the practical difference between this and the Republican ideas about forcing welfare recipients to work? Doesn't this "guaranteed job" necessarily prevent someone from having the free time to hunt for a better job?


It's a guaranteed job, not a mandatory job.

You don't have to take it if you don't want to.
 
2018-03-20 06:49:37 PM  
shiat posters are here in force. Must be a good idea if they're against it.
 
2018-03-20 06:49:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: fernt: Except that minimum wage jobs aren't meant for supporting families.

And CEOs weren't meant to make 300X their lowest paid employee. Whoopdi f*cking doo.


CEOs build justify their own salaries or the stockholders will remove them.  And "weren't meant" according to you? If you don't like a particular CEO's salary, I suggest you not buy stock in the company he/she runs.

Since when do you, or the government for that matter, determine what someone can make in the private sector. Oh, I know you'd love to, but you might have to get on a plane and go somewhere where this is done.

/envy much?
 
2018-03-20 06:49:47 PM  

fernt: palelizard: No, what the conclusion should be is "Therefore we should raise minimum wage until you can feed a family on it."

Except that minimum wage jobs aren't meant for supporting families. They're starter jobs for kids to learn what it's like to have a job and be responsible.

If you have a family and the only job you can find is a minimum wage one, you made some very serious missteps along life's way. The "old fashioned" advice still applies:

- stay in school
- don't have a family out of wedlock
- don't have any more children than you can afford to feed

Apparently this ancient wisdom is lost mainly on liberals who feed on the needy for building their power base, then expect responsible producers to pay for it all.

OR . . . a guaranteed job? Just gravitate to any government position and then you're safe and have a job for life plus, more than likely a pension, unlike most of us in the private sector.



Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2percent are in poverty and nearly 75percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.
 
2018-03-20 06:51:04 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: I want a hamburger... no, cheeseburger. I want a hot dog. I want a milkshake. I want potato chips. I want...


Enough about Trump!
 
2018-03-20 06:51:27 PM  

fernt: CEOs build justify their own salaries or the stockholders will remove them.


LOL
 
2018-03-20 06:53:32 PM  

fusillade762: [img.fark.net image 452x433]


You gonna feed me, Bucky?  Huh?  How much is a pound of ground beef in your world?
 
2018-03-20 06:56:29 PM  
Guaranteed Employment does, indeed, sound like a slippery slope to socialism, or indentured servitude to the State, at the very least. It would probably be privatized, so we are essentially talking about a form of corporate feudalism.

Guaranteed Basic Income, on the other hand, is free enterprise at work: a market-based competition-fostering evolution of capitalism. It is needed as we transition to FARP (Fully Automated Roboticized and Programmed) economy.
 
2018-03-20 06:57:48 PM  

Krieghund: Shaggy_C: I'll just put this out there: what's the practical difference between this and the Republican ideas about forcing welfare recipients to work? Doesn't this "guaranteed job" necessarily prevent someone from having the free time to hunt for a better job?

It's a guaranteed job, not a mandatory job.

You don't have to take it if you don't want to.


Interesting; I'm not in any way opposed to this, then. There's clearly a place between minimum wage "real" employment (though I'd argue even those jobs should be transitional rather than aspirational) and "shiftless trash who refuse to work". The worst thing we can do is lose people who would otherwise wish to contribute to society but become first involved and then ultimately dependent upon the benefits system. Welfare should be painful; a "make work" programme can make it far less so, and less damaging to the human spirit at the same time.
 
2018-03-20 06:58:44 PM  

snowshovel: jwa007: I would think the Dems would be hopping about the UBI truck by now.

Yeah, the bride that fell apart in Florida was built by professionals....just imagine a bunch of washing detergent eating millennials trying to build one.


You misspelled 'Kids these days!'.
 
Displayed 50 of 185 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report