Scroungers, just scroungers, do you admire them?

[MrSmith]

 

Having the state 'employ' people to do nothing is just called benefits isn't it MrSmith?

 

Having the state employ people to do something isn’t though, there is little point making jobs easier in the public sector by using machines and then giving people money for do nothing. Might as well stop using the machines and let the people do the work, one person and a machine takes the work from 100’s of people. Grass cutting, road sweeping weed spaying and litter picking have all been cut back because the council doesn’t have enough money, yet thousands of people are given money for do nothing, it doesn’t make sense.

[Cyclone]

If the something is viable economic activity then you will probably be displacing someone else or another company.

 

Do the council actually do these jobs with direct employees, or do they subcontract it to a private company? The council doesn't pay benefits directly of course either, so there'd need to be a massive change in who was managing which pot of money to actually make what you suggest viable.

 

But ultimately your idea isn't about making the economy better, benefits cost less or anything beneficial, it's just about making sure that people have to do something rather than being given benefits for sitting at home.

[MrSmith]

If the something is viable economic activity then you will probably be displacing someone else or another company.

 

Do the council actually do these jobs with direct employees, or do they subcontract it to a private company?

 

There are many things that could be done because its desirable that don't need doing, we don't need clean streets but its desirable, we don't need the grass cutting but its desirable. Some of these things aren’t done because the council don’t have the funds to pay someone to do them; some are done by man and machine. Both can be done by using the manpower that is already available and already being given money for nothing, as new jobs are created in the private sector then these people would just move to those new jobs that are more important and pay better.

 

 

 

 

The council doesn't pay benefits directly of course either, so there'd need to be a massive change in who was managing which pot of money to actually make what you suggest viable.

 

No it wouldn't, the council would be responsible for finding work for people to do whilst the government continues to pay the people that do the work.

But ultimately your idea isn't about making the economy better, benefits cost less or anything beneficial, it's just about making sure that people have to do something rather than being given benefits for sitting at home.

 

It’s beneficial to the economy because everyone’s environment would be better making everyone happier, companies would benefit because people would be more likely to take up the jobs they are offering and the people taking up these jobs would be used to working instead of sleeping. It would stop anyone claiming benefits whist illegally working.

[Cyclone]

There are many things that could be done because its desirable that don't need doing, we don't need clean streets but its desirable, we don't need the grass cutting but its desirable. Some of these things aren’t done because the council don’t have the funds to pay someone to do them; some are done by man and machine. Both can be done by using the manpower that is already available and already being given money for nothing, as new jobs are created in the private sector then these people would just move to those new jobs that are more important and pay better.

Streets are cleaned and grass is cut.

If you move an army of unemployed people onto doing these things then a) you have to pay them minimum wage, b) you need to provide them equipment, c) you need to supervise them and d) you just put a street cleaner and a grass cutter out of a job/business.

It's not as simple as you suggest.

 

 

 

 

 

No it wouldn't, the council would be responsible for finding work for people to do whilst the government continues to pay the people that do the work.

 

 

It’s beneficial to the economy because everyone’s environment would be better making everyone happier, companies would benefit because people would be more likely to take up the jobs they are offering and the people taking up these jobs would be used to working instead of sleeping. It would stop anyone claiming benefits whist illegally working.

 

If there are truly things that could be done that don't end up costing more (that would defeat the purpose) and don't put people out of work, and it can be made legal, then I agree. But I don't know if it's actually practically possible.

[MrSmith]

Streets are cleaned and grass is cut.

If you move an army of unemployed people onto doing these things then a) you have to pay them minimum wage, b) you need to provide them equipment, c) you need to supervise them and d) you just put a street cleaner and a grass cutter out of a job/business.

It's not as simple as you suggest.

 

If there are truly things that could be done that don't end up costing more (that would defeat the purpose) and don't put people out of work, and it can be made legal, then I agree. But I don't know if it's actually practically possible.

 

In some areas they are and in some they are not, some area are done but not very often and they are usually done by a man driving a machine which isn't necessary when there are people being given money for do nothing, may has well give them money for doing something. There are many unemployed people getting more in benefits than they would get working for minimum wages so paying them minimum wages isn’t going to be a problem.

[Cyclone]

You've ignored the points about supervision, training, equipment, etc... And of course causing the man who drives the machine to lose his job.

[Anna B]

The 'Leisure society' that we heard about in the seventies is here. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out quite as planned. half the population is worked to death while the other half are made idle.

 

Surely some kind of national jobshare for all would be a better alternative, possibly topped up by benefits.

[tinfoilhat]

The 'Leisure society' that we heard about in the seventies is here. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out quite as planned. half the population is worked to death while the other half are made idle.

 

Surely some kind of national jobshare for all would be a better alternative, possibly topped up by benefits.

 

No, because that will need someone to process the benefits and so the spiral continues - you pay more tax so the man can spend that tax processing your tax to give you it back. Bonkers. It's tax credits times a hundred.

[Cyclone]

The 'Leisure society' that we heard about in the seventies is here. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out quite as planned. half the population is worked to death while the other half are made idle.

 

Surely some kind of national jobshare for all would be a better alternative, possibly topped up by benefits.

 

I'm in neither half... That must mean that we have more than the entire population in the country! OMG - statistics has been ruined.

[gnvqsos]

Full employment has never existed, nor is it desirable.

 

We've had increasing automation for most of century now, it hasn't structurally driven up unemployment at all, but it has driven up living conditions.

 

Full employment is reviled by many right-wing economists,but most economists agree that 2% approximates to this end.

 

Thanks for identifying "shorting' from my paltry description and the accompanying remarks-you are becoming quite caustic which I like.Your analysis of automation is wrong -you have described mechanisation.It is a good attempt though for a layman.Automation eliminates the need for human labour,mechanisation reduces it.

 

Before commenting on the impact of unemployment spare a thought if you can for the victims.I know the business models you studied at college would not embrace the externalities of decision-making so again I can understand your errors.I think in answer to your PM an OU course would fill in some of the gaps.