Throughout history there are lots of examples where the government has guaranteed a job for anyone willing to work, who wasn't able to get employment through the normal market based channels.

That disappeared and is never even considered as an option, why not?

In this article there are about 1M NEETs in the UK, which costs about £125bn to maintain.

The market hasn't found a way to provide profitable employment for them, but wouldn't it still be better for a government to provide jobs with a 1:1 or 0.8:1 return to costs ratio, compared to leaving them unemployed? Or jobs with intangible benefits like social care or cleaning streets etc etc.

It seems like there is a big benefit from just creating and offering jobs to anyone that wants to work, why is it never considered?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 4 days ago

Because conservative ideology. (Get gud, loser. I got mine. Eat cake and die.)

  • Government spending money to help people is the most evil thing imaginable.

  • People who can't find jobs are lazy because of their inferior genes so natural selection needs to cull them from the population.

  • Worthless surplus humans should be allowed to starve to death in the gutter as an example- reminding all the wage slaves to be grateful to their masters for those wages they've been slaving for.

  • source