6
Why are there no jobs programs anymore? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/economics@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] [S] 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah there is some measure of "full employment" which is actually about 3% unemployment? I don't get how that makes sense. But it seems to fit with your argument that if unemployment gets too low then workers pick up more bargaining power. So maybe this definition of "full employment" is really the capitalist view of the limit they will accept, so they give it a label to sound like it is some economic principle that needs to be followed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent