Job Guarantee - a possible more conservative approach?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There has been a lot of talk about the idea of a job guarantee, and for good reason.  Even with the official U-3 rate being low, there are long-term unemployed, discouraged workers or those unattached or marginally attached to the labor force, those with only part-time work, etc.  Having a guaranteed job available could make quite a difference for these people.

However, there are some problems that have been brought up with the idea.  Would this switch a great deal of employed to public from private sector, as people look first to the government to be employed, or even quit less attractive jobs in the private sector?    If so, the costs could be enormous, both to the government who must pay for all these employees, and to private industry and non-governmental organizations.

How might this be addressed?

A person seeking a job could go to the Job Seeker Office or whatever it may be called.  There they would look at that persons skills, qualifications, resume, etc.  A few possible responses:
1. Person is matched with a business or organization seeking such an employee.  May be a regular hire with normal pay and benefits, or more of a trial position with training, six months to a year with pay depending on the level of qualification and employer needs.  At the end the employee could go on to a regular position there, or could be given additional assistance in obtaining a different position.
2. A similar set-up may exist for a government department. For some, their qualifications and talents will meet governmental department needs.  For others, it will be more of an internship, with pay less than the local prevailing wage unless it is hard work. The goal would be to not draw people out of private employment, but instead the office will work with them to find a more permanent position. There could be a time limit for moving on from this program, variable with "cyclical" labor demand, though I am not sure about this. 

The idea here is people will get a job, or they will get the experience needed to be hireable.  There will be help for achieving work for those with disabilities, bad work histories, criminal records, all in the same place.   And it will not cost as if the government is greatly expanding its employment rolls, paying anyone who comes in $15 or more on a potentially permanent basis.  On the low end it is likely to increase wages in the economy through tightening labor demand, but aimed to do so in a way that is not insurmountable for employers to offer a sufficient wage to attract new hires.

What do you think?  Might something like this be a workable arrangement?

[136or142]

There has been a lot of talk about the idea of a job guarantee, and for good reason.  Even with the official U-3 rate being low, there are long-term unemployed, discouraged workers or those unattached or marginally attached to the labor force, those with only part-time work, etc.  Having a guaranteed job available could make quite a difference for these people.

However, there are some problems that have been brought up with the idea.  Would this switch a great deal of employed to public from private sector, as people look first to the government to be employed, or even quit less attractive jobs in the private sector?    If so, the costs could be enormous, both to the government who must pay for all these employees, and to private industry and non-governmental organizations.

How might this be addressed?

A person seeking a job could go to the Job Seeker Office or whatever it may be called.  There they would look at that persons skills, qualifications, resume, etc.  A few possible responses:
1. Person is matched with a business or organization seeking such an employee.  May be a regular hire with normal pay and benefits, or more of a trial position with training, six months to a year with pay depending on the level of qualification and employer needs.  At the end the employee could go on to a regular position there, or could be given additional assistance in obtaining a different position.
2. A similar set-up may exist for a government department. For some, their qualifications and talents will meet governmental department needs.  For others, it will be more of an internship, with pay less than the local prevailing wage unless it is hard work. The goal would be to not draw people out of private employment, but instead the office will work with them to find a more permanent position. There could be a time limit for moving on from this program, variable with "cyclical" labor demand, though I am not sure about this.  

The idea here is people will get a job, or they will get the experience needed to be hireable.  There will be help for achieving work for those with disabilities, bad work histories, criminal records, all in the same place.   And it will not cost as if the government is greatly expanding its employment rolls, paying anyone who comes in $15 or more on a potentially permanent basis.  On the low end it is likely to increase wages in the economy through tightening labor demand, but aimed to do so in a way that is not insurmountable for employers to offer a sufficient wage to attract new hires.

What do you think?  Might something like this be a workable arrangement?

Maybe not so much in all the States or Counties or the United States, but in Canada and probably in most of the U.S States, programs like these already exist.

This is the U.S national program: https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/87
American Job Centers

Edit to add: I'm sure these programs have had a lot of successes, but part of the problems with these programs that has led to calls for things like either the Universal Basic Income (UBI) or the Jobs Guarantee is that there tend to be a great number of bureaucratic hurdles put in place for people to access these programs.  Not that this is in the United States, but for some reason here in British Columbia, a person who received government assistance (except for college/university loans, grants or whatever else ) could not go to universities or colleges but had to go to separate job training assistance programs instead.  (That may have changed since the change in government here in 2017.)

In some cases these hurdles are no doubt designed to make it as difficult for people to access them so as to minimize the cost, and in some cases the hurdles came about no doubt through the best intentions but caused unintended consequences or left the recipient thinking "I know what is best for me better than these bureaucrats do."  

I'm pretty sure I've seen the direct cost of enforcing these rules and hurdles before and they're very expensive.  That's one of the arguments in favor of the UBI: give out the cash directly, let people do what they think is best to help themselves and get rid of as much bureaucracy and as many bureaucratic rules as possible.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Bureaucracy is indeed a problem - For one thing the government job websites can border on the kafkaesque, making you go from one website to the next to find basic information, even requiring filling out forms before letting you view a site that may not turn out to be you are looking for.

UBI has its advantages, but may not provide people what is needed in terms of socio-economic recovery / mobility the way a job can.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A job guarantee program sounds good in theory, but I think it would end up being a bureaucratic nightmare for both the public and private sector.  For one thing, the private sector is already flooded with jobs that serve no real purpose (communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, endless subcontractors, corporate lawyers, layers of people supervising people who don't need to be supervised, etc.).  With a job "guarantee" as I understand it, the government would essentially be under obligation to make up pointless busywork just so that someone is getting paid to do *something* - whereas a UBI would give everyone just enough to subsist on and let them choose how to contribute to society in the economic sphere.  Less bureaucracy would be needed, too.

[pbrower2a]

There has been a lot of talk about the idea of a job guarantee, and for good reason.  Even with the official U-3 rate being low, there are long-term unemployed, discouraged workers or those unattached or marginally attached to the labor force, those with only part-time work, etc.  Having a guaranteed job available could make quite a difference for these people.

However, there are some problems that have been brought up with the idea.  Would this switch a great deal of employed to public from private sector, as people look first to the government to be employed, or even quit less attractive jobs in the private sector?    If so, the costs could be enormous, both to the government who must pay for all these employees, and to private industry and non-governmental organizations.

How might this be addressed?

A person seeking a job could go to the Job Seeker Office or whatever it may be called.  There they would look at that persons skills, qualifications, resume, etc.  A few possible responses:
1. Person is matched with a business or organization seeking such an employee.  May be a regular hire with normal pay and benefits, or more of a trial position with training, six months to a year with pay depending on the level of qualification and employer needs.  At the end the employee could go on to a regular position there, or could be given additional assistance in obtaining a different position.

Restaurants and convenience stores would be interested in getting as many new workers as possible and sorting through them... comparatively few people want to stay in such work. The reasonable assumption that someone who works at "Chez Mac" gets to find out what he does best and likes best, so that he can specialize in loading and unloading trucks (warehousing), customer service, paperwork, food processing, money-handling, or cooking. The good fast-food workers go from Chez Mac to places like Denny's and Cracker Barrel, then perhaps slightly-better restaurants, until perhaps going to the top of the line where meals might and drinks cost $100 a plate and $50 a glass. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government as the employer of last resort? That gets people into trouble.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solid wages support a strong economy. Poor wages create profits, and nothing else

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not fully worked out. Obviously, such people as physicians and attorneys are unlikely to come from people who have five years of full-time experience in fast-food.

[Former President tack50]

A job guarantee program sounds good in theory, but I think it would end up being a bureaucratic nightmare for both the public and private sector.  For one thing, the private sector is already flooded with jobs that serve no real purpose (communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, endless subcontractors, corporate lawyers, layers of people supervising people who don't need to be supervised, etc.).  With a job "guarantee" as I understand it, the government would essentially be under obligation to make up pointless busywork just so that someone is getting paid to do *something* - whereas a UBI would give everyone just enough to subsist on and let them choose how to contribute to society in the economic sphere.  Less bureaucracy would be needed, too.

Agreed. A Job guarantee would esencially turn into what former communist countries had. So sure, unemployment might be at 0%, but the cost is that there are plenty of people in "useless jobs" (say, holding a door at a restaurant)

[Indy Texas]

Bureaucracy is indeed a problem - For one thing the government job websites can border on the kafkaesque, making you go from one website to the next to find basic information, even requiring filling out forms before letting you view a site that may not turn out to be you are looking for.

UBI has its advantages, but may not provide people what is needed in terms of socio-economic recovery / mobility the way a job can.

Have you ever applied for a private sector job?

Go to a major corporation's website's "careers" section and enjoy the Kafkaesque application process, vague application wording and infuriatingly bad forms.

[Indy Texas]

A job guarantee program sounds good in theory, but I think it would end up being a bureaucratic nightmare for both the public and private sector.  For one thing, the private sector is already flooded with jobs that serve no real purpose (communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, endless subcontractors, corporate lawyers, layers of people supervising people who don't need to be supervised, etc.).  With a job "guarantee" as I understand it, the government would essentially be under obligation to make up pointless busywork just so that someone is getting paid to do *something* - whereas a UBI would give everyone just enough to subsist on and let them choose how to contribute to society in the economic sphere.  Less bureaucracy would be needed, too.

Agreed. A Job guarantee would esencially turn into what former communist countries had. So sure, unemployment might be at 0%, but the cost is that there are plenty of people in "useless jobs" (say, holding a door at a restaurant)

IIRC at one point Venezuela tried to deal with unemployment by requiring all public restrooms have an attendant in them for "safety/sanitary reasons" and that person essentially just stood there all day awkwardly listening to people poop in stalls and would occasionally check to refill the paper towels/toilet paper dispensers as needed.

[RaphaelDLG]

Ideally, the government jobs would have to do with addressing something like creating public goods (preserving history, art, city beautification, etc) or removing negative externalities (like pollution) that the private sector isn't going to address by itself.

Big fan of job programs over UBIs.