Why Not Pay People to NOT Work

[Yavin4]

Yes, you read it correctly. The government should just pay people to NOT work. Here's my reasoning:

1. There has been negative Job Growth in the Private Sector. When you analyze the economic data for this decade, private sector job growth has declined, esp. when take out the job growth related to the credit/housing/consumption bubble.

2. Outsourcing of Manufacturing and IT jobs to low labor cost production nations will continue and strengthen even when the credit markets stabilize. The American worker cannot compete with $2/hr. labor. They just cannot.

3. The economy is still largely dependent on the U.S. consumer. Paying a percentage of the workforce to NOT work allows them to continue consuming which will save some jobs.

4. This program would be paid for by cutting defense spending, raising corporate taxes on mega corporations, and closing tax loopholes.

By paying a significant percentage of the U.S. workforce to stay home and NOT work, we will do more to stabilize and support the economy. We will be saving the jobs of the people who are dependent on consumer spending.

[Cary]

1. It's not so ridiculous.

Check out the history behind Social Security. Actually, that's what Social Security was originally about: motivate older workers to retire, freeing up good jobs for younger workers.

The apparatus already exists.

[Yavin4]

2. When GM Collapses

it will flush thousands of workers into the work force at a bad time. These workers have little or no real job prospects, and they will only add to the misery.

Why not just pay them to stay home? That will take them out of the job market and decrease competition for jobs.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. I think that is a great idea,

Since the end-result is likely to be the same no matter what, just paying autoworkers not to work will probably be much less expensive than pouring billions and billions into the smoking crater that is Detroit.

[Johonny]

25. For the most part people want to work

Their is self dignity and respect that comes with working. Some of the most job proud people I know work some pretty horrible jobs. But to them having a job gives them great dignity. I imagine any such system employed to working age adults needs to consider more European solutions, like 4 days work weeks, 36 max hours... In other words expanding the work force employed by shortening the time worked and spreading it out to more of the work force but covering the difference in money that would have been earned. This helps people retain the pride and joy that comes with being employed.

[Yavin4]

38. The Problem Is Not The Willingness of People To Work

The problem is the lack of jobs for them. If you analyze job creation data for this past decade, it's been horrible. The private sector economy is simply not creating enough jobs for the people that want them, and this is before GM and Chrysler collapse.

Every day, month, and year, we're running a bigger and bigger surplus of labor with no where for them to go, and this surplus is killing consumption which in turn is killing jobs. It's a vicious downward spiral that's destroying the economy, and the only sure fire way to stop it is to pay people to NOT work.

[Johonny]

42. I get this

My point is the Europeans have address this issue with several solutions that allow work/ while paying people to also not work. These type of programs have shown to be popular with American workers as well. I.E. if the choice was 2 people working 20 hour weeks or firing one worker, overall Americans prefer the first option. In Europe these ideas have created programs where the government makes up the other 20 hours of lost labor for the person. I think these type of ideas are much better than paying people to flat out not work. Mostly because they are more socially acceptable. Your still paying people not to work. Your just allowing themselves to maintain the identity, dignity, sense of self worth etc that comes with the concept of a job. I think programs that flat out pay people to not work are going to find themselves as programs of last resort that many Americans will go to only after all else fails (like many welfare systems already). Why go in this direction when these other programs already poll as much more popular and thus much more likely to be used without stigma by society. Particularly sense they accomplish the exact same goal and actual appear to be psychologically more healthy for society?

[Lyric]

7. That's what welfare was originally about too.

To keep widowed women out of the work force and home with their kids, so they weren't taking up jobs desperately needed by men. Of course, it was also ostensibly because "motherhood" was considered a perfectly acceptable "job" for a white woman. Conservatives were totally in favor of this at first. They only changed their minds when divorced women and black women were allowed to collect welfare too. THEN they started opposing it with every bone in their bigoted bodies.

Serious--I did a 22-page research paper on welfare. It's amazing how racist and judgemental our society truly is at heart.

[Raineyb]

8. You'd get no argument from me on that one.

It's amazing how things that are good for us as a whole get revoked when the "wrong" people start to benefit from it.

I bet that was quite an interesting paper.

Regards

[hedgehog]

3. Me! Pick Me!

:bounce:

[MichiganVote]

4. We did and in some corners we still do.

[Raineyb]

6. Sounds good to me

Hell, I'll volunteer as I'm currently unemployed and can use the time at home and the money they give to go back to school.

(Actually I started this spring. But such a plan would make it easier for me to finish without wondering if I'm going to run out of money first.)

Regards

[damntexdem]

9. Yeah, why work to create what we consume?

Why not just outsource all the work and expect the rest of the world to supply us?

[Yavin4]

10. Well. That's What They're Doing

If the rest of the world prostitutes itself as a low labor cost havens and their governments allow international conglomerates to exploit them as such, then what you're saying is inevitable. Is it not?

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Read "Hard Times" by Studs Turkel. Getting jobs made people optimistic and increased self esteem.

Most people in the U.S. want some kind of meaningful career. The government needs to increase funding for education and make jobs (a la WPA) if necessary.

[Yavin4]

12. What "Careers" Can The Govt Give People?

Any career that the govt creates can, and will be, outsourced to a cheaper labor market somewhere in the world or in-sourced through labor immigration.

"The government needs to increase funding for education and make jobs (a la WPA) if necessary."

I agree with this sentiment, but increasing the educational level of the labor force is not going to change the fact that low cost labor will take away that job.

[KamaAina]

13. Buckminster Fuller proposed that decades ago

he said that it cost more for people in "non-wealth-producing occupations" (banking, law, etc.) to get to their jobs than it was worth to society.

[Better Believe It]

14. We already do. They hang out on Wall Street

[DailyGrind51]

15. We call it "patronage" in Chicago!

[Duer 157099]

16. With the industrial revolution, automation does most of the work

It was supposed to create tons of free time for Americans.

Instead, it sort of did the opposite.

So yes, instead of just the top 1% collecting the monetary benefit of industrialization, let everyone do so.

[MindPilot]

17. There is already a program like that.

It's called "management".

[The2ndWheel]

18. So what are we giving up?

You've listed the positives. Getting paid not to work, defense spending cuts, corporate taxes, closing loopholes, saving jobs by still consuming. What's on the other side of the coin? We have to give to get.

[Yavin4]

19. We're Giving Up Our Careers

Although it's not our choice, but that's what we're giving up. Auto workers are giving up their jobs. IT workers are giving up their careers. Factory workers across the nation, etc.

[The2ndWheel]

22. Before or after your idea?

We're giving up our careers to be paid not to work, or giving up our careers as a result of globalization?

If we're giving up our careers as a result of globalization, like you said, it's not our choice, so the careers are being taken away, not given up. If we're giving up our careers to be paid not to work, we're not really paying a price for such an action, since we're still getting money. Do we have to spend the money? Can you save it if you want to?

[Yavin4]

35. Not Everyone Would Take Pay for No Work

First, it would be offered to people who worked in industries that are no more, or it would be people in states with persistently high UE rates like MI and OH. Or, it would be offered to people who are too young for SS but too old to be hired, say 55 and older.

Second, not everyone would take pay for NO work. Some people who are in very successful and lucrative careers would stay in their careers.

Third, the pay for NOT working won't be huge. Probably $25-$30K a year. Enough to keep people going, but not enough for them to live in luxury.

Fourth, it could also be targeted to people who care for an elderly parent or a child. One could take the NO pay for work from the government while they provide care for someone who needs it.

The end result of this program would be that a significant number of American workers would be taken out of the work force while they somewhat maintained their approximate consumption level. This would raise the salary level of the people who choose to stay in the workforce because there would be less people competing with them for jobs. The 18 year old fast food worker should not have to compete with the 48 year old former GM auto worker.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. You better make your mind up what you mean

One moment, you're saying this money would go to people because of jobs they used to hold; then that it goes to areas with high unemployment; then to people of certain ages; then to people caring for others.

So, will you be paying all of them? How many people is that - 20 million? If it is, that's $500-$600 billion a year - not a temporary measure, but for the foreseeable future. You may not think that's huge, but it looks like a lot to me.

You seem to think that consuming is a Good Thing in itself. As a long term economic plan, that sucks. You are proposing that the US orients itself to just use things up. You claim this would raise salaries of those still in work. The only way it could do that would be by driving up inflation - the workers would have to say "we demand more money for doing the same work", so the employers would have to raise the prices of their goods to afford that. In reality, the workers would still be doing the same work they do now, so their gross earnings will stay the same, relative to the cost of living; but your generous unemployment benefit will mean higher taxes. There's a case for doing it from a humanitarian point of view, but there's no reason to think that paying people not to work will increase the productivity of the American economy.

[Yavin4]

45. My Rebuttal

First, there are several ways you could pay people NOT to work. For example, you could have a caregiver's allowance wherein people who provide care to a child or an elderly person or an infirmed person would get a salary paid for by the government. Another example is paying people an allowance to pursue post-graduate studies in fields like phsyics or chemistry or bio-technology. If someone gets into approved programs, they can spend all of their time studying and receive a grant. Another way is to pay people who live in depressed economic areas, say where UE rate is above 15%. We could get imaginative about who would be paid to voluntarily leave and stay out of the work force.

Second, our economy is dependent on consumption. Without consumption, no one would make anything. Thus, no one would be hired to make anything. In past years, our economy was balanced between production and consumption. But with the advent of globalization, the world's economy was bifurcated into consumption and production based nations. In this past decade, our entire consumption-based economy was propped up by easy access to cheap credit which lead to the current housing bubble and collapse.

In addition, the current global economy is unsustainable because billions of low paid workers have flooded the world's job market. Whatever we can make here can be made in China for pennies on the dollar. Whatever Information Technology job that exist can be done in India also for pennies on the dollar. IOW, we cannot re-balance our economy between production and consumption again because there will always be a high supply of cheap labor somewhere in the world.

Hence, the only viable alternative is to do something to lower the supply of labor. Paying some workers to not work would do just that as well provide a social good.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Your plan to encourage consumption will make things worse

In past years, our economy was balanced between production and consumption. But with the advent of globalization, the world's economy was bifurcated into consumption and production based nations. In this past decade, our entire consumption-based economy was propped up by easy access to cheap credit which lead to the current housing bubble and collapse.

Yes, and so encouraging the USA to be even more of a consumption-based economy will make things even worse. Lowering the supply of labour will mean even less is made in the USA. Unless you lower the consumption too, the USA's problems will get worse, in your scheme. You need more of that credit to support the consumption you desire.

Paying people to do post-grad studies might be good - because, in the end, they'll be more productive as a result. People caring are doing something useful too, so there can be a social good in that too (but you'll have to get serious about estimating how many people you'll pay, and how much it'll cost, and what taxes you'll raise to fund it). But paying people a generous salary to not do anything, and expecting that to help anyone but those individuals, is voodoo economics, frankly.

And extra consumption is an ecological nightmare too.

[Yavin4]

47. My Re-Rebuttal

One, you seem to be against consumption, and that's an okay position to take. However, without consumption, you really cannot have a capitalistic based economy. Somebody has to buy the products that you make. If they don't, then there's no market. My plan would not mean we'd have rampant consumption. My plan would mean that we'd have enough consumption to head off rapid depreciation.

You said: "Lowering the supply of labour will mean even less is made in the USA." You keep missing my point. Less will be made in the USA no matter what. There's no way that USA workers can out-produce a billion workers in Communist China making less than $1 per hour. There's no way that USA IT workers can out-produce a billion workers in India making less than $1 per hour. We already have an over-supply of global labor which is the main reason why we're having this credit crunch, and this global over-supply will only get worse as time goes on.

I've said in my idea that there are several ways to compensate people for NOT working through such things as a caregiver allowance, professional student scholars, and long-term economic emergency assistance to regions of the country with persistently high UE rates. These programs would not pay people lavish salaries, and not everyone would participate.

[Solly Mack]

20. I want that job!

Occupation: Geographical worker

A geographical bachelor is a married man who is stationed away from home - as in a hardship/non-accompanied tour - though not to be confused with combat. (in military-speak)

So, a geographical worker would be a worker who is away from work (not to be confused with person who works from home)

[screembloodymurder]

21. Why don't we have a mandatory six week vacation for everyone?

The added vacation time would mean more jobs, but fewer weeks a year for everyone. Europe does it.

[bertman]

23. As an employer I can honestly say that I have sometimes felt like I was doing just that.

:evilgrin:

[sufrommich]

24. I hope this is satire. nt

[Yavin4]

31. I'm As Serious As A Heart Attack

In three years or so, my idea will be mainstream, and the government may even consider it.

[Nay]

26. I will gladly give up my job/retire as soon as I get the word. I've worked

all my life and it ain't what it's cracked up to be. Most jobs are boring, repetitive, replete with coworkers and bosses, and take up so much of your life that you feel like a slave. Please, release me.

[rustydog]

27. Already being done: Fox News staff prime example

[gmoney]

28. watch Zeitgeist 2...

they seem to think that stuff can be so automated as to make virtually all labor obsolete, and most people can live in a leisure class.

[scarletlib]

29. Why not redefine and expand the meaning of what work is?

Right now this society defines work generally as something one does outside the home for a set period of time for earnings. That's a general definition (by me) but I think that's how most of us think of work. Why not redefine what work is. Yes, the government may be paying me and I am at 'home' but rearing children, volunteering at the school, community center etc. for some of the week, creating art, music, gardening. Most of what we do in the home and community can be thought of as work. Why not credit what people do and call it work?

That would remove the incentive to demean taking a 'paycheck' from the government.

I may be laid off from my job in a few months because of the economy. At my age & education level I don't think I will easily find a job that will pay what I am 'worth'. I'm thinking of taking the unemployment & doing community work and a lot of housework. If I do get laid off, I not going to feel guilty taking a government check. I earned it.

[Yavin4]

32. In Three Years or So, The Idea of Paying Folks To Not Work Will Be Mainstream

And volunteering in the community or helping out in some way will be seen as a fair compromise to NOT working for the money.

[scarletlib]

37. There's a lot of work out in the real world that's not getting done right now.

The reason: most of us have jobs that take us out of our homes and community lives for substantial periods of time. Schools suffer and many other community agencies suffer too. Back in the Fifties & Sixties before women went to 'work' outside the home they did most of that work. Of course they never received the credit or the pay but they performed vital services that strengthened the entire community.

Think how much good would come of freeing people to really do the work they wanted to do & still let them be in their homes with their family for a substantial amount of time. I would love to be able to do this and if I get laid off I am going to take the opportunity.

Howard Zinn is his book "The Peoples'History of the United States" suggested at the end a redefinition of work. His thought is that we all would do some vital community job: plumbing, farming, running the subway, sewer system etc for a certain number of hours each week -- not 40+ -- and then spend the rest of our time taking care of family & community. I think it's a good idea.

[Yavin4]

39. I Proposed In Post Above

That one category of people who would receive pay for NOT working would be caregivers, someone raising a child or taking care of an elderly parent or very sick relative. This would provide a great social benefit as well as reduce the oversupply of labor.

[scarletlib]

41. I am in absolute agreement with you.

But let's do call it work. It is and most important.

[and-justice-for-all]

30. That would be my perfect (none)job!!!!

I would most likely become more active in the community if I was paid not to work.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

33. Cool!

Let's write the job description;
Get up
Drink coffee,tea, whatever
eat breakfast
Read the paper,surf the net
walk the dog
cut the lawn
workout
volunteer
so far, so good! :)

[TahitiNut]

34. In a way, it'd be like paying farmers NOT to plant crops.

:shrug:

[Yavin4]

36. Exactly!!!

Perfect analogy. This is how we protect our farmers from being ravaged by foreign competitors.

If we allowed true foreign competition in agriculture, South American farmers would destroy Florida's entire ag economy.


Protecting workers from low cost labor markets would achieve the same thing.

[Richard Steele]

40. Except that the BILLION$ would be going to people, instead of large AgriBusiness Corporations.

That would be a bit different.

[Johonny]

43. But there still farmers

They still have a farm and will eventually plant again. Many don't plant in one area but do plant in other areas. The autoworker that sits around at home is no longer an autoworker. Rotation systems, co-op, split time programs are more similar to not paying farmers to plant than flat out paying them not to work. If farmers lost the job role as farmers they would never opt into programs that pay them not to plant. The key is employ the most people as possible and then pay them the difference of the time they don't work. I.E. two workers working 20 hrs and the government paying the other 20 hrs is much better than the government paying one person 40 hrs not work and one person working 40 hrs. Overall polls show people much prefer the first option.

[hunter]

48. Start with a thirty hour work week, six week vacations, pay people to go to school...

...pay moms or dads to stay home with their own young children, institute single payer medicine, build clean comfortable clinics and shelters in areas where the homeless congregate, treat substance abusers as patients instead of criminals, etc., etc..

Our higher "productivity" and misguided "work ethic" is directly related to the damage we do to the environment and the misery we inflict upon those who are excluded or alienated from the mainstream economy. We need to design a new measure of productivity and a new sort of work ethic that doesn't destroy the environment or the lives of people who can't keep up with the irrational materialism of the herd.