Not if we contract the manufacture of bullets to third-world nations to take advantage of cheap labour.
Paying People Not To Work Saved Millions Of Jobs
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Let's take it one step further, give them the social assistance but in graduated amounts, depending on how much they are willing to do (and there's lots to do) Picking up litter on our streets and vacant lots etc. would probably keep a dozen of them busy for a couple of months just in Vernon. People who are doing something are generally healthier than those who don't so our health costs would decrease.
That's called stimulus and apparently it's more important right now to reduce the deficit. America-Canada as well- has crumbling infrastructure. Fix the demand issue in the economy with jobs building new infrastructure and a large part of the deficit problem is solved. As to the OP, welfare spending doesn't even require a multiplier effect to make the assertion true. Giving money to people who otherwise would have none increases demand in the economy. No hand wringing will make that fact untrue.
It saved millions and millions of employers, who have hired back millions and millions of employees when they could once again afford to hire them back.
You still can't see that eh?
The employers still need viable markets in which to sell their wares.... No point in rehiring and increasing the supply side of the equation until such time that the demand side of the equation justifies that move.
It's a mugs game...
Lets spend the money on real infrastructure projects then, not make work projects. We got taxpayer money going to build hiking trails along side the abandoned railway, while roads are going to $hit.
Exactly and you want the people you spent a fortune training back rather than go through the painful, expensive process of hiring fresh, weeding out the deadbeats and training the new. If they weren't on pogey they'd be long gone.
That's a new one, how does that work?
Yep, creating jobs just for the sake of jobs never did make any sense!
That's one of the problems with these "make work" projects, all too often an idiot is put in charge of it.
No doubt.... But one of the factors in the equation relates to the overall size of the domestic economy with specific reference to trade balance... In a global economy, it is almost impossible to maintain a self-funding system without new money (markets) coming in from foreign sources. The easiest way to do this (domestically) is to encourage greater investment within that domestic economy and get the jobs injected through the private sector efforts.
Right now, the Dems are creating an economic climate that makes capital think twice about investing in the USA.. There are simply better alternatives available globally.
I think there should be one more dimension added to these training programs, train the employee on how to create a demand for his use.
That money is also flowing in at a discount... Great for cash flow, but not so great for employment numbers that are generally profit driven
When your economy is consumer based rather than production based, trade goes out the window.
Imagine the highs and lows back in the day when everyone was paid monthly on the first. It would have been ****ty during the last 10 days of the month straight across the board.
I was going to wait for somebody to pipe up about "welfare people spending it all on beer" so I can say "great...right back into the tax revenue pool."
Absolutely, and it leaves you at the mercy of foreign economies.
Way different times then... You might remember that many folks had a small garden in the back yard and you'd also notice a real big difference in the individual savings that people had (or at least the trend).
Tough comparing today's consumer society with a time when credit was almost non-existent
Problem is that this action leads to greater dependence on emergency funds and/or defaults on debts.... Probably sucks more money out of the economy then it generates
Pretty much but the sole supplier still had/has mind boggling growth.
Food back then was 40% of your income.
Agriculture subsidies in the US and hefty tax credits in Canada have made the food expenditure plummet which created the consumer market. It's our dirty little secret to remaining dominant.
Or does it maintain the status quo?