Real government jobs for the poor

Yeah right

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
1,267
Kin
4💸
Kumi
-6💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I know there are some agencies that can help poor people find jobs. But they suck. Why else would there still be poor people. LOL.

HUD is trying to make changes to their handouts which is fine if they can guarantee jobs. Why is it hard to create government jobs that can be used to escape poverty?

Right now, it’s cut the budget and lower their government checks. I don’t really like how they think, “this will incentivise them to work harder”. Especially when they think they are lazy because of a system in place and that they need to be slapped out of it.

Does anyone have any background in this area? I’m not talking about some “socialist-communist- job fantasy”.

Do you guys think it is really a work ethic problem poor people have?
 

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Did you have a *** change?
OT
I think it's important to create jobs for poor people, it could also be good to invest in them, giving them a chance to educate themselves, but maybe that's a crazy socialist thing to say.

Some people don't have to work and they get money anyway.

Some people are rich, sometimes I wonder if some jobs are a little too easy for some people so I guess life is unfair.


But creating jobs for poor people is defenitely a good thing, it doesn't have to be like jobs you get rich from, but pushing yourself, struggling with a job is I think good for you, and obviously it's important for economical reasons, both for the government and for the people that are poor.

Question is how, it must be difficult.


Good thread btw.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
The problem is a bit more nuanced than it first appears.

We need to look at how people live to understand what costs are involved in that living. Poor have always existed, to be sure, but the structure of communities has also changed over time. Looking at small townships and boroughs throughout history, you see societies operating far more off of what is considered "social credit." Rather than a literal barter system where payment is exchanged up front - the community generally barters goods and services within itself without much logging and cataloging of debts. Money was reserved for exchanges outside of the community, itself usually no more than the troop size layer of the Dunbar Layering system in humans.

Families often developed estates - many generations living together under the same roof. Women typically remained in the community while younger men would travel into larger cities or to other communities to perform paid labor or other services. This was especially the case during the Industrial Revolution. Cities, themselves, have always been more complicated affairs as space has come at a premium. Where people in the townships would often grow their own foods and land was at far less of a premium (while legal claims to land could be vast, most areas honored a sort of tenancy law where land not actively maintained by an individual could be lived on and eventually claimed by a person who could prove they were maintaining it) - cities often exchange in a monetary currency because the individuals are unknown to the people overseeing the transaction. Space is at a much higher premium in developed areas and rent has usurped ownership in many regions.

Because of often legal constraints on urban development, rental enterprises are rarely challenged within the free market. This is particularly true when federal housing subsidies are taken into account and there is no reason for any person owning a rental property to ever charge less than the federal rate. Where, in a free market, homes or other spaces would be built to satisfy demands of those with jobs and money, in a more legally constrained market, there is no reason for a rental property to aggressively price. Once the building has been paid for and modest maintenance costs are taken care of, a rental property is a money mill. $500/month is a relatively low rent here in this region, and you figure an apartment complex with over a hundred renters that may have only cost a few million to build.

This is a key problem, where families used to accrue wealth across all classes, it has now become much more difficult for families to accrue that wealth, particularly as our culture insists on children perpetually fragmenting from that family base. Then, we must consider the concept of what they are fragmenting to go do. Education has become entirely inflated in cost relative to what it does. The problem with college, particularly in the wake of the internet, is that it is little more than a paid credential. Go $120K into debt, be certified that you played the game and can be hired by other people who place stock in the importance of that game. The field of education has been bastardized to such a point that it is no longer about what you know or can do, it is about where you spent money and how much of it.

All of this leads to yet another problem. Our currency is all debt based. It is perpetually losing value, even when it is 'stable,' it is only doing so in relation to the precipitous fall of other currencies, internationally. Against the hard, material products - the purchasing power of our currencies is always in decline. I can remember going to the store in 2008 to buy 2 liters of soda for $0.75 and $0.99 depending upon what brand had the deal going at the time. These were Coke and Pepsi products. Over 100% inflation in price within 10 years. True, not all markets inflate equally, but the problem is that the costs of living are continually increasing while the purchasing power of bank accounts and paychecks declines.

The only way to protect against inflation is to get rid of the hot potatoes - the currency, itself. Purchasing assets that are denominated in currencies, as opposed to holding the currencies. Assets hold an intrinsic value - they are what we spend currency on or show up and go to work for. These assets protect against inflation, and those who have been able to acquire enough currency to purchase sufficient assets are part of an "asset class" in and of itself. These are the people who own factories, rental buildings, etc. Not all of them are bad people, but placed into perspective, the working class has been effectively rendered servants within debt and credit fueled economies backed by central banks (federal reserve).

As such, while many who are poor or homeless do also have accompanying mental health issues, it is also true that we have vastly complicated the costs of living to create an ever expanding category of poor within society. This has then been coupled with a controlled opposition philosophy - socialism - which is the same stated of service re-branded to appeal to those who are displeased with the current arrangement.
 

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I don't believe it's mostly because the poor often are lazy but because it's just discouraging. If someone's poor enough to qualify for these kinds of social services, odds are they don't have much education behind them, so the alternative is working a slave wage at some demeaning job. The fact that the poor often find themselves in one area and that these same jobs are shared between adults and children alike doesn't help anything either. The answer is to either ease access to college or bump minimum wage imo.

What do you mean by creating government jobs though? Things like trashmen? If cities already have those, what more can a government do? To create more government jobs for the poor would be to dump MUCH more money into the poor than social services unless it also brings in money. If it brings in money, it reasons to assume it's a skilled job or already there and paid for(mailmen, trashmen, and whatever else I'm unaware of) since I doubt the government is opening a fast food restaurant or convenience store anytime soon.
 
Last edited:

Yeah right

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
1,267
Kin
4💸
Kumi
-6💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
What I mean by government jobs is really the key in this conversation. A good rule of thumb, is that a person needs stability to get out of poverty. Like 20 years guaranteed job security with nothing bad happening. We hear about falling unemployment but what kind of jobs are those? Like you said, fast food or worst case, Uber. These jobs have no future. No 401K. Crappy insurance.

I wonder if people have any ideas of what can be turned into government jobs that have futures. Getting a custodial job with no education sounds nice but what happens 20 years later? There needs to be a levels to these jobs that guarantee upward mobility.

I just think if money is going to be removed from the baseline, some money saved should be moved into a system that creates free entry jobs.

In some cities, poor people can get free or reduced education to enter the medical field. Best case scenario is nursing. Other than nursing, medical assistant jobs are fine in the beginning, but they have no future either.
 

Edogawa

Active member
Regular
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
1,713
Kin
3💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
There so called ''real'' jobs you're referring to in the public sector require at least bachelor degree, which most poor people don't have. Public sector jobs with minimum high school or diploma have bad work ethics. The hours are long and the pay just covers needs bills. No one wants to work shitty jobs. Unfortunately, the economy as it is can't supply prestigious jobs with the high demand currently existing, especially in the private sector and the federal government can't do anything about it.

Now, poverty is relative from one place to another, whether it be a city to city, state to state or even country to country. I'm assuming you're defining poverty line using federal measurement. In my opinion, I think the first step in solving poverty is creating a research data on the causes of poverty to begin with, then creating solutions in relations to each problem.

The first and most cause of poverty in the developed world is lack of personal finance education. I would support any kind of educational legislation that aims to add compulsory personal finance classes. Children before becoming adults need to understand how money works before they make wrong decisions, which is the first reason behind poor people becoming poor. False financial decisions that leads to people becoming poor can range from so many things, like not pursuing a prestigious degree, bad spending habits and so on.

Other poverty contribution factor can be birth to a poor family. Existing government and private institutions deal with child poverty. Another poverty contribution factor can be a terrible economy, as it happened with the 2008 recession. Things like this can be solved with increased government regulations.
 

Onii Chan

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
3,769
Kin
843💸
Kumi
2,584💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Most poor or homeless people are either: very low regarding IQ, druggy, or prefers being poor, all of which is mostly by choice. They want to be poor, or on drugs, or stupid. You might think thats stupid of me to say but its true, its without doubt the truth. This is why every homeless or poor person that is seen being helped is back on the streets the next week, its because they prefer it. Its like the beaten wife syndrome i suppose.
 

Yeah right

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
1,267
Kin
4💸
Kumi
-6💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Most poor or homeless people are either: very low regarding IQ, druggy, or prefers being poor, all of which is mostly by choice. They want to be poor, or on drugs, or stupid. You might think thats stupid of me to say but its true, its without doubt the truth. This is why every homeless or poor person that is seen being helped is back on the streets the next week, its because they prefer it. Its like the beaten wife syndrome i suppose.
I mean this in the most sensitive way, but do you think there is a generation that should just be abandoned? Like should we take their children away but put them in a well funded institution that will provide for shelter and education?

If they are a lost cause, a break away needs to happen.
 

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I dislike "fake jobs", I want people to have responsibilities and a real salary. Even if it's tiny.



I know Jordan Peterson talked about statistics and the question about what do you do with people that can't do anything?

Like they are not skilled enough to have a job.

Employers wants the best people for the job so what if you are never the best?

That means you dont deserve a job, and you can't contribute to society. That question scares me cus I think of myself.
 
Last edited:

Yeah right

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
1,267
Kin
4💸
Kumi
-6💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I dislike "fake jobs", I want people to have responsibilities and a real salary. Even if it's tiny.



I know Jordan Peterson talked about statistics and the question about what do you do with people that can't do anything?

Like they are not skilled enough to have a job.

Employers wants the best people for the job so what if you are never the best?

That means you dont deserve a job, and you can't contribute to society. That question scares me cus I think of myself.
people can drive right?

I always wonder what if the government created Uber. Except that it would pay a little better and have actual benefits.

Employers want the best for the private sector. But, we are talking about public work. Unless a person is actually mentally deficient, they can find a job.

Would a government sponsored trades, like plumbing, carpentry, etc. work to alleviate the problem? They learn, work for two years (paid by the government), then they can go out and start their own business. Something like that. Where they are taught a skill, given a secure job to gather experience, then let go to find their way.
 

Cornson

Active member
Regular
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
910
Kin
0💸
Kumi
2,500💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
people can drive right?

I always wonder what if the government created Uber. Except that it would pay a little better and have actual benefits.

Employers want the best for the private sector. But, we are talking about public work. Unless a person is actually mentally deficient, they can find a job.

Would a government sponsored trades, like plumbing, carpentry, etc. work to alleviate the problem? They learn, work for two years (paid by the government), then they can go out and start their own business. Something like that. Where they are taught a skill, given a secure job to gather experience, then let go to find their way.
you haven't paid that much attention to self driving cars/trucks news have you?

They (as in the people working on this) expect self driving trucks will be a thing by 2025, that goes for cabs, limos and busses too... those jobs will be gone in less than 10 years (think of all the money the bosses can save if they don't have to pay salary for drivers but just need to hire a few tech guys instead...)

it's the same thing with many physical jobs, factory jobs etc, every single year technology advance and more and more productive machines replace human labor and those jobs do not get replace by anything, the total amount of jobs avaliable dwindle yet the population increases.
 
Last edited:

Yeah right

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
1,267
Kin
4💸
Kumi
-6💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
you haven't paid that much attention to self driving cars/trucks news have you?

They (as in the people working on this) expect self driving trucks will be a thing by 2025, that goes for cabs, limos and busses too... those jobs will be gone in less than 10 years (think of all the money the bosses can save if they don't have to pay salary for drivers but just need to fire a few tech guys instead...)

it's the same thing with many physical jobs, factory jobs etc, every single year technology advance and more and more productive machines replace human labor and those jobs do not get replace by anything, the total amount of jobs avaliable dwindle yet the population increases.
But the government has the power to stop this.

This is not a real example, but it highlights what i mean when i say the governmnet can stop one emerging market to save another.

[video=youtube_share;NHT_NmxdgFc]https://youtu.be/NHT_NmxdgFc[/video]
 
Top