But that sounds like something FDR would have done, and a lot like Socialism. Which is, of course, evil.
Realistically, though, there's also the logistical issue of getting people to relocate to where their skills are most needed. I don't think we're quite to the point of people abandoning their roots in hopes of finding anything. Not yet.
On the wasted human potential, though... I'd never thought of it that way. It might even be worse than 20% if you consider how many highly skilled and intelligent individuals are employed but in jobs where their abilities are left to atrophy.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the logistical issue of getting people to relocate. Our grandparents generations were actually much smarter about this - the smart ones, at least. I once did an oral history paper on post WWII rural to urban migration, interviewing people who moved to where the jobs were.
Right now I know two different family members of my generation who have been unemployed each for over a year but who won't listen to me when I tell them they need to move to where jobs are. Their logic in staying put is maddening...
Two thoughts on this issue - first off - in an ideal world, I'd argue that we should find some way to avoid forcing people to periodically uproot themselves from friends, family, and community simply in order to make a living.
Secondly - it is actually very hard for many people to move at present, as a result of the housing crash. If people are unable to sell their homes, they are unable to move, in most cases - this is a bit of a downside to the postwar boom in home-ownership, as it made it harder for people, even those who wanted to, to chase jobs.
Well, that is one nice thing about the larger families of yore... in my family, at least, when people traveled to a new place where work was to be found they usually took some friends and family with them
( ... )
I've actually been surprised that there hasn't been a greater uptick in the usage of time banks. It seems like the ideal way to get people to put their skills to good use while obtaining goods and services they need, without the exchange of money. Granted, that does not translate well for large projects like construction and it does not address the need for access to health care and other safeguards, but it would be a way to keep people active and productive while helping them keep their heads above water until something more permanent presented itself.
I think that in this particular case, lack of publicity might be a problem. If *I* have to google a particular social structure, then the odds are good that it has not been adequately publicized. (One related modest up-side to the downturn has been a greater level of volunteer activity, as people try to remain socially useful even when they have no jobs).
Although, as a side note, I now know of the existence of the TV program "How to Start Your Own Country", which looks absolutely fascinating....
to distribute scare resources in an optimal patter
OK, either you're really sleepy, or you've been drinking something high-octane. ;-p
On a more serious note, your post reminds me of a speech recorded by Van Jones that I watched at church camp a couple years ago (if you click on the link, Van Jones doesn't appear until like 5 minutes into the video). He made the same argument - people need jobs, and stuff needs to be built and fixed - and carried it one step further. He said let's take all those people who are unemployed (and I believe he also said people who are incarcerated) - educate them, and give them the qualifications to not only fix the infrastructure, but to update it to run on green energy. He called them green-collar jobs.
As you probably know because you pay more attention to things political than I do, Van Jones was hired by the president to create green jobs. Then he was forced out by a smear campaign from conservatives who basically accused him of being a big commie pinko. Sad, isn't it?
Yeah ... I've been really disillusioned by what he's done to education. One article I read the other day said that Obama is actually worse on education than Bush was.
But, and I'm entirely serious in this - what could possibly be their win condition? How does living in a decaying nightmare of a country improve anyone's life?
Nowadays, I don't think they see it that way; they're not evaluating win conditions as much as they are reacting to some Glenn Beck style paranoid delusions. They're somehow convinced that any governmental involvement or action on *anything* (say, pressuring BP to clean up its mess, or making banks divide themselves up until we're not in a situation where the failure of a single large bank can bring down the entire world economy) will inevitably lead to the second coming of Stalin.
I suppose that knee-jerk reaction might be part of this - but what about the Glenn Beck's of the world? The people producing this information must know what they're doing. The guys at fox have never struck me as being sincere believers in any political ideology (I'll give the Paul's credit - I disagree with them, but I do think that they have the courage of their convictions, at least). Are people really willing to ruin a country for their own limited short-term economic gain? Argle.
Socialism would certainly be one way to fix the problem - but I think that *any* economic system should find a way to effectively mobilize human capital. Adam Smith's classical liberalism was built around the maximum and maximally effective use of all economic resources, after all.
Comments 63
Realistically, though, there's also the logistical issue of getting people to relocate to where their skills are most needed. I don't think we're quite to the point of people abandoning their roots in hopes of finding anything. Not yet.
On the wasted human potential, though... I'd never thought of it that way. It might even be worse than 20% if you consider how many highly skilled and intelligent individuals are employed but in jobs where their abilities are left to atrophy.
Erg...
Reply
Right now I know two different family members of my generation who have been unemployed each for over a year but who won't listen to me when I tell them they need to move to where jobs are. Their logic in staying put is maddening...
Reply
Secondly - it is actually very hard for many people to move at present, as a result of the housing crash. If people are unable to sell their homes, they are unable to move, in most cases - this is a bit of a downside to the postwar boom in home-ownership, as it made it harder for people, even those who wanted to, to chase jobs.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Although, as a side note, I now know of the existence of the TV program "How to Start Your Own Country", which looks absolutely fascinating....
Reply
Reply
re:TV show - really? That sounds great! Or at least great fun in theory. Network? Launch date?
Reply
OK, either you're really sleepy, or you've been drinking something high-octane. ;-p
On a more serious note, your post reminds me of a speech recorded by Van Jones that I watched at church camp a couple years ago (if you click on the link, Van Jones doesn't appear until like 5 minutes into the video). He made the same argument - people need jobs, and stuff needs to be built and fixed - and carried it one step further. He said let's take all those people who are unemployed (and I believe he also said people who are incarcerated) - educate them, and give them the qualifications to not only fix the infrastructure, but to update it to run on green energy. He called them green-collar jobs.
As you probably know because you pay more attention to things political than I do, Van Jones was hired by the president to create green jobs. Then he was forced out by a smear campaign from conservatives who basically accused him of being a big commie pinko. Sad, isn't it?
Reply
Reply
"Barack Obama inherited George W. Bush's war - not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in the nation's public schools. Bush's battle plan was to criticize teachers' unions, increase the number of charter schools, and promote testing and accountability through No Child Left Behind, his signature legislation. Over the past year, Obama has done more than continue to prosecute his predecessor's war. In a surprise to many, he has quietly escalated it, even as the intelligence on which this war was founded has come under increasing scrutiny."
Reply
Reply
Republicans?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I'm with you on the disillusionment...
Reply
Leave a comment