> The bottom of the ladder is the unemployed, who make $0/h.
If government programs are included, the unemployed definitely don't "make" $0/hour. As is often pointed out, taxpayers are effectively funding the underpayment of workers Walmart, McDonalds, etc because of government subsidies.
I don't have a dog in this hunt but the issue is much too complicated by government action to say unequivocally that the unemployed "make" $0. I'm not sure if it's good or bad but I definitely lean toward "we've made it too complicated".
[Now I'll go back to sorting through baffling health insurance complexity...]
Canada, but it's the same in the States. Unemployment is for people who have lost a job. I would not have qualified.
What stuck with me was that everything required that I already had a job. Maybe it was the economy at the time, but nobody wanted to hire someone without work experience. When I discovered that even unemployment required I have work experience, it felt like I was living in Catch-22.
For that reason, I support the government acting as an employer of last resort. Everyone should be guaranteed a job if they're willing to work.
> For that reason, I support the government acting as an employer of last resort.
I like that concept as well. But there are problems. Quality of work is one. Another is the complication of getting something useful out of that manpower. Would probably be done by lending that workforce to companies... subsidized if necessary, but with significant bargaining power. Still this could end up becoming a nightmare with incompetent / corrupt governments. It would be a great natural minimum wage, though, since you'd be stupid to work for less than you could get at you gov job.
You clearly do have a dog in the hunt because you're framing it as the government subsidizing the companies. All of your examples are jobs with a ground level bar for entry so low that people with zero skills or clear mental illness can still manage to learn them and become gainfully employed. Were these people not employed at all they'd require /more/ government support not less.
If government programs are included, the unemployed definitely don't "make" $0/hour. As is often pointed out, taxpayers are effectively funding the underpayment of workers Walmart, McDonalds, etc because of government subsidies.
I don't have a dog in this hunt but the issue is much too complicated by government action to say unequivocally that the unemployed "make" $0. I'm not sure if it's good or bad but I definitely lean toward "we've made it too complicated".
[Now I'll go back to sorting through baffling health insurance complexity...]