Instead of giving people unemployment checks or welfare why don't the Government just hire these people? There...

Instead of giving people unemployment checks or welfare why don't the Government just hire these people? There. 0% unemployment rate.

Attached: unemployment.jpg (2500x1579, 545.71K)

You expect these boogas to work?

Attached: 42ONuVcR_400x400.jpg (400x400, 18.21K)

Just force them. You can work or you can die.

Very good, I like where you're going with this. For just the cost of a few shovels, they can dig their own mass graves.

Attached: Trump-laughing.jpg (760x526, 65.64K)

They can work from home until the lockdown is over.

fpbp

That's basically what the military is.

What's the problem economically speaking?

back of the line, belgia

Attached: remove_kebab.png (2048x1536, 2.81M)

That's a good question.

You’re implying people even want to work

is that real?

Hire them to stay home

The point of employment is full production not full employment. What I mean is job programs often have 4 people doing 1 persons job. They are all paid and all employed but they are also waisting time and money that could be used elswhere.

Hire the white unemployed people, to deport the non-white unemployed people. They will have to wear some sort of uniform.

Attached: 1550002601022.png (1092x1432, 2.24M)

Elsewhere such as?
You're giving these people a means to survive and have at least an objective in life.
They can get their paychecks and spend however they want, thus making the economy wheel spin.

My sides

If a government decides to build a bridge this can be bad if it is no needed. This material, equipment, these people and the money can be used in another place. Government jobs can use tax payer money to buy all the things needed and then pay the people again. For a job program. Not all jobs are necessary, if you need a bridge then build one, don't build one so you can say you have employed people(which governments do).

What's the difference between that and giving them benefits or giving out loans so companies can hire them?

Someone on benefits isn't as expensive as someone on benefits + all the material, equipment etc. Companies can already get loans, if a company NEEDS a loan from the government it is probably untrustworthy of a private loan. And that is another issue.

So you're saying is, economically speaking, it's better to hand out money than putting them to work?

I don't know if the government necessarily pays for all the equipment etc. But the program itself can still be wasteful if the job is not necessary.

No that pointless job programs are often a waste of money. Creating employment isn't the point of a job, the point is to make produce something people need.

But isn't it prejudicial to have more than 10% of your young adults unemployed and having no way to live?
Instead of giving out hand outs you're giving them a job to acquire experience so they can get a job in the private sector later.

Its complicated. I don't know enough economics to answer properly unfortunately.

I mean I can say it as a problem if they get paid more than the private people. People would probably prefer to become unemployed and work for the State instead of working for the private sector.
Although that'd make private companies raise their salaries to compete with the govt.

Because lazy losers are not willing to work. They want free money.

to do what?

If the government ever asked this question there would be virtually no government employees.

Penis inspection

why the fuck am i making less than people on unemployment benefits? After taxes i make about $550/week and fuckers are getting $600 doing nothing

Attached: 90990.jpg (840x756, 243.1K)

Get in the cage, wagey

I'm more confused than anything, does unemployment normally pay this much?

I think it varies according to your last salary