Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Democrats' Universal Job Plan Would Be a Socialist Disaster

The economic illiteracy of Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to announce a plan that guarantees every American "who wants or needs one" a lifetime government job paying at least $15 an hour, with health insurance and other perks. This new progressive workforce will then, according to The Washington Post, build glorious "projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, care giving, the environment, education and other goals."

It would be one thing if the nation's leading socialist—and perhaps the most popular Democrat in the country—were the only one interested in creating a state-run workforce to "compete" with the private sector. A number of other allegedly moderate Democrats and prospective presidential candidates, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, favor a universal job guarantee as well. It's rapidly becoming a mainstream idea.

One imagines that a quixotic proposal like this polls quite well. I mean, who doesn't want everyone to have a job? You don't possess a skill set that enables you to find productive work? You don't want to learn a new trade? You don't want to obtain a better education? You have no interest in moving to an area where your work might be in demand? You don't want to start your career with a lower wage even if the long-term prospects of doing so might be worthwhile? Don't worry. The government's got an incentive-destroying job opportunity just for you.

And if you've been fired for a poor work ethic, or for stealing, or for making women uncomfortable with your creepy behavior, fear not; Bernie's got your back. In the rare event that state workers do misbehave, they would be summoned to a Division of Progress Investigation (a relic of our 1930s stab at socialism) to "take disciplinary action if needed." If the DPI were to run anything like major public schools systems do, you can imagine it would be a study in meritocracy.

"Job guarantee advocates," The Washington Post says, make the absurd claim that Sanders' plan "would drive up wages by significantly increasing competition for workers, ensuring that corporations have to offer more generous salaries and benefits if they want to keep their employees from working for the government."

Corporations are concerned with profit. If the minimum wage kills jobs, why should we believe businesses (especially smaller ones) would compete with government-funded projects that can print money and create salaries (and benefits) that are wholly untethered from the real cost of labor? Businesses would simply hire fewer Americans—especially those Americans first getting into the labor force.

Of course, it's more likely that our state-run workforce would be deployed for ideological and political priorities rather than economic ones. If history is any indicator, it would be used to prop up politically useful projects and keep failing industries afloat, undermining creative destruction, innovation, and long-term growth.

You do have to wonder, what would happen if local communities that share President Trump's "priorities" were to demand utilizing this state labor? What if they were to want to build sections of a wall on the southern border rather than make solar panels, or whatever progressive priority Sanders has in mind? We'd be hearing about a rise of fascism in no time.

Then there is the mission creep. No doubt the Washington, D.C., bureaucracy that would emerge to run this project would be both nimble and competent. But why only $15? Who can live on $15 an hour? Well, not a lot of people. Surely, these hard-working public servants who keep the infrastructure from crumbling around us deserve a genuine living wage. How about better pensions? As this workforce grows, it wouldn't possess any special ability other than being able to corral huge numbers of people to demand more.

Most of all, making government responsible for every American's job prospects would change the dynamics of governance—forever. Not only would politicians be expected to help create the economic conditions that make growth possible; they would then face another unrealistic expectation. Unemployment would no longer be a function of economic conditions but rather heartless politicians who fail to create jobs for voters.

This is exactly what left-leaning economists who obsess about inequality and push zero-sum fantasies about wealth and growth want. It's why they wanted the federal government to control the structure of the health care system, and it's why they want to create a "public" job option. Most of them openly argue the universal job program would let them control wages and benefits in the private sector.

Democrats have yet to tell us how they plan to fund this massive workforce idea that doesn't generate any profit. I have a strong suspicion it will have something to do with the nefariously wealthy not paying their fair share. I'm not sure, however, that even the Koch brothers could afford to bankroll this idea. But it's not really meant to pass. Not yet. Republicans would never go for it, after all. Democrats see this as a promising campaign issue. In the meantime, they continue to normalize destructive socialistic ideas in political discourse.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Peter Duncan||

    It will take a huge manufacturing work force to meet the demands for more wood chippers in the DC area thanks to ideas like this one.

    Rather ironic, really.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Socialist train, all aboard! Toot toot! Next stop, poverty!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Poverty for all. Liberty, fraternity, equality!

  • DajjaI||

    Lots of socialists on my fb timeline. I just constantly remind everyone that we're living in the garden of eden and you ain't gonna get us kicked out. Seems to keep them in line.

  • MarkLastname||

    The Democrats have decided to increase the pace of their gallop toward full on communism I guess.

  • Rat on a train||

    No, my friend, we will not live long enough to see communism, but our children... our poor children!

  • DarrenM||

    Communism was popular several thousand years ago when people live in small tribes barely eeking out an existence. Look how well it worked then.

  • Gilpin Faust||

    1% holding 90% of the wealth in this country is a disaster already.

  • gormadoc||

    Yeah, it'd be better to live in Venezuela, NK, or Cuba, where 1% has 99% and the whole pie is smaller.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Having 90% of the computer money isn't everything.

  • Gilpin Faust||

    It's no like they'd be giving the money away. People would have to work for it. It's just a bare minimum. There would still be every opportunity to make more money doing something else. Hell, I pay a guy a $100 to cut my lawn takes him an hour. That guy wouldn't be interested in the $15 an hour job but I'm sure there are a few million who would. Better that they're working than not. We already guarantee medical care if they're sick. There's really little downside to this idea.

  • LynchPin1477||

    It's no like they'd be giving the money away. People would have to work for it.
    Experience with government controlled industries indicates that it would be given away to the connected and that people could skate by without working hard at all.
    It's just a bare minimum. There would still be every opportunity to make more money doing something else.
    The whole point of this program is to support people who supposedly can't or won't do something else. And there will be built in pressure to make it more generous as time goes on.
    Hell, I pay a guy a $100 to cut my lawn takes him an hour. That guy wouldn't be interested in the $15 an hour job
    Depends on the benefits and stability. Hourly wage isn't all there is.
    but I'm sure there are a few million who would. Better that they're working than not.
    Agreed, and better they have an actual in-demand job that, on net, creates wealth instead of consuming it. The private sector is vastly superior at creating those types of jobs.
    We already guarantee medical care if they're sick.
    No we don't. That's why Sanders and others are still clamoring for universal health care.
    There's really little downside to this idea.
    Other than completely wrecking the parts of the economy that the government decides to take over and likely dragging the rest down with it.

  • Rhywun||

    Agreed, and better they have an actual in-demand job that, on net, creates wealth instead of consuming it. The private sector is vastly superior at creating those types of jobs.

    ^THIS

    Everything the government does destroys wealth. Including this lame-brained idea.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm not willing to accept that. Rule of law, protection of property rights, and other core functions are vital to wealth creation. And there isn't some law of nature that says that government *can't* build a road, educate a student, or fund a research program that, on net, creates more wealth than it consumes. But the private sector is demonstrably better in most cases, often by leaps and bounds.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "And there isn't some law of nature that says that government *can't* build a road, educate a student, or fund a res'earch program that, on net, creates more wealth than it consumes."

    These things you list may be necessary to enabling the creation of wealth by private actors, but in and of themselves, they do not create any wealth at all.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I think your definition is too narrow, but if you prefer "think of value" to "wealth", then that's fine.

  • Rhywun||

    Core functions - fair enough.

    I should have specified something like "non-core functions".

  • Shirley Knott||

    It is far from clear, and light-years from axiomatic, that governments, or only governments, can or do provide the rule of law, protection of property rights, or any other "core functions."
    None of those happen without a culture that values them. That's where they arise, that's where they are sustained, or destroyed.
    Government degrades that culture.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I heard an old immigrant gripe that Social Security was socialism that replaced children and grandchildren with the government, and considered it destructive to family bonds. It seemed a remarkable point, which wouldn't likely have occurred to me otherwise.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Michael, I hope this isn't a gotcha, wherein if I cannot solve the conundrum in the way you yourself would if you had thought of it first, then I'm whining a la Teddy said so.

    Teddy wasn't perfect.

    Neither am I.

    We don't have to be. That's the beaut deal of humanity: our crazycakes individuality. Humans can make everything make sense, which is another way of saying that assembling enough of these nutty kids in one spot gives us the mathematical potential to solve anything.

    We're not an intelligent species. We backdoor our way into something that resembles intelligence in the right light, and it works best with many minds on the task. Most of the minds will come up with nonsense; one mind could - frequently does - get it right.

    I don't know the solution, Michael, I know the formula. You do too, I'm pretty sure. We need you and your ideas, even if they aren't perfect. It's okay to be sometimes-right-but-trying; that's the human formula for innovation.

    It is okay to mention new ways of thinking and areas where things appear dysfunctional, particularly with the intent of opening discussion. This is how human problems are solved - not just by the Einsteins, but also the George Washington Carvers and Henry Fords and who ever it was who thought to put a handle on a coffee mug. The Mug Handle Guy might have had one good idea in his entire life, and yet it was worthwhile.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I don't mean to upset you, Michael. I do think we're coming up with all sorts of ways to make the people around us shush, and that this is the wrong approach.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    And if I completely mis-read this and you were just curious, then I apologize. It just occurred to me that was one of the possibilities.

    I try, man, but I'm just as human as everyone else and I kind of suck sometimes.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    For SS, a VOLUNTARY version of a Living Wil might pay (say) $50,000 to your heirs at death. If you are at deaths door and change your mind, then the annuity does REALITY -- takes money from YOUR heirs to pay for YOUR triple bypass. I published that in 1994.


    Out-of-the-box thinking is precisely what's needed here. Yes. You know what I'm saying. Doing the same thing and wondering why the results are still crap isn't getting us anywhere. I like this.

    I do have a few theories. They're pretty wild, and may be accordingly unpalatable. Humans tend to think new things and thoughts are absurd.

    The jobs market is ridiculously inefficient, just for STARTERS, and I'm looking right at you, Stabilization Act of 1942. It skewed the market toward youth and inexperience by making experience and age expensive. In my thinking, it isn't merely the beginning of the ramp in health care prices - by making third parties the consumer - it's also where and why we diverted from long-term experience/skill-based employment to credentialism and short-term thinking by employers.

    It shouldn't be this damned difficult for decades of skill and experience to be monetized. Something's gone wrong in this equation.

    cont'd

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    And retirement. I'm leaning toward the whole thing being a red herring. I think maybe what happened, see, is people spent their whole lives never getting to do as they please. First there's parents, then teachers, and we keep hearing as kids that we have to do as we're told because the adults say so. Then we become the adults, and we still don't get to try things our way. There's the spouse, the boss, the KIDS (talk about pressure to conform to an ideal, shit)...

    So maybe right before we die, we can do as we please, finally.

    What if that story was crap from the start? Human needs are pretty damned basic, except some twit started messing with the equation.

    We must have a home. The home costs too much, so we must have a mortgage. The bank needs something in trade, so we must have job - we then offer our future earnings as collateral in modern indentured servitude. (Don't anyone react to a phrasing, please, I'm pointing to a pattern which mathematically seems accurate, not making an emotional plea.)

    Thus, for want of a roof, we lose our state as free men.

    Except houses don't actually cost this much. And jobs shouldn't be this difficult to find, we ought to be able to create a new one for ourselves any time we like. We know what we're good at, and everything we're not good at is merely an opportunity for someone else to make a new job.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    These basic systems are screwed. The equations aren't working, they just look a bit like they're working if our confirmation bias and Gell-Mann amnesia lead us in that direction.

    The state we refer to as 'retirement' might be where we were supposed to start, not finish. Able to make our choices, earning and/or learning as our skills and opportunities offer. If we got the millstones from around our necks, maybe we could find out.

    I suspect we're leaving vast amounts of productivity on the table. I'll tell you honestly though, Michael, my strength is in research and analysis. I'm good at patterns and root causes. Solutions? Yeah, I get some slick ideas occasionally, and yet in the main I'm fine with turning research and analysis to the group and seeing what they come up with. It works better than expecting myself to know the answer to everything, as opposed to the why. Finding out why is hard enough.

    FIN

  • JoeBlow123||

    What the hell is going on here? Two Hihns?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    It's a long story, JB. Just roll with it.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Neuroplasticity may be the most amazing discovery since gravity. See, studies are all over the map on cognitive decline after the teenage years. We're spoiled for choice on causes, age of onset, correlations and countermeasures. And then came neuroplasticity. There's now an argument that the brain might accumulate injury, and yet the brain itself degrades only through lack of use.

    "Retirement" might be detrimental to our health. The human body is built to resist entropy, not give in and wallow in it. Use it or lose it.

    I think this is fantastic. As you referenced, older folks gain physical limitations over time - except, perhaps, our brains. As automation takes hold, I am hopeful that the value of a strong back and opposable thumbs on the jobs market won't be considered near as productive and desirable as the value stored in a human brain. We can build robots for the heavy lifting.

    At that point, it's pure division of labor. Experience, appropriately valued, can be monetized to replace physical abilities as they decline, preserving income-generation as well as cognitive health for the long run.

    The cost of everything needs to be repaired. Healthcare, houses, we know why everything costs so much, and it isn't because it's natural.

    Good conversation, Michael. I enjoyed this.

  • Sevo||

    "...And retirement. I'm leaning toward the whole thing being a red herring. I think maybe what happened, see, is people spent their whole lives never getting to do as they please. First there's parents, then teachers, and we keep hearing as kids that we have to do as we're told because the adults say so. Then we become the adults, and we still don't get to try things our way. There's the spouse, the boss, the KIDS (talk about pressure to conform to an ideal, shit)...
    [...]
    We must have a home. The home costs too much, so we must have a mortgage. The bank needs something in trade, so we must have job - we then offer our future earnings as collateral in modern indentured servitude. (Don't anyone react to a phrasing, please, I'm pointing to a pattern which mathematically seems accurate, not making an emotional plea.)

    Thus, for want of a roof, we lose our state as free men.

    Except houses don't actually cost this much. And jobs shouldn't be this difficult to find, we ought to be able to create a new one for ourselves any time we like. We know what we're good at, and everything we're not good at is merely an opportunity for someone else to make a new job."

    That's 'thinking out of the box'. It's also thinking 'out of reality'.
    If needing a roof over your head is losing your freedom, you have some strange definitions.
    But don't let me get in the way of the MH/MH petting session.

  • Sevo||

    "We're not an intelligent species."

    Every time I read this or a similar comment, I wonder WIH it is supposed to mean.
    'Not intelligent' compared to what? Whom?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I don't know what others mean. What I mean is that we tell ourselves stories about what humans are: goodness, altruism, intelligence, friendship, souls, set apart from the animal kingdom as 'higher order creatures'.

    And they're stories. We're a species of great ape with complex language. The humans in stories only exist in stories. Real humans are found in the Yahoo comment section.

    We can't define intelligence properly yet, let alone prove we have it. But there's nothing wrong with that. It gives us something to aim for.

  • Sevo||

    "What I mean is that we tell ourselves stories about what humans are: goodness, altruism, intelligence, friendship, souls, set apart from the animal kingdom as 'higher order creatures'."
    The first depends on definition, the second seems, in all cases to be fantasy. 3 is good, unless you found a new species, etc.
    Want to try for some consistency? it would make the discussion easier.

    "And they're stories. We're a species of great ape with complex language. The humans in stories only exist in stories. Real humans are found in the Yahoo comment section.
    I'm sure that means something to someone. Try again.

    "We can't define intelligence properly yet, let alone prove we have it. But there's nothing wrong with that. It gives us something to aim for."
    We can easily define it as the characteristic which allows us to get on an airplane which, by theory, flies and indeed fly to anywhere in the world.
    It seems you're kicking up dust in the hopes of making things murky.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, none of that arm-waving addressed the question. Just so you know you didn't get a pass.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I wasn't arm-waving, Sevo. Or having a petting session, kicking up dust, or whatever other ways you choose to describe me.

    You wondered what I meant. I explained what I meant. You're free to not like the explanation, free to not like me, and free to ask me if I give a damn about your pass. Try harder to understand me than to figure out why I'm annoying, it might help these communication issues.

    Go needle someone who doesn't already know you're 60% awesome and 40% cranky bastard. Have a good'un, Sevo. Talk to you tomorrow.

  • Sevo||

    MichaeI Hihn|4.28.18 @ 12:04AM|#
    "Try harder to understand me than to figure out why I'm annoying, it might help these communication issues."
    That's a self-justifying way of claiming you are the font and I must learn. You'll forgive me if I'm not convinced.
    You might try also...

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I might, but I see no future in it. You have already decided you know what I'm thinking and my motivations. Fill in the blanks with whatever you like best, my input seems superfluous here.

  • Sevo||

    MichaeI Hihn|4.28.18 @ 12:24AM|#
    "I might, but I see no future in it."
    That's easy to understand; you have decreed yourself to be the font of knowledge here and any questioning of that marks the questioner as an apostate.

    "You have already decided you know what I'm thinking and my motivations. Fill in the blanks with whatever you like best, my input seems superfluous here."
    You have made clear you are the arbiter of 'correct' discussion here and are not willing to deal with those who call you on that claim
    What makes you the one to determine the terms of discussion here?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The ER subsidy is one thing and is a socialist mistake.

    Basic income doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. A Guaranteed Jobs Program doesn't work.

    Free market works best.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Quit pretending to be Hihn.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Can I just pay you $100 to mow my lawn?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's more than what you get giving handjobs on the street corner, so you should jump on it.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Hell, I pay a guy a $100 to cut my lawn takes him an hour." How big is your lawn? Why do you let "some guy" dictate how much you pay to have it cut? Much better "several guys" indicate what they would do it for and choose accordingly.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Hell, I pay a guy a $100 to cut my lawn takes him an hour.

    Man you're getting ripped off. You don't even have to pay orphans to cut your lawn!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    There's really little downside to this idea.

    Aside from the fact that the perverse incentives inherent in government patronage will turn it into a sink of corruption within months AND the basic fact that there is absolutely no way to pay for it, you mean.

  • Juice||

    Hell, I pay a guy a $100 to cut my lawn takes him an hour.

    You're getting hosed.

  • Jerryskids||

    No, the guy he pays to cut his lawn gets hosed. That's why it's worth the 100 bucks. Personally, I have a lady that vacuums my organ, she doesn't charge 100 bucks and it only takes her like 5 minutes but she still gets hosed, but if Gilpin prefers dudes to women that's his business.

  • DarrenM||

    I have a lady that vacuums my organ

    I've never heard of that particular euphemism.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Gilpin Faust,

    People would have to work for it. It's just a bare minimum.


    And that's exactly what you're going to get: the barest of minimums in terms of production, which tends to zero unless you start shooting people in the head for being in cahoots with German agents.

  • Mickey Rat||

    These are going to be low skill, non-vital, make work tasks that do not add much value because they have to be to fulfill the purpose of the program

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The feds have a long history of alphabet soup "jobs programs" since the original WPA: NDTA, CETA, YEDTP, JTPA, AYES, STEADY, STIP, BEST, YIEPP, YACC, SCSEP, HIRE, TFA, WIOA, WIA, etc.

    None of these have been successful.

    CETA was a significant program in the 70s. It spent $53 billion (which was real money back then) and only 15% of its recruits got unsubsidized jobs in the private sector. CETA dropouts actually performed better than CETA "graduates". When the program was terminated in 1982, over half of its "graduates" were unemployed and receiving one or more government handouts. Only 25% has permanent full-time jobs.

    LBJ's Job Corps was a significant program in the 60s that persists until today. Its budget was $1.6 billion in 2016 to "serve" 50,000 youth: $33,000/enrollee. This program has persisted despite early findings by the GAO that "post Job Corps employment experience has been disappointing". Subsequent studies in 2001 and 2003 found that Job Corps graduates did not do significantly better than eligible youth who had applied but then chose not to participate.

    Of course, there are some individuals who have benefited from these multi-billion-dollar programs. Most of the beneficiaries are politicians, bureaucrats, and cronies, but no doubt some enrollees benefit as well. However, the programs are a bust for taxpayers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The problem with government solutions is when they fail, government has little motivation to scrap them. Failures tend to be scrapped far more quickly in the private sector.

  • ||

    Hell, I pay a guy a $100 to cut my lawn takes him an hour. That guy wouldn't be interested in the $15 an hour job but I'm sure there are a few million who would. Better that they're working than not.

    So, you pay someone $100/hr. to cut your lawn and you think your problem is that you're surrounded by a few million people who would cut your lawn for $15/hr. and that life would be better if more of them had a job?

    I'll solve at least part of your problem and enact a portion of your socialist regime for the low, low price of $200/hr. and you don't even have to vote for me. If you like the results, we can up my pay to $400/hr. to spread more socialism and give more jobs to more people. All without having to cast a single vote for a single capitalist pig.

  • Sevo||

    Gilpin Faust|4.27.18 @ 8:42AM|#
    "There's really little downside to this idea."

    Other than several hundred percent inflation?

  • dchang0||

    True. What really matters in communist and socialist countries is having the guns, thugs, and the ability to force people to obey.

    Does Maduro really need bolivars or black-market FRNs when he can simply force certain farmers to put the best food on his table, force tailors to make him the best clothes, force the power plant workers to keep supplying his palace with electricity, force the gold mines to supply him with gold, force beautiful women* to sleep with him, and so on?

    --

    * The women probably don't need much forcing, if they see that he can get them lots of resources.

  • LynchPin1477||

    First, your numbers are way off. The top 1% hold just under 40%.

    Second, it's not a disaster. Not even close.

  • Ride 'Em||

    I'm always skeptical of this statistic as it doesn't seem to be supported by reality. Who owns pension funds? CALPERS has about 300 billion in investments. And when you research the 10 largest investors, they are predominately pension funds. What about the trillion dollars or so in IRA's? How about the federal government and all the land it owns?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    We will finally be able to build a stairway to heaven! Ever since I discovered Led Zepelin I was like, hey, how come we don't have one of those?

  • Don't look at me.||

    'Cuz you know sometimes words have two meanings..

  • Shirley Knott||

    South Park did it. It was nearly epic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bernie Sanders would never have won the election of 2016 but neither did Hillary.

    The Democratic Party is dying and only some in that party see it coming. The ones who see it are desperate to stave off the demise.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The Democratic Party is dying

    Delusional right-wing nonsense.

    How many times in the past quarter century has the Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote? How many times has the Democrat won the popular vote? And which party seems to be "dying" based on this?

    We in the reality-based community know it's the Republican Party that's dying. And as a libertarian, I welcome it. Democrats are already on our side on reproductive rights, and are quickly moving to embrace open borders as well. This country will be a lot more libertarian when Democrats totally dominate national politics like they currently dominate certain states like California.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Parody account. Arguing with it looks funny.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Nicely done. That's what I'm talking about. Well stated.

    Here's what happens. Some come in from the left. Personal liberty remains their PASSION issue, they accept and support fiscal issues, if only passively, as the price they must pay to live in a free society.

    Others come in from the right. Fiscal issues remain their passion. They accept and support social issues, of only passively, as the price they must pay to live in a free society.

    Passion sets PRIORITIES.


    Seems a sound hypothesis. Something to consider, at the least.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • ||

    Parody account. Arguing with it looks funny.

    Auditioning for the part of Sancho Panza: Tom Bombadil.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    When you refer to contractual obligations due to veterans in return for their service (a qui pro quo arrangement) as welfare, you degrade your credibility, whoever you are.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Not quite as funny as that time he argued with a spam-bot.

  • gimmedatribeye||

    reproductive "rights"....lol

  • gimmedatribeye||

    reproductive "rights"....lol

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another conniption fit.

  • Sevo||

    "Bernie would have kicked Trump's ass. His "massive" victory margin -- 29,000 voters in three states combined -- was FAR less than the anti-Hillary vote. Trump had a record number of "anti" votes, AGAINST Hillary NOT for him"

    You have a funny definition of "fact".
    Try dimbulb opinion.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he has facts.

  • DarrenM||

    WANT nobody to starve or be homeless

    Want to know what Democrats would really do? Look at California or any other place with a solid Democratic majority that can completely ignore anything Republicans want. CA has 22% of American's homeless population.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Democrats are the party of the poor. So in order for them to have power, they need people to be poor.

  • swampwiz||

    CA has so many homeless folks because the state is now successful at drawing in folks to live there that the cost for housing is beyond ridiculous. A college-educated professional that wears a tie to work but who happens to be "homeless" is not an economic problem, but rather a problematic, unforced FREE choice.

  • Trumptard||

    They also do not develop housing. The NIMBY-ism is at extinction levels in the dark blue parts of CA.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Really got the parody account all riled up.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • ace_m82||

  • Rhywun||

    Who can live on $15 an hour?

    Depends. It's a nice lower middle class wage in some of the more economically-challenged parts of the country. And if you're throwing bennies on top of that, which minimum wage workers don't usually get, it's even more generous. But of course socialism only recognizes one-size-fits-all solutions. So what if this one will literally destroy the economy of much of flyover country?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    They hate flyover country and the people who live there anyway, so they'll consider it a bonus.

  • Jerryskids||

    When the bennies include free healthcare and free college and free internet access and a free deodorant supply (but only one kind, nobody needs 28 kinds of deodorant) and the government job involves standing in line to get a free loaf of bread, we will nearly have achieved the socialist goal of making sure everybody has an above-average income. In a country as wealthy as ours, nobody should have a below-average amount of wealth.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • Joe_JP||

    If a person on their own has to pay rent on an expensive apartment, working full time (in one job) at that rate might be somewhat tough, but if people are just part of a whole household (such as two people working) or have a cheaper apartment (maybe a room somewhere), they very well might do so fairly comfortably especially as compared to any number of people who live from paycheck to paycheck. That works out to $2100 a month before taxes.

  • Rhywun||

    My first job in NYC, I had to share a 2BR apartment with a friend. THE HORROR.

    This "living wage" bullshit is going to destroy the job market for young people looking to move up.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    This "living wage" bullshit is going to destroy the job market for young people looking to move up. get started.

    This also.

  • Joe_JP||

    The first part is not quite the same as the second.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "This "living wage" bullshit is going to destroy the job market for young people looking to move up."

    Oh, it's going to do far more than that.

    "This "living wage" bullshit is going to destroy the job market for young people looking to move up."

    Oh, it's going to do far more than that. In WA, whereI live, we're phasing in a $15/hr. minimum wage. Not only is it killing entry level jobs, it's also compressing wages of better jobs. I know people that work wage based jobs that would normally be making $16-20/hr. that because of the cost of the entry level workers there are only making around $13/hr..

    Which is what happens when politicians and bureaucrats decree the value of labor. Nothing but market distortions and misery.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    It's $15/hr for a phony baloney job that includes free health care. It would leave about $53k/year after tax for a married couple. A phony baloney job leaves plenty of time for a side hustle to make more money off the books. It would be very easy to live on that in flyover country. In fact, it would be quite attractive to a slacker.

  • Rhywun||

    A phony baloney job leaves plenty of time for a side hustle to make more money off the books.

    That describes about half the government jobs out there already.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How do you guarantee jobs? what if someone doesn't WANT that job? Or any job at all? Will they be treated as an indentured servant? IT figures that leftists are drawn to enslaving the masses and subverting the constitution.

  • swampwiz||

    Uh, the health care is already free.

  • swampwiz||

    $30K a year is definitely livable in a place where the rent/housing-cost is normal.

  • Mark22||

    A number of other allegedly moderate Democrats and prospective presidential candidates, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, favor a universal job guarantee as well. It's rapidly becoming a mainstream idea.

    Gillibrand and Booker are nutcases, just like Sanders. So, it's not that the idea is becoming mainstream, it's that Democrats are becoming nuttier and nuttier.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The liberals sure are deranged alright.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • Mark22||

    Why are they kicking your ass on EVERY issue?

    What do any of those things have to do with me?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Pogo sticks and hula hoops were once mainstream.
    Being mainstream is the weakest of accolades.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    You might need to reread that as I see no objection being made...

    Maybe it's just me, but noting a truth - that historically, being the "in" idea/thing/whatever tends to end as fast as it started with "that great thing" disappearing from people's desires and memories - does not seem to be so much a complaint or criticism, but an accurate analysis of history.

  • Brian||

    "I don't like the Panamanian government: let's replace it!" —Theodore Roosevelt

  • Tom Bombadil||

    ""projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, care giving, the environment, education and other goals.""

    And when millions of Americans prefer to sit on their ass at their government job, is Uncle Bernie going to cut them off? Fuck off you old piece of shit.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Was a rhetorical question.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    None of those 3 are rhetorical questions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • vek||

    In a roundabout way I'm kind of in favor of something like this... But completely different.

    We already give out tons of money in welfare benefits. I think we should stop doing that. As a compromise with bleeding heart pussies, we should offer anybody who doesn't have a job a job. If they don't accept the job, they should get no benefits. Let them starve like the clearly deserve if they're not willing to work when it is offered. The only exceptions might be people with real physical or mental handicaps. Did I mention the pay should be garbage? Like maybe minimum wage, or just a touch above?

    What kind of jobs? Well, lots of stuff the guvmint does already. We could replace overpaid road construction sign holders, ditch diggers, people who clean toilets at city parks, etc. Basically fire the entire permanent work force for all those really low level government jobs, and just have a rotating cast of morons doing them, instead of a permanent class of morons doing them at better pay.

    What's that you say, nobody would want to do this??? That's the whole point. You offer people money to not starve if they want it... If they don't want to do it they can starve, or more likely just get off their ass and get a private sector job. This is basically what FDR did, and at least it wasn't outright handouts. We got actual useful projects done. We could do the same again, and it couldn't be worse than just giving it away for nothing. So better than the status quo is somethin'.

  • vek||

    Well we almost agree on something for once!

    Personally I would prefer to eliminate all welfare programs and replace them with... Nothing.

    But as a compromise, forcing people receiving benefits to work is acceptable. Changing incentives to encourage work, the negative income tax being one possible way, is also something. No welfare of any kind would be preferable, but anything is better than how it works now!

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I see a glorious world where half our citizens dig holes and the other half fill holes.

  • vek||

    Well, there will obviously be waste and stupidity. That's the government for ya! But they already do all these things, so by forcing people on welfare to work we'll be saving money over how it works now.

    I'm NOT advocating creating make work projects, merely forcing those on welfare now to have a work requirement.

    Look around at all the pot holes, crumbling bridges, city parks that look like shit etc. There is plenty of semi-legit busy work for low IQ people to do to earn their keep. The point is really to make it more shitty to do the government work than to get a real job. If you did this most of them would just go get a gig at McDonalds or whatever.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lets not and say we didn't.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano mocks people for slogans while using slogans as arguments.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano admits he's a hypocrite.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his quote of the day calendar hid his hypocrisy.

  • pyrrhonist1975||

    The thing is, the federal government currently does not pay all of its workers at least $15/ hr for working for them. At that wage your annual pay would be at least $31200/ year but according to GSA's GS pay scale you need to be at least a GS-6 to make that much a year. So if he creates this new jobs for all program it will bring up the debt even more since all current federal jobs will have to have their pay adjusted accordingly.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Socialist Disaster

    Redundant redundancies abound.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Yet your stupidity grows exponentially.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Are you ever going to provide an algebraic proof that x - y = 0 and yet x != y ?
    Your statement is mathematically identical to x = y.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    He just means they're the same thing: nothing. Two crutches propping each other up, dependent upon the other to stand at all.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I think. Pretty sure. Call it 80%.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    BINGO! He can grasp algebra!

    Algebra doesn't enter into it so you should stop saying it does. Algebraicly, Shirley is correct. You're making a different point that has nothing to do with algebra.

  • Shirley Knott||

    His only point is that inflamed growth rising out of his shoulders, right where humans have a head.
    (Left - Right = 0) = (Left = Right)

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    No, that wasn't a retraction. Yes, she is correct that x != y. Are failing to grasp that simple concept?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Do you realize that your positing method makes you look like Crazypants McWhackadoo? Honest question.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Authoritarians -- like you and Trump

    So, I'm an authoritarian because I asked you a question.

    so you switch to personal assault

    I asked you a question. The answer appears to be either you don't know or you do know but don't care.

    You probably went to schools that awarded praise and medals for .. showing up.
    Hence, an inability to cope with the real world.
    Sad..

    Nope, but thanks for taking some interest in my personal life.

    Right-wing snowflakes = Left-wing snowflakes
    Fragile egos and/or arrogance (same thing)

    So where do you put yourself in this equation.

    You see, when you go off all crazylike when someone doesn't just flat-out agree with you it makes you look crazy. If you want people to not think you're crazy, you could try having a simple conversation.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    You never answered the question.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's math skills are as shitty as his poasting career.

  • eyeroller||

    This is even better than a free pony.

  • Juice||

    the most popular Democrat in the country

    *Independent

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    What's the difference? Everybody offers benefits. It's like saying who is taller when everyone is swimming on a pool.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    When considering the cost of this program, I wonder if they're counting all of the training that will be required (untrained workers can't build a safe bridge, not even in the Socialist Worker's Utopia), all of the materials and equipment (what, they're gonna build infrastructure with their bare hands?), not to mention the enormous bureaucracy required to run it all. All they're going to build is a Central Planning Train Wreck.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    That an alternative isn't required.

  • vek||

    My point is that we already have welfare. I don't advocate expanding the number of people we try to employ... But forcing people on welfare to do shitty work for their low paying benefits seems legit. It will encourage them to get real jobs because those will be less crappy and better paying than the guvmint jobs.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    the most popular Democrat in the country

    That's a pretty sick bern on the Democrats.

  • jimolivi@icloud.com||

    Didn't Stalin try this one?

    I can see it know. The great work force that the government recruited sits idle because there's really nothing for them to do. Then a government gets in (don't worry, democracy will continue to flourish, the will of the people and all that) that takes a look at Canada or South America. Look at all that land, they'll say... the American Lebensraum! Since we have all those idle hands out there, why not use them take that land and liberate all those poor people, "We've always been at war with Oceania!"

    The Great Fascist-Communist future awaits!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I remember reading something in National Geographic about the demise of East Germany, and it seems to be a fitting epitaph for that awful country: "The people pretended to work, and the government pretended to pay them."

    Sic semper state socialism.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    More and more, each passing day, I become convinced that Democrats are closeted Trump supporters. They are working so hard to ensure he gets re-elected.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump could not have done it without them.

    Billions in free publicity that continues even in 2018.

  • chipper me timbers||

    Democrats' Universal Job Plan Would Be a Socialist Disaster

    FTFY. You can just reuse that for any headline about any Democrat plan.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • Heraclitus||

    I wouldn't expect readers at Reason.com to like an idea like Sander's. I applaud him though for looking for new solutions. Our current economic system, while pretty decent from an historical point of view, is quite flawed. It is burdened with short-term views of that allows wealthy people to live off financial rent without a care as to how their money is being utilized. We are saddled with a heavy fossil fuel industry because of this short-termism. Meanwhile, China is poised to blow us away in the next century. Their cities are modern and chalk full of big infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, we struggle to build 10 miles of new train tracks. We have millions of people stuck in jobs they hate and millions more who can work but don't. The answer is not to crank up more free market solutions because that just creates black markets and slums. It's a no-brainer. We need a massive restructuring of our infrastructure and we have millions of idle people. Also, we have hugely inefficient sectors of the economy. Health insurance workers are living on the dole because their services are wasteful. Most of our finance industry is built toe extract rent as well. This is very wasteful. So something needs to change.

  • LynchPin1477||

    You correctly identify problems but not their cause. The type of wastefulness you criticize can't exist in a system of robust competition, and when competition is stifled it's nearly always because someone is protecting themselves through government. I won't applaud Sanders for coming up with a "solution" that will make things worse. I've never understood that type of do-something-ism.

    As for China, I was just over there for a week and have been there twice before. I'm hardly an expert, but I've seen enough to know that it remains to be seen if their modern new infrastructure will last for more than 10 or 20 years. There are reasons for optimism and pessimism, but either way it's foolish to accept the official Chinese government data on its face.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Mostly it won't. Look at the number of high-profile buildings in Beijing that have been ruined by fire. They (mostly) still stand, their wounds exposed. I was in Beijing twice with a t week interval. The city, and major properties, were conspicuously worse on visit 2.
    Wasn't Japan going to blowing past us because they were so advanced?

    And just to note, Bernie's plan is not 'something new'. It's a return to feudalism, or the latifundia of the late Roman Empire. Tried and failed. Nothing new there at all.

  • MarkLastname||

    Not doing it. Not shooting yourself in the kneecap is a fine alternative to shooting yourself in the kneecap.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • DarrenM||

    The status quo is normally preferable to making the status quo worse.

  • Rhywun||

    it remains to be seen if their modern new infrastructure will last for more than 10 or 20 years

    Yeah, the "their cities are modern" line is dubious. Granted, it was way back in 2001 when I visited China but everything that wasn't brand-spanking new looked like it was falling apart.

    As for "free markets create slums..." - LOL. Free markets have liften more people out of poverty in less time than any of Bern's dustbin-of-history solutions could dream of.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    If we are already advanced and built, it is more expensive for us to build anew. Unless we build in a new location we have to first tear something down, which interrupts production, and then build something new. That has many costs associated. Also, we learned many things about corner cutting. Through regulation, policies, and consumer awareness we increase cost and time to build.

    Why would we need so many construction projects? What would be the purpose? Should we just build and rebuild because another country is doing so? Of course they are ramping up and that seems impressive. That's what a newly powerful country does. That doesn't mean the old guard has to.

  • Heraclitus||

    I wouldn't expect readers at Reason.com to like an idea like Sander's. I applaud him though for looking for new solutions. Our current economic system, while pretty decent from an historical point of view, is quite flawed. It is burdened with short-term views of that allows wealthy people to live off financial rent without a care as to how their money is being utilized. We are saddled with a heavy fossil fuel industry because of this short-termism. Meanwhile, China is poised to blow us away in the next century. Their cities are modern and chalk full of big infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, we struggle to build 10 miles of new train tracks. We have millions of people stuck in jobs they hate and millions more who can work but don't. The answer is not to crank up more free market solutions because that just creates black markets and slums. It's a no-brainer. We need a massive restructuring of our infrastructure and we have millions of idle people. Also, we have hugely inefficient sectors of the economy. Health insurance workers are living on the dole because their services are wasteful. Most of our finance industry is built toe extract rent as well. This is very wasteful. So something needs to change.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    So something needs to change.


    Yes, your logic. You talk about short-termism and the give a glowing description of Chinese cities as if they weren't evidence of short-term Keynesian thinking.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    We are saddled with a heavy fossil fuel industry because of this short-termism. Meanwhile, China is poised to blow us away in the next century. Their cities are modern and chalk full of big infrastructure projects.

    You know that China is powered by a shit-ton of coal plants, right?

    You're right, though. Totalitarian dictatorship is a small price to pay for new trains and shiny buildings (which you can't see because of the smog)!

  • NoVaNick||

    Well, China claims to not be building any more coal plants. (psst-wanna buy a bridge?)

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The Chinese government was apparently building over 700 new coal plants, but they canceled about 150 of them because revised estimates showed they weren't going to need them as soon as they'd thought. By statist fiscal math, that does count as a drastic cut in the number of coal plants.

  • Rhywun||

    They're not even claiming that. The Paris nonsense explicity lets them keep building coal plants to their heart's content while charging the US trillions of dollars for the pleasure of taking care of any "climate change" that might result.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I suppose i could start posting aggressive nonsense featuring irrelevant quotes and circular citations, but it will take decades to work up to the benchmark level of incoherence you've set.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his martyr complex.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialism is NOT a new solution. Its the final solution for Americans if we buy the crap he is selling.

  • Rhywun||

    Arbeit macht frei.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Free market of course.

  • Jerryskids||

    Of course you should applaud him for looking for new solutions, you are one of us elites who see the problems no one else sees and can see the obvious solutions to these problems. Most people are too ignorant to see the problems and the solutions that are so clear to us, the anointed ones. The only problem is the kulaks and the wreckers, the ignorant and the evil ones who would oppose our plans to fix things. Sure, they're going to *claim* they oppose our ideas because they don't make sense or they won't work or they're designed to make slaves of us all, some bullshit they're going to try to use to hide the fact that they're stupid and greedy and evil, but you and I both know the truth. The world would be such a much better place if you and I were in charge that we would be entirely justified in killing a few hundred million of these kulaks and wreckers just to have the power to put our ideas into place. We would be using our power to do good, after all, and what's a few broken eggs when we would be making such a marvelous omelet? An omelet for everybody! Except the dead kulaks and wreckers.

  • DarrenM||

    It is burdened with short-term views

    Ironically, this is the problem with Sander's "plan".

  • NoVaNick||

    Some Job Descriptions:

    Porta-Potty Cleaner: GS-9

    Solar Panel Installer: Paygrade GS-12

    Gun Confiscator: Paygrade GS-14

    Diversity Enforcement Officer: Paygrade GS-14

    Abortion Provider: Paygrade GS-16

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Don't do it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks SOMEBODY SHOULD DO SOMETHING.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And by something, he means bury as many dissenters as possible.

    Its Katyn Forest all over again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his disconnect from reality.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    'What's your solution?'


    Repeal more regulations. For a start. Also, repeal restrictive laws. Getting rid of Dodd/Frank would be a good start.

  • Brian||

    It's so sad that the democrat primary was tainted, and Bernie's nomination was stolen.

    We'll never know if the democrat party could have beat Trump.

  • Don't look at me.||

    We do know. They did not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • NoVaNick||

    Bernie could definitely have beaten Trump-something like half of dem primary voters who voted for him did not vote for her highness (most stayed home).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I voted for Bernie in primaries to wreck Hillary's chance of winning and then voted for Gay Jay in the election, so your math is off.

  • Echospinner||

    Heinlein described a future in Starship Troopers (nothing like the movie) in which the government was obligated to provide a job to anyone, mostly military. Anyone who completed government service was a citizen with the right to vote. The rest were given basic civil rights.

    It was dystopian in that the military was involved in a pointless horrible war with an insect race from a distant planet.

    Someone here said something about hole diggers and hole fillers. I think that is what the author meant.

    A libertarian would understand how this does not work.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Rather than hole diggers and hole fillers, Bernie's plan could be create millions of green jobs. That is, the kind of green jobs that involve sorting garbage that are so popular in third-world hellholes.

    If recipients don't like their green jobs at the garbage dump, the Division of Progress Investigation can re-educate them and find them a new position at the Work Makes Free camp.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • steve walsh||

    Did Bernie mention whether I'd have to actually, like, work at this government issued 'job'?

  • steve walsh||

    Work hard? Or could I, like, pretend to work hard?

    In answer to your question, the status quo, of course.

    Do you ever ask a different question?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I rarely get an answer that makes sense

    That's because you're too fucking stupid to understand anything other than "Hihntard love poop!".

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano evades while accusing others of evasion.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Bernie doesn't believe in arithmetic. He's also completely immune to criticism because any critic, no matter how much comprehensive, verifiable, quantifiable evidence they present that challenges or debunks his claims, absolutely must be secretly working for the Koch brothers.

    I'd love to work for the Koch brothers. Guys, if you're reading this please get in touch.

  • Robert||

    Fried chicken.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    What's this 'we' shit?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is certainly a loser.

  • Echospinner||

    Best answer

    Dont forget waffles. I am in Georgia this week.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I feel so excited. Like this is a right of passage for becoming an active participant in Reason's comments threads. I don't know if your the real fake Hihn, or the fake real fake Hihn, but I finally feel like I'm part of things around here. Thank you! I actually skip over 99% of your comically over-emphasised attempts at trolling.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    You insult yourself.

  • Sevo||

    "I don't know if your the real fake Hihn, or the fake real fake Hihn, but I finally feel like I'm part of things around here."
    Handle doesn't matter.
    Bullshit should be called as bullshit.
    Dishonest 'argument' should be called as such.
    You might give the benefit of the doubt to a newbie (like the blue Michael Hihn) but it's not hard to locate, and call it EVERY TIME YOU SEE IT! And the BMH is testing the limits...
    It's the only way that mendacity gets removed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Alternative" asked again and again? Its like its a bot or something.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Socialist disaster" is a redundant phrase.

    It is physically impossible for anything socialist to NOT be a disaster!

  • MarkLastname||

    Michael Hihn, libertarian socialist.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Don't feed the troll.

    It's like wrestling a pig.

    "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't realize the Oneida community doesn't exist anymore, the Israeli kibbutz is supported by a massive modernized society, and that he's dumber than dog shit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You just admitted that his claim was bullshit

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano just played himself and didn't realize it. The best part was that his own examples showed that Dumbfuck Hihnsano is, in fact, dumber than dog shit.

  • DarrenM||

    As soon as someone answered with an "alternative", you'd just ask what the alternative to the alternative would be, so what's the point? It's like a little kid always asking "why".

  • Joe_JP||

    "You don't possess a skill set that enables you to find productive work? You don't want to learn a new trade?"

    Who doesn't possess a skill set that enables some sort of productive work? They might not want some of the types of jobs their skill set will get them, but the work still will be productive. And, why is there some assumption that some government job plan will not -- when actually put in place by non-Sanders legislators -- have various strings and restrictions, including requirements for job training and so forth? See, e.g., how accepted government money now comes with various strings, including (though this is starting to change some more) religious motivated institutions.

    Now we are complaining about some plan to have people guaranteed work. Other times it is that welfare promotes laziness.

  • Rhywun||

    Who doesn't possess a skill set that enables some sort of productive work?

    Plenty of people. Most of them are already finding government work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • ||

    Who doesn't possess a skill set that enables some sort of productive work?

    ~10% of the population. The government and polite society will never say, "You're too dumb, old, or lazy to work here and we can't be bothered to figure out which." They'll just issue an aptitude test and say you fall below their criteria. Considering the breadth and depth of military service, these people are too dumb or lazy to be blown up or can't be relied upon to do so without taking something of greater value with them. The numbers vary based on contributing factors but generally everyone agrees that not less than approximately 10% of the population outright "fail" the ASVAB and that the number goes up if you consider a combination of things like "not exceedingly well educated *and* physically inept" to be failure.

    I'm not drawing the line and/or saying what should be done with or about these people. Just pointing out that by the existing government's own metrics or standards the line does exist and that conceptually, the notion that it's conceptually much different from ~25% is inherently socialist one way or the other. Either you know you have people completely incapable of doing any real work and are employing them fully to the detriment of everyone else or half (or more) of the population is completely worthless and you only employ the other half (or less).

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    So, assume Bernie drives up the starting wage to $15 through one of his various schemes.

    On average this is probably something like a 35% increase in people's wages. The full time worker just went from an annual salary of $22,880 to $31,200. Woot!

    Burger joints and other entry level or low skill employers raise their prices to compensate for their increased costs. This could go a lot of ways - they could replace employees with robots, the employees might be more productive, etc..., but the likelihood is that the employees will probably do pretty much what they always did, so costs will likely go up about 35%.

    Since I have skills that are in demand, I look at my now $6.20 Culver's double, decide I need a raise, calculate that my raise should be about 35% to cover the new cost of goods. I get my raise and see my annual salary go from $80,000 to $108,000. Woot Woot!

    The former spread in wages was $22,800 to $80,000, or a difference of $57,200

    The new spread in wages is $31,200 to $108,000, or a difference of $76,800

    Oh no, we now have a greater wage gap than we did before. Those damned republicans!

  • markm23||

    You are missing the most important effect: Burger joints, etc., will introduce a lot more automation. The wage gap is now $108,000 - because many of the former low-wage employees are now earning $0.

  • DarrenM||

    Instead of burger flippers, you'll have employees that maintain and service the robots, which would require more skill and education, which would leave out most who are now employed as burger flippers.

  • MarkLastname||

    How about instead we just print a million dollars a year for everyone for free. Then we'll all be millionaires. Everyone can own his own Porsche an wear Armani suits, it'll be sweet.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    I can't imagine doing anything else, so it must be awesome!

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I'm with you. I can't stand suits, unless they're swim suits or suits of armor. Damned control freak.

  • Chipper Jones||

    Sane persoon: We should not execute several million Jews in gas chambers.

    Hihn: What's your solution?

  • ||

    In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing you can do is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. - Theodore Roosevelt

    Gas the Jews!

    Fascism - Liberty = 0

    - Michael Hihn

  • DarrenM||

    That is a silly quote. Doing nothing IS a decision.

  • ace_m82||

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    Hihn thinks government is voluntary:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn is not an anarchist

    Hihn worships "democracy" in all its authoritarian forms.

    He CANNOT form an anarchy ... so wants to CONTROL us.

    No, I cannot stop others from trying to initiate force in all cases. No, I don't want to control you, I just want you to stop initiating force. If that's how you define "control", then so be it!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Must prevent Hihn from being the last unread comment on here.

  • ace_m82||

    "How did Jefferson and our Founders initiate force?"

    The slave owner? Really?

    They taxed others and claimed a monopoly of force on people. They created the Feds and various other control mechanisms.

  • ace_m82||

    Slavery had existed for thousands of years

    So did murder.

    was accepted by God in the Old Testament

    He didn't make every initiation of force unlawful (and you're mistaking voluntary and involuntary slavery).

    And you an-caps say THAT is shameful!

    Exchanging slavery of the slave owner for slavery of the Feds is NOT an improvement!

  • ace_m82||

    How many other psychos think Hitler wanted Jews to stay .. because he WANTED to spend millions on concentration camps and gas ovens? (sneer)

    Yes, so he spent more money to kill them than to ship them out of Nazi controlled areas. So he must have wanted to kill them quite a bit!

  • ace_m82||

    Why did you LIE about the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany?

    How did I "lie"?

    Says a PROVEN liar.

    What does the word "proven" mean in your lexicon?

  • ace_m82||

    In conclusion, after reading more on the subject, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of Europe in any way possible. They worked at deporting them, or killing them, whichever was easier.

    This doesn't, in any way, make them good, "libertarian", or prove that democracy results in liberty.

    You still defend Nazis because they were elected. Arguing that they "had to" kill the Jews because others didn't take them in is a "final solution" defense!

    And, just ask the Jews in Auschwitz if they were "free to leave"! What were those walls for?

  • ace_m82||

    The defense rests.

    You're the worst defense lawyer ever! That proves that the Nazis didn't want the Jews out of the country, but dead!

  • vek||

    Actually you're completely wrong. Hitler DID just want them gone. The problem was Israel didn't exist, and nobody else would take them all in. The US only allowed a handful, as did every other country that let any in at all. Many countries wouldn't take a single one. That's the reality.

    They only started killing them on an industrial scale when they began losing the war. Himmler (not Hitler) figured if they weren't going to win the real war, at least they could win the war against the Jews. They nearly did too. There could be 10s of millions more Jews extra in the world today if they didn't kill that 6 million. We'd have more shitty evil bankers, but also more awesome movie scripts!

    You really need to buff up on your WWII history if you believe all the base level bullshit you seem to believe.

  • ace_m82||

    "Hitler DID just want them gone. The problem was Israel didn't exist, and nobody else would take them all in"

    Give me any evidence of this.

  • ace_m82||

    denies THREE times that he says the Jews could not leave Nazi Germany

    I didn't say they couldn't, I said the Nazis preferred to kill them! You can't read!

  • vek||

    Ugh ace.

    I can't teach you all the ins and outs of WWII history. You could maybe look up Adolph Eichmann who was in charge of transportation throughout most of the war. In the early days his main job to try to get as many of them to leave Germany as possible... But no other countries would take them. I can't teach you all this. You could look at this though:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

    which was even a crazy idea they had to make them go away without killing them!

  • ace_m82||

    From your own link:

    "The resettled Jews, noted Rademacher, could be used as hostages to ensure 'future good behaviour of their racial comrades in America'"

    "At the end of 1940, Hitler asked Himmler to draft a new plan for the elimination of the Jews of Europe, and Himmler passed along the task to Heydrich. His draft proposed the deportation of the Jews to the Soviet Union via Poland. The later Generalplan Ost (General Plan for the East), prepared by Professor Konrad Meyer and others, called for deporting the entire population of occupied Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to Siberia, either for use as slave labour or to be murdered after the Soviet defeat. Since transporting masses of people into a combat zone would be impossible, Heydrich decided that the Jews would be killed in extermination camps set up in occupied areas of Poland."

    So, they did want them dead.

  • ace_m82||

    You know what? I'm correctable, you've convinced me that enough Nazis wanted the Jews out of Europe (in any way possible) that I'll accept that they didn't JUST want them dead. They appear to have taken any step to do that, either by deporting them or killing them, whichever was easier.

    That still doesn't make them good, libertarian, or anything other than mass murderers, however. And that's what the conversation was about.

  • ace_m82||

    It proves you LIED when you denied what you now brag about.

    It proves you can't read things you disagree with. You are uncorrectable, Hihn. You are the personification of Hubris.

    What would make you change your mind? I'll wait...

  • vek||

    Ace, I'll take that.

    I'm a big history buff, and know a LOT about weird WWII history. As with most things 99% of people know ONLY the mainstream, dumbed down, propagandized version of WWII history.

    The Nazis were assholes. They hated Jews. But the short version of the story doesn't tell an accurate picture of their thinking. If the USA has said "We'll take all your Jews because you're being dicks to them!" they would have GLADLY sent every single one to the USA. They were basically willing to do anything to get them out of their territory, up to and including killing them. But that wasn't their first thought, or even really their preferred way. It was all that was left open to them as they began losing the war, so they did it.

    Another funny fact is that there is ZERO evidence that Hitler ever even knew about the mass murders. PERIOD. One can safely assume he knew since he was the dictator, but there is no actual evidence in the form of written documents or even accounts from people stating that he knew any details. Yet it is presented as if he personally ordered it all. In reality he sent out orders down the pike to Himmler telling him to figure out what to do with them, then that went to Heydrich, who then decided with a panel at Wannsee that they would work them to death in labor camps, and ultimately kill some of them intentionally via other means.

  • vek||

    Now what would have happened if the Germans had won the war? I think that depends on what one means by "win."

    The Nazis never actually REALLY intended to take over the whole world. They might have tried if they had kept having success, but their original plan was just to unite all the Germanic peoples. Then take over the former Austro-Hungarian territories in eastern Europe. Then take over the USSR for expansion room. And that was about it.

    Japan was to rule most of the east as an ally. Italy was to have chunks of the Med including Middle Eastern territories. Spain just kicked it being fascist. The French were to retain their empire as a bitch client state. The British in the early days they actually wanted to become friends and allies with as Hitler thought the British to be the only people on earth equal to the other Germanic and Nordic peoples, since the British are mostly Germanic by blood. If they'd been friendly he would have wanted them to retain their empire, he said as much openly and in private.

    If they'd done that and stopped, they may well have just tried to ship out all the Jews to the USA/wherever, or given them a shit territory within their empire to segregate them. They may well have decided to off them all too. It's impossible to say. But WWII history is FAR more complicated and nuanced than "Hitler wanted to conquer the entire world and murder all the Jews!!!" That's a BS cop out made by people who don't know any better.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • ace_m82||

    I notice you didn't actually respond...

  • Echospinner||

    What is your solution?

    42

  • Echospinner||

    GIGO

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Maybe not a solution, but it's a damn good answer.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Look if you're having trouble following the conversation, maybe don't make a million posts in a thread all saying the same thing. I said that 42 is a good answer. It's a pop-culture reference. I'm sure it sailed over your head.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    '42' and 'Fried chicken' were my favorite responses, but that may just be me.

    Frankly, I can't believe no one said alcohol was a solution. It is. Chemistry says so.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    What is your solution?

    Left - Right = 0.00000000013

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Damn! I was sure I had that right. or left, since they are equivalent...

  • mjerryfuerst||

    This is Sanders' plan, not the Democrats' plan.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No surprise that Hihn is all bot and no brains.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Do you ever consider that your projecting your "tribal hatred and bigotry"?

    I mean, I should know better and not feed the meta-troll, but the most obtuse and vitriolic comments on here seem to come from the confrontational left leaning people such as Tony, and hyper-contrarian confusion-mongers such as yourself.

    I feel like I'm probably several levels of irony and sarcasm removed from the point here, because you can't be a genuine person. How can so much cognitive dissonance exist in one mind?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    *you're

    Ugh

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano slings insults when his bullshit is called out, pretends he doesn't sling insults.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano marinates in his hypocrisy.

  • El Scorpion||

    Agree we don't want a $15 minimum wage. Low-level jobs have been sent out of the country, been replaced with automation and taken by illegal aliens. What we do need is a wall to keep out the illegals, reduce immigration to less than 100,000 and make chain immigration and sanctuary cities illegal.

    To take up the slack we need to cut the military budget to a pre-Reagan budget and pay back the social security funds that were raided. Create a national workforce like Roosevelt but for clean energy production so we bring up employment figures and a higher tax base. A "public" job option like this creates more security in this country than all the wars for oil. Creates independence off the grid and cost savings that add up to trillions that could be used to pay off the national debt. Free long-term birth control reduces poverty. There are only so many low-level jobs like McDonald's and automation may take them soon too.

    Raising the minimum wage isn't going to do anything permanent, but working for clean energy and demilitarizing puts a higher standard of living for everyone, including everyone else on this planet. There isn't a Plan B Earth.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    There isn't a Plan B Earth.

    Way to assassinate Macron's goofy wordplay.

  • Sevo||

    "When he JAMMED it up Trump's ass? .... after playing Trump for a TOTAL fool!!"

    When what happened?
    Imbecile....

  • ||

    Grandpa Gulag smokes crack.

    He's an economic crackhead as are Democrats who actually think this is an 'idea'.

    Idiots.

  • fdog50||

    Good to see that someone has figured out a way to appropriately employ all of those people with degrees from Evergreen State.

  • Asok Asus||

    Dems FINALLY have an idea for 2020: good 'ol fashioned communism where everyone can work for the government!

    However, even the uber-leftists at vox et. al. are askance ... still, looks like 2020 will offer a true choice of visions: supercharged economy of Trumponomics vs. good 'ol fashioned communism ... looks like Trump pushed the Dems into overtly reacting fully against free market capitalism and moving to the far left ... the Dems can hardly run as Trump-lite and excite their leftist base, but hey, paid government jobs with full government bennies and free healthcare for all, now THAT'S red meat for the base ... the only question is whether it will play in Peoria ...

    www google com/search?q=sanders+universal+job+plan&tbm=nws

  • Darth Soros||

    I like the joke I read elsewhere on line: "Just what the US needs--a job plan from a guy so lazy he got kicked out of a hippie commune."

  • Darth Soros||

    To statism? Liberty. Or to unemployment? I don't have a solution except "anything that's peaceful," to use Leonard Read's credo: no force, no fraud. "Don't hurt people; don't take their stuff." As Mencken wrote, "Just because I don't have a solution doesn't mean I am obligated to accept yours. In fact, it only indicates your solution probably wouldn't work.'

  • swampwiz||

    Is there a whole lot of difference between Chairman Bernie's Shovel Brigades and Trump's usurpation of American consumers' rights to source their needs at the most economically attractive?

  • imppress||

    Two Amendments:

    Reduce pay to $7/hr so any employer can outbid the program

    Assign these poor skill-free devils to jobs that should get done but no one does:
    Roadside cleanup, invasive species removal (weeds like kudzu), meals on wheels, you know, stuff now done by volunteers. Work that cannot be monetized, but is nevertheless valuable.

    These are jobs that if the jobless don't show up, no real harm done and you get what you pay for expectations.
    No one is ever fired, but you can be promoted to management. Pay tops out at 10 bucks per hour. Far less than any properly skilled "volunteer" could make. Basically, it's welfare but less shame.

  • vek||

    We don't WANT qualified workers working on useless government programs though dude. You want to make it WORSE than any job in the real job market. Purely as a last resort. That's the whole point!

  • Eman||

    You dunno what I want.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Dems are absolutely opposed to the megawatt "energy slaves" Buckminster Fuller recommended, and still as resolute as Cubans and North Koreans about having the real thing instead.

  • Eman||

    It might be a terrible idea, but it's the same terrible idea he's had his whole life, so you know he means it.

  • B G||

    The one part of the job description that's already written is the 2 minutes each day that will be spent shouting at photos of the Koch brothers.

    The big dilemma for the Ministry of Progress will be when these "workers" unionize and go on strike. Will they bring in scabs to do the imaginary make-work tasks that probably shouldn't have been in the hands of minimum wage workers to begin with?

  • Freedum_Fried||

    I think its great. Bernie is going to give the Scarecrow a brain, the Tin Man a heart, and the Cowardly Lion courage. He has even promised that Dorothy can go back to Kansas if she just clicks her heals.

    Now he just needs to offer free porn and weed to his remaining supporters.

  • Freedum_Fried||

    The funny thing is that if we could just build the wall and adopt an America First immigration policy, there would be plenty of good jobs around for all Americans without having to implement socialism.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online