Would Productivity-Oriented Social Programs make everybody happy?
– Liberals want a social net.
– Conservatives want productivity and progress.
Currently America primarily uses various forms of welfare for its social net: food stamps, medicare, unemployment benefits, gov’t housing, etc. So the government is already paying out the money, but not getting anything in return (though the money does get pumped back into the economy).
Three examples of Productivity-Oriented Social Programs:
- 1 – gov’t funded job training … so if I am unemployed I can enroll in a job training program (for 2 years probably) that will be for some envelop-pushing position once I’m fully trained … this would be good for the country, because in 2 years there would be about 5 million bad asses ready to take America’s mfg into the 21st c.
- 2 – gov’t funded work … maybe workers can paint bridges, or maybe something better, but regardless at least the workers get to go to work, the society gets its necessary upkeep, and the gov’t doesn’t just spend money for nothing. The real caveat here is that the jobs need to be meaningful and dignified, and a large selection from which to choose.
- 3 – gov’t funded mom-and-pop angel investment … currently the only people in society who really have a shot at true capitalism (creating new businesses, new ideas) are those that already have something such as collateral for business loan, a mgmt. team, a business track record, or a social network that connects to investors. So for a couple who wants to break out of their apartment-life there is really no option (the SBA does not pander to poor people). These programs could be heavily overseen by gov’t consultants and accountants until the mom-and-pop get their own momentum going.
In all three examples, people who are in the lower rungs of the economic ladder get support, but they also produce something as well. Let me know your thoughts.