It's often cheaper to just give welfare than to make up work for people. Furthermore, an Amazon engineer isn't going to be any less stressed about his mortgage if you give him a street cleaning job.

If you really want to help people, we need to drastically bring down the cost of living in cities through building more housing, then provide some unemployment or ubi to keep you afloat with your savings while you look for something worthwhile to do.

> bring down the cost of living in cities through building more housing,

Housing is not ruled by the supply and demand wizardry. Housing is subject of infinite cash from fossil fuels, oligarchs, pension funds, dynastic family fortunes, and mortgage leverage by individuals already owning real estate. You build more, more will be purchased and the prices will still grow.

Do you have data for that?

Occupancy is at record highs in most US cities. It’s simply too little inventory, mostly due to local regulations and NIMBY’s. Most housing is owned by ppl, and a lot of the nation’s net worth is tied up in housing, disencentivising the lowering of house pricing.

You could see it duting covid in NY, people left and inventory went up. Rent and housing came down.

Same now in SF, ppl leave, inventory goes up, prices come down.

It’s not that complex really. Solving it will not be easy though.

You are acting schizophrenic brother

No, pretty much every piece of all three sentences you write is completely, utterly, and without any reservation wrong. In fact they are so ridiculously wrong and go against every piece of actual data that has ever been produced by reputable sources that unless you actually show your cards (I know that some NIMBY groups have fake and/or misleading data, which we have seen and rebutted many times before, so I really do encourage you to try if you're serious) I have to assume you're just trolling.

We are absolutely talking about two different locations. I'm talking about Europe. Let me know once apartments in Zurich, Barcelona, Paris, Milan, or even Warsaw will submit to some market forces. I wish to be wrong, but once witnessing this enourmous stream of money one forfeits any doubts.

Who pays for these job guarantees, and how do we ensure that there are meaningful jobs always available that fit both a persons skills and interests? Or are we assuming that anyone unable to find a job would jump at the chance to do whatever scrap job the government is willing to throw their way?

Markets are important in the system we've built, we can't just toss out market effects and assume nothing else will break. Whether markets are the "right" approach or the one that a majority of people still want is up for debate, but in the meantime much of our society is based on markets operating relatively freely as the approach of both understanding sentiment and allowing markets to shift without centralized control. Getting rid of the downside in our job market would almost certainly break the job market all together, as there are few downsides motivating people to try to find and keep a job.

OP is not talking about subsiding companies but all of this looked like a coordinated, cartel like action.

> No, there should be a job guarantee for anyone unable to find work in the private sector.

> The only good idea is for the federal government to eliminate involuntary unemployment. The private sector can sort itself out.

You are talking about mandatory work camps right?

No

Laissez fair capitalism never works.

I don’t understand this mindset. Looking at numbers in a vacuum.

The labor market is literal wage slavery, with slaves being rented instead of owned.

This attitude of everyone for themselves is literally what’s wrong with this modern, disgusting “individualist” pull yourself up by the bootstraps society.

I know the rules here are to be civil, but I really don’t understand this “f you I got mine” mentality.

> The labor market is literal wage slavery, with slaves being rented instead of owned.

And yet it's the best system we've devised so far. Maybe we should go back to the older systems where the only way to climb the social ladder was to go to war pillaging our neighbors and taking them as slaves

> And yet it's the best system we've devised so far

This is the truth, and it's the saddest part of all...

It sounds like you're only seeing the extreme examples of the divide between individualism and communalism.

There are much more reasonable arguments made for individualism than "f you I got mine", just like there are more reasonable arguments for communalism than the ones posed by Stalin.