Complete feudalism had 0% unemployment. Best system ever!
Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the "create jobs!" mantra. Jobs for job-numbers' sake has little point, in practice it's just further enslaving the population.
The government has an incentive in keeping unemployment down and cut spending, so it forces people to work shitty jobs by taking away subsidies, which in turn drives down salaries and only helps high-manpower low-skill enterprises like burger-flipping. Is that good for society as a whole?
People working two jobs (great for employment numbers!) are not bettering themselves, they're just producing more surplus for owners, often not even by choice. It doesn't really matter if you have 0% unemployment but everyone is forced to do stuff they don't like in order to survive.
A vegetarian lion could technically survive. A human being needs food (which he cannot grow anywhere, due to property laws) and shelter (which he cannot build anywhere, due to property laws). Does the US government hand out free food and shelter for all?
If not, you are forced to work. You can choose what to work on, but that's about it. Even something as passive as investing capital or extracting rent requires some work. Being homeless is a full-time job asking others for money.
Whenever you'll get free food and free shelter (we can argue about clothes), then you won't be forced to work.
> Whenever you'll get free food and free shelter (we can argue about clothes), then you won't be forced to work.
And to provide that, others will be forced to work. So no matter what we end up with some people being "forced to work", which I don't agree is even a thing. Even if you could just live off the land you'd be "forced" to work a hell of a lot harder to survive than you would getting any minimum wage job. You are perhaps underestimating how bad life sucked before modern society took root.
Yes but the EU standard (which only Spain doesn't follow IIRC) for measuring unemployment is a more inclusive than the US one.[1]
edit: which isn't to say that France doesn't have higher (comparable) unemployment rates than the US, I believe it does but different government types have different tolerances and expectations for unemployment levels naturally.
double digits, but barely (10.8%). And there are some safety nets, like basic income, housing aids, and gracious help if you have children, that make underemployment slightly less awful.
I bet a hell of a lot less people go hungry in France compared to the US.
Do you have any evidence to back that up or is it just a hunch? The US has a pretty solid safety net as well including unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, child and mother nutrition programs, Medicaid coverage, etc.
Hah, you mean the unemployment insurance that has all sorts of loopholes that employers will use to prevent you from being able to claim it?
You mean the welfare which expires under certain circumstances? The food stamps that got cut during the last budget? The nutrition programs that pay for slop lunches at school?
Medicaid, which still doesn't prevent people from going bankrupt from medical fees?
The US safety net is about as solid as a paper bag.
Which is probably why we have a lower unemployment rate, because people are incentivized to find work (any work) sooner rather than sit around waiting for the job they would prefer to have.
Food stamps are not very solid. I know because my father had to temporarily avail himself of the program a few years back.
If I recall correctly he received about $80 a month for a single person which is not enough to even purchase the necessities of a healthy and balanced diet, really. I was paying his mortgage and he was fortunate that he had siblings who could supplement his meager allotment until he could find employment far below his education level and previous salary.
He had lost his job due to, from what I could tell, the early onset of Parkinson's and a heartless employer who would rather dosh a loyal employee of 20+ years than accept the continued employment of an employee with the condition.
Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the "create jobs!" mantra. Jobs for job-numbers' sake has little point, in practice it's just further enslaving the population.
The government has an incentive in keeping unemployment down and cut spending, so it forces people to work shitty jobs by taking away subsidies, which in turn drives down salaries and only helps high-manpower low-skill enterprises like burger-flipping. Is that good for society as a whole?
People working two jobs (great for employment numbers!) are not bettering themselves, they're just producing more surplus for owners, often not even by choice. It doesn't really matter if you have 0% unemployment but everyone is forced to do stuff they don't like in order to survive.