[howeyc]

US Defense spending is a US employment program. I really wish we would drop the pretense and just make it a full employment jobs program. Anyone that wants to work should be able to get a job.

The private sector can then get employees by paying above the minimum wage offered by the defense department job program.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US Defense spending is a US employment program

Out of curiosity, have you or anyone you know served in any armed forces?

[michaelt]

Obviously the military doesn't literally do nothing. Many of the people involved work very hard; lots of hard physical work, risk of death etc etc

But the military is uniquely patient when, for example, an already-very-expensive jet fighter ends up 10 years late and 80% over budget. And uniquely able, among government departments, to buy things like Javelin missiles that cost $200,000 a shot. Or to send $12bn in cash into Iraq, as literal pallets and truckloads of banknotes, into Iraq and somehow... lose it all and not be able to account for it. Or to be unable to pass any sort of account audits, as they can't find about 63% of their assets.

What's more, from the perspective of a politician, military spending makes for a great jobs program - because you can reasonably require your suppliers manufacture in America from components sourced in America AND small government types will approve military spending AND you get to look tough and strong.

[howeyc]

A person with a gun shooting stuff isn't the only part of defense spending. I'm not sure if this is the point you were even making.

[m101]

This would be a terrible idea for all sorts of reasons. I will start with a few questions.

How would you determine the wage level of the govt?

How would you differentiate pay at the govt?

How would you prevent govt sector bloat and excessive spending?

How would you ensure people put in the work required at the govt if they were guaranteed a job?

[fragmede]

Government pay scales is public knowledge. You'd pay based on seniority and function. You'd have an outside committe audit the jobs. You'd have KPIs and fire people that weren't performing, same as you would at a business.

The government already exists and has solved these problems before, I don't know why explicitly having jobs programs would be any different. Calling for UBI is a failure of imagination. As a society we should take care of those on the lowest rungs of the ladder, but there's more than enough work and thus jobs out there to be done, the only problem is funding them. If the government paid out $100 for every tree planted, we'd do well for the environment and have a whole lot more gardeners.

[howeyc]

1. Federal min wage would be a good place to start.

2. Uh, the same as now? Just because you work for the government doesn't mean you earn min eage. I'm pretty sure Generals make more than $15k per year.

3. People that have jobs spend money in the economy to buy things. Private sector economy benefits from this.

4. You would have to do tasks to get paid. It's a job if you want it. Not forced. The idea is to curb unemployment.

[klyrs]

> The private sector can then get employees by paying above the minimum wage offered by the defense department job program.

Well that's one way to grow a private army to overthrow your country: capitalist incentives

[petre]

"In 2018, 71% of young people in the United States would not be able to join the military if they wanted to."

Source: CDC.

[howeyc]

Easy, relax the requirements, and find work that isn't physically demanding. I'm sure there are a few "paper pushers" at the DoD.