The war on poverty was a failure.

Unemployment is just a requirement for capitalism to work, of itself it has no intrinsic value. Capitalism doesn't particularly feel any emotion towards unemployment, just that it must exist at an optimum level for capitalism to function.

Let me give a brief example. I've said before that full employment - perhaps I should use the phrase "shortage of labour". Okay, a shortage of labour because everyone is working means that there will be a bidding war between businesses for labour. Supply and demand. This forces up the general price of labour. Those costs are passed on by businesses. That sets off a round of price hikes.
To avoid that situation wages must be kept at an optimum level for business to be able to profit from the purchase and use of labour. One of the ways that capitalism does that is to ensure a percentage of unemployment so that there will be available labour at what businesses might consider "reasonable" prices.

Where unemployment is too high then the spending power of the average person is reduced and therefore consumption will decrease. If consumption decreases while production is stable or increases there will be a glut of production and this causes problems for a capitalist economy. Dealing with glut has been a continuing issue in capitalist economies. If a business reduces production due to lower demand then it will lay off workers and increase unemployment and thus exacerbate the problem. How to fix that issue is a continuing question in capitalist economics.

 

What were the employment rates during that period? Nice set of inflation figures by the way.

 

Only from the standpoint that capitalism insures inefficient and unprofitable companies do not survive and therefore when they close the people who worked there become unemployed until the take new jobs which when capitalism is allow to operate without government interference are readily available. The unemployment is only a shift of employment not some desire of capitalism.

Again why wasn't it during the last period of full employment.

If there are sufficient jobs there will be people unemployed.

This is necessary in a capitalist economy. It is also necessary to compensate the unemployed. One reason is humanitarian, the other is prudence, you don't want a lot of unemployed people becoming disgruntled.

No it isn't at all because "poverty" is defined by the political body and not everyone unemployed is in poverty nor do people who earn the least have to live in poverty.

You will ALWAYS have "the poor" and poverty as there will always be people who fail to take advantage of the opportunities afforded them or choose to engage in activities that keep them in poverty. It is not a function of capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

bls.gov is a wonderful website.

 

Okay let's see what I have to respond.

Does capitalism ensure that inefficient and unprofitable companies do not survive? I think I'd broadly agree with that. And your point that there are unemployed people when a business fails is a point taken. New jobs become readily available? Well that depends on the state of the economy. If the economy is going well then yes, new jobs will be available. If the economy is not doing well then they won't be available. If a business fails because of inefficiency and therefore a lack of profit that's fine, but if a business fails because of a general lack of demand in an economy, that is it has produced more than it can sell and has to close because of the glut, then again jobs elsewhere may not be readily available because every other business would be facing the same situation.

I'm having a think about the full employment/no inflation scenario in that period. I'll have to respond a little later.

Yes there will always be poverty in a capitalist economy, just as there has been in just about every other economic system in history apart from the earliest periods of human history. In a socialist economy there need be no poverty for the simple reason that work would be available to all who need it. That was my point.

I'll have a dig around bls.gov, thanks for that.

 

Can anyone you know able to live on Social Security benefits alone? Is the avarice of those who have not paid into Social Security so great that now they their parents S.S. benefits?

 

Technically, your suggests ARE welfare, but a positive outcome welfare. The downside, though, is that our basic economic system discourages these things so what you're left with is the option we continue to offer.

There are some places which move people around by buses to work in other towns where they are not able to permanently relocate to, but the downside is that their children are pretty much left unattended or underattended for extended periods of time due to the mandatory commute in which they work jobs that still don't pay the bills.

 

It was a failure because Ronald Reagan began drastic cuts to welfare.

They were not enough trillions being spent on Americans, and a lot of that money went to people who worked for a living, to get higher wages than the Europeans, who are taxed 60 percent of their incomes for welfare.

Now it is even worst, because the even smaller tax rates are being enjoyed by the wealthier classes, rather than the middle classes as before. So now that the wealthy pillaged the welfare accounts, they are going after everyone else's, and soon everyone will be in poverty.

 

Why would anything less than full employment of resources be considered a good thing in any market, under any form of capitalism? I believe that line of reasoning is disingenuous.

Full employment may be inflationary, but does it matter when wages outperform inflation?

 

WorkFare might hold your normal welfare check hostage to your attending classes, apprenticeship or part time employment.
And after time it might require relocation or "live free".

Moi

 

No, that is false. Capitalism requires private ownership of land, which constitutes a welfare subsidy giveaway to the landowner. The landowner is thus enabled to live as a parasite, without working, producing, or contributing in any way.

No, facts that prove your claims are factually incorrect.

Yes, let's. Unfortunately, you want to keep the subsidies to the rich and privileged, by the subterfuge of calling them, "protection of property rights."

 

How would get to 100% employment without forced labor? You dont think 4 out of 100 AMericans are either a) not really looking for work, or b) in transition and waiting for a better job offer or are in training, but could work if they really wanted to?

I agree if not. We have had periods of 2% unemployment (estimated though) during the guilded age. our most capitalist age.

 

The capitalist system has its way of preventing full employment, that way is called the banking system. When unemployment gets down to levels the capitalist thinks are dangerous to his interests, then the banks will just raise interest rates to “cool the economy” … which is secret code for “throw the little guys out of work”. Just watch and you will see, as soon as employment levels improve the banks will start raising rates (actually they will first cut the stimulus and then they will raise the rates).

 

At 1 cent per hour who would not be able to perform a job? Felons who are more risk then they are worth? People who dont want to work? Who else?

 

Can't you guys stay on-topic?

The topic is the failure of LBJ's "War on Poverty" and the urgent need to scrap all its programs.

 

Agreed.

So what have we learned from this colossal failure?

Project housing is a horrible idea. It leads to concentrations of poverty and dilapidated housing which drives business and jobs out. It also concentrates crime, and every kid that has to grow up in these areas is a victim, robbed of a normal childhood.

Better plan? Vouchers of course. Landlords have a reason to keep the place up, tenants have a rental history they will want to keep clean, and families can seek safer neighborhoods. For less cost to the government they sure are popular among people stuck in the current system:

[video=youtube;MXm7lSb18L8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXm7lSb18L8[/video]

 

Welfare, so far we haven't learned to much other then it doesnt help. What have learned though is that putting a time limit on it helps people transition to jobs better then job training programs do. When welfare reform was first passed people cried that the poor would be dying in the streets, but they got jobs and their lot in life improved.

 

On the full employment issue - I've made the argument that capitalism needs unemployment to avoid the inflationary effect of high demand and lower supply for labour. Businesses are always looking to cut labour costs using various means, for example automation. Individual businesses don't give much regard to unemployment in a capitalist economy. But the broader view is that unemployment is necessary to allow capitalism to operate efficiently.

The question of wages outperforming inflation. If wages outperform inflation then that's good and if there is also full employment then that's good. The key is to ensure productivity increases are linked with wage increases, that's one of the reasons that Australia in the early 1980s began to move away from a centralised wage fixation system to a system based on collective bargaining and wage rises linked with productivity.

In a sense these are two different issues though. I am still putting the view that unemployment, structural unemployment, is necessary for capitalism to be efficient. If capitalism could achieve full employment, that is a job for everyone who wants one, and have wages outperform inflation then I would say well done. I don't think it can be done as full employment would undo capitalism.

 

Heck I wouldn't argue for forced labour. I mean that if someone wants to work then they should have a job. If they don't want to work then that's up to them.

 

Oh, so basically the same full employment measure we have today? Because 4% or so of the population at any given time doesnt want to work, or at least doesnt want to work at the jobs offered. They are free to make that decision, don't you agree?

 

Yes I do agree. I think the definition of full employment in a capitalist economy is about 4% - 6%. If some of those people don't want to work then no worries, they can get by the best way they can. But if some of those people want to work and can't find work then that's pretty bad for them as individuals. The point is that in a capitalist economy there will always be unemployment and unemployment of those that wish to work. And at the risk of repeating myself I have to say that capitalism requires unemployment to be efficient.

 

If government politicians keep their hands out of it it does remarkably well.

Yes they will, even during the recession/911/dot/com bubble of 2000/2001 unemployment only went to 6.5% for one month. That administration cut tax rates and got out of the way.

Lack of profit us usually brought about by a lack of demand as in typewriters, guess what happened to the people who made typewriters? They got other jobs in the expanding PC industry.

Tell that to the majority of the socialist European countries.

 

Does nothing of the sort, it insures the right to private property which has helped to propel this country to be the greatest wealth producer in the history of the world giving the highest standard of living to the most people.

No I was quite clear, all these subsidies rich and poor. Protecting your property rights is not a subsidy.

 

[video=youtube;kQFKtI6gn9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]

 

Would the OP care to give a link from a credible source that quantitatively supports ONE SINGLE THING you've said above?

and look at this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

(and yes, I know it's a Wiki article but the relevant charts and quotes are matters of fact from credible sources)

AFAICT, The WOP succeeded famously, we just stopped waging it.

 

The reason why we have so many poor immigrants isn't specifically due to benefits. It's because immigration policies are set by interests that want more cheap labor available.

A large portion of our immigrant labor works for agriculture. Companies like Perdue and Tyson literally recruit labor in Central America with promises of citizenship. What typically happens is these people show up, they work for these companies, and then they find out that the promises are hollow. They're virtually enslaved by these companies.

However, as a side effect of this, many of them give birth here, which then creates a situation where their children are citizens. Because of that, the benefits often extend to the parents and siblings.

Of course, these companies don't care if they add more burdens to social systems as long as they can produce goods cheaply. And consumers either don't care or don't know what's going on, so it doesn't affect their consumption habits.