the "nobody gets seconds until everyone get firsts act".

[unblock]

ideally, our economy is supposed to get supplies to satisfy demand. we make it complex, but it's really pretty simple. one way or another, those in need should get what they need. where resources are scarce, they should go first to those most in need.

most of us (though not those in congress or boardrooms across america) were taught as kids not to take seconds before everyone has had firsts. it's not very nice to chow down on your second or third portion while others watch you with an empty plate.

now i know right-wingers will slap a label on this that begins with "s" and ends with "ocialism", but they did that to the right-wing heritage foundation's health insurance plan solely because obama had the audacity to propose it to congress. they're firing that gun regardless.


here's the idea: you're welcome to make gazillions, but not while the unemployment rate is over 8%. if you're amassing a fortune, great. go for it. bully for you. but if you're going it while people people are begging for jobs, no dice. sorry. we're taking some of that fortune and giving it to those who are just trying to put food on their family.

here's how it works: the unemployment rate flat out can't go over 8%. period. ever. the 8.000001%th person looking for a job gets one. that's right. the federal government gives him one. or they make sure some state or local government gives him one. if congress decides to give that employee an assigment, such as fixing potholes, so much the better. if not, we worry about that later. in the meanwhile they get a living wage for doing nothing, or for just showing up. but that shouldn't be a problem. goodness knows there's no shortage of need for people doing things around here.

and how do we pay for this extravagance? we sock it to those precious job creators who are busy making profits instead of jobs. however much we spend on employing people to keep the unemployment rate below 8%, we send the bill to those making over $250,000 and to corporations. of course, it would help prevent dodging if we taxed all income the same (no lower rate for dividends) and to tax foreign income as well (no waiting until the money is repatriated), but that's another story.

if they don't like it, they can go hire some of these people themselves and they wouldn't have this surtax nonsense. so any time they get sent a bill, it's their own damn fault for not hiring enough -- for taking seconds before everyone has had firsts.



bottom line is that if the unemployment rate is over 8%, we have a demonstrably disfunctional economy. millions of idle labor resources are idle and people are going hungry. if there are others making outsized profits at the same time, then the economy isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing.

and we need to fix it.

[David in Canada]

1. Capital idea!

I love your idea. The only thing I would change is instead of the 8% mark, I'd make it 5% instead. Otherwise, I am in 100% agreement.

[Sirveri]

7. 3% is considered full employment.

Just sayin'.

[pepperbear]

2. "Compassionate Capitalism." who'd a thunk it? n/t

[annabanana]

3. This makes WAY too much sense.

The plutocrats would NEVER let it happen. We'll see pitchforks & torches first.

[TouchOfGray]

4. From each according to his ability

To each according to his need.

Has that ever been tried?

[unblock]

5. no, this has never been tried. your response, though has been tried many, many times.

[Igel]

6. On some communes.

It usually flops unless there's a really solid moral and social commitment from everybody. Religious communes do better than secular ones.

You need consensus on what a need is. You "need" perhaps 10 feet square to live in, you probably don't need air conditioning or indoor plumbing. Not everybody would agree.

You need consensus on what "ability" is. Just the ability you want to use or what you're good at? If you're a mediocre musician but a great ditch digger, enjoy playing your harmonica but not working in the hot sun in the mud with a shovel, who decides that "your ability" is digging ditches? If you decide you're tired after 2 hours while somebody else goes 10, is that okay and fair? And what if there's a need for people to dig potatoes and you're a writer? Does society suddenly get to say you're a potato digger?

You also need to trust that those working are putting out at least as much effort as you and are satisfying needs to no greater extent than you. It's social trust--easy to lose, hard to produce.

What happens is that those with needed skills get more. Those who work harder get more. They're resented. Or those with needed skills or who work harder don't get more and resent that. Social trust breaks down. Towards the end, somebody or group has to dictate and all but force people to accept inequality of output and ability or to accept inequality of consumption. Hence the need for something that units them, some acceptance that everybody can be trusted. Every larger-scale society that's tried this has lacked social trust and has insisted on some sort of forced, arbitrary standard.