Two Birds, One Stone: Seasonal Unemployment and Ethical Business Cost Reduction:

[GlobalPerspecti]

What if we allowed the seasonally unemployed to maintain EI benefits (perhaps less), while also occupying or starting "Less-than-minimum wage" jobs with businesses designated under newly formed accounting categories, such as:
- Recycling/ Upcycling Businesses
- Ethical Start-Ups
- Green Businesses
- NFPO's (non-religious)
- Animal shelters
- Tree Planters
- Civil Services
- Tech advancement
- Health & addiction Services
- Arts
- Infrastructure Upgrades & Community Projects
- Among others...

Beyond the immediate benefit of helping less-profitable businesses creating great social benefit, to obtain affordable labour. It could bring a number of positive long-term side-effects, namely it could:
1) Help tourist and seasonal economies to expand year-round opportunities for local job employment.
2) Increase entrepreneurial opportunity and job growth of GOOD businesses in every sense.
3) Decentralize many stifled urban communities, deflating prohibitive rents there while increasing populations and property values in underdeveloped communities.
4) Increase standard of living and incentivization for Ethical Organization participants, and the otherwise unemployed.
5) Provide MEANINGFUL employment opportunities, that workers can be proud of in every sense, and keep them "Out of Trouble" so to speak (Addiction rates go up with unemployment)
6) Help governments meet political and global targets surrounding carbon reduction, advancing civil liberties, standard of living, and GDP

Obviously there would be kinks in need of hammering out before implementing such programs, and ultimately, its success would be an iterative process. But without much foreseeable disruption or draw backs, it could solve a large number of the current disincentives preventing EI users from economic contribution. Such as:
- The fact that they're getting paid more to do nothing, than if they where to work in another job at minimum wage.
- Desperation often forces EI beneficiaries to perform off-record side-jobs that are: non-insured, cash (non-taxed), including high-risk ones, placing workers at harm, such as: Contracting, snow removal, etc

The bigger economic issue it seems is that we cant go on categorizing all business as being equal, and allowing them to operate as such. Society it seems is waking up to an understanding that there are growing business forces incompatible with modern free market operations and accounting practices, and which necessarily lead to suboptimal societal outcomes. These differences it would seem could be better handled, regulated, or taxed with novel approaches.

This could already be a widespread policy that I've never heard of. If so, why havent I?! I have businesses I'd gladly start if I could benefit from non-cost-prohibitive unemployed labor. *Thank you, Prescious Plastics* And I know people gladly willing to work for less than minimum wage if it wouldn’t mean giving up unemployment checks.

 

[Drawdown]

Instead of throwing stones at birds, you should build a wind turbine. They puree them by the binder full....sure I am fine with the rest depending on what "Ethical Start-Ups" are.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What if we allowed the seasonally unemployed to maintain EI benefits (perhaps less), while also occupying or starting "Less-than-minimum wage" jobs with businesses designated under newly formed accounting categories, such as:
- Recycling/ Upcycling Businesses
- Ethical Start-Ups
- Green Businesses
- NFPO's (non-religious)
- Animal shelters
- Tree Planters
- Civil Services
- Tech advancement
- Health & addiction Services
- Arts
- Infrastructure Upgrades & Community Projects
- Among others...

Beyond the immediate benefit of helping less-profitable businesses creating great social benefit, to obtain affordable labour. It could bring a number of positive long-term side-effects, namely it could:
1) Help tourist and seasonal economies to expand year-round opportunities for local job employment.
2) Increase entrepreneurial opportunity and job growth of GOOD businesses in every sense.
3) Decentralize many stifled urban communities, deflating prohibitive rents there while increasing populations and property values in underdeveloped communities.
4) Increase standard of living and incentivization for Ethical Organization participants, and the otherwise unemployed.
5) Provide MEANINGFUL employment opportunities, that workers can be proud of in every sense, and keep them "Out of Trouble" so to speak (Addiction rates go up with unemployment)
6) Help governments meet political and global targets surrounding carbon reduction, advancing civil liberties, standard of living, and GDP

Obviously there would be kinks in need of hammering out before implementing such programs, and ultimately, its success would be an iterative process. But without much foreseeable disruption or draw backs, it could solve a large number of the current disincentives preventing EI users from economic contribution. Such as:
- The fact that they're getting paid more to do nothing, than if they where to work in another job at minimum wage.
- Desperation often forces EI beneficiaries to perform off-record side-jobs that are: non-insured, cash (non-taxed), including high-risk ones, placing workers at harm, such as: Contracting, snow removal, etc

The bigger economic issue it seems is that we cant go on categorizing all business as being equal, and allowing them to operate as such. Society it seems is waking up to an understanding that there are growing business forces incompatible with modern free market operations and accounting practices, and which necessarily lead to suboptimal societal outcomes. These differences it would seem could be better handled, regulated, or taxed with novel approaches.

This could already be a widespread policy that I've never heard of. If so, why havent I?! I have businesses I'd gladly start if I could benefit from non-cost-prohibitive unemployed labor. *Thank you, Prescious Plastics* And I know people gladly willing to work for less than minimum wage if it wouldn’t mean giving up unemployment checks.

What you seem to be talking about is allowing the government to help you (personally) make money by letting you pay your (new business venture) laborers less than the federal (and obviously state/local in many cases) MW. This post appears to be a long lead-in to a scam allowing you (yet, admittedly not alone) to pay your labor less than MW while being subsidized by the taxpayers.

The only difference in your ("added opportunity" for those drawing UI benefits) scheme appears to be that you view your new "legally off the books" (with no reduction in UI benefits) below MW employment opportunities to be safer for the (temporarily idled) workers than if they took on other chores (jobs) for "off the books" cash (which also do not reduce their UI benefits).

Crickets...

 

[GlobalPerspecti]

LOL Good point...
I thought about that myself, and im not exactly committed to that one. I suppose i'd distinguish them as one's with a mission tackling issues like climate change, wealth inequality, refugees? Definitely a question worth hashing out.

 

[GlobalPerspecti]

Instead of throwing stones at birds, you should build a wind turbine. They puree them by the binder full....sure I am fine with the rest depending on what "Ethical Start-Ups" are.

LOL Good point...
I thought about that myself, and im not exactly committed to that one. I suppose i'd distinguish them as one's with a mission tackling issues like climate change, wealth inequality, refugees? Definitely a question worth hashing out.

 

[GlobalPerspecti]

What you seem to be talking about is allowing the government to help you (personally) make money by letting you pay your (new business venture) laborers less than the federal (and obviously state/local in many cases) MW. This post appears to be a long lead-in to a scam allowing you (yet, admittedly not alone) to pay your labor less than MW while being subsidized by the taxpayers.

The only difference in your ("added opportunity" for those drawing UI benefits) scheme appears to be that you view your new "legally off the books" (with no reduction in UI benefits) below MW employment opportunities to be safer for the (temporarily idled) workers than if they took on other chores (jobs) for "off the books" cash (which also do not reduce their UI benefits).

Crickets...

Lol I like your interpretation, I take it you're an optimist? but allow me to paint a real life example: I currently own a brick and mortar retail location, which contains a large unused basement. Id like to donate its use to a startup. An unemployed friend recently introduced me to a NFPO called Prescious Plastics. They basically offer free franchise kits to help create local economies that recycle plastic. The problem is twofold: Startup costs, and low return. In other words, good luck finding investors. But the business itself solves waste issues, and provides new life to material, while keeping hands busy, and generating value. And I do imagine as technology advances it could become lucrative- its just not now. And I can imagine a number of instances like this.

There are a million things I can do better with my time and space, yet there arnt so many eager hands to do somehting productive in a basement space in the name of old-fashioned capitalism. If its doing something "Good" however, that changes. Theres little demand for basement space where I live, so why keep it collecting dust? If others can gather investment for equipment, and interested labour, then I cant imagine a better option for all parties- including the environment. The government can collect even more (high bracket) tax from this cheaper labour, while it costs tax payers almost nothing. It would be important to establish a sunset to such labour situations to ensure its not exploited, and has minimal impacts on normal labour market.

I dont see who loses?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Lol I like your interpretation, I take it you're an optimist? but allow me to paint a real life example: I currently own a brick and mortar retail location, which contains a large unused basement. Id like to donate its use to a startup. An unemployed friend recently introduced me to a NFPO called Prescious Plastics. They basically offer free franchise kits to help create local economies that recycle plastic. The problem is twofold: Startup costs, and low return. In other words, good luck finding investors. But the business itself solves waste issues, and provides new life to material, while keeping hands busy, and generating value. And I do imagine as technology advances it could become lucrative- its just not now. And I can imagine a number of instances like this.

There are a million things I can do better with my time and space, yet there arnt so many eager hands to do somehting productive in a basement space in the name of old-fashioned capitalism. If its doing something "Good" however, that changes. Theres little demand for basement space where I live, so why keep it collecting dust? If others can gather investment for equipment, and interested labour, then I cant imagine a better option for all parties- including the environment. The government can collect even more (high bracket) tax from this cheaper labour, while it costs tax payers almost nothing. It would be important to establish a sunset to such labour situations to ensure its not exploited, and has minimal impacts on normal labour market.

I dont see who loses?

A (non-profit?) franchise that cannot even manage not to lose money while using "donated" (aka free) physical plant space and MW labor is doomed. The concept of using tax money (via new "special" government subsidies) simply because no sane investor would touch such a guaranteed to fail "business" is why many folks refuse to listen to econuts no matter how catchy their "precious" ideas are made to sound.

What we need is a "sunset" on allowing any seasonal business to continuously expect to use government subsidies (UI benefits) to maintain its local labor force. Employees need to pay rent, utilities and put food on their tables all year and any business which can't (or simply won't) pay their employees enough to do so should simply not exist. For example, teachers are off for about three months of the year, yet their annual pay is enough that they can make that type of work a viable career.

 

[GlobalPerspecti]

A (non-profit?) franchise that cannot even manage not to lose money while using "donated" (aka free) physical plant space and MW labor is doomed. The concept of using tax money (via new "special" government subsidies) simply because no sane investor would touch such a guaranteed to fail "business" is why many folks refuse to listen to econuts no matter how catchy their "precious" ideas are made to sound.

What we need is a "sunset" on allowing any seasonal business to continuously expect to use government subsidies (UI benefits) to maintain its local labor force. Employees need to pay rent, utilities and put food on their tables all year and any business which can't (or simply won't) pay their employees enough to do so should simply not exist. For example, teachers are off for about three months of the year, yet their annual pay is enough that they can make that type of work a viable career.

I believe I understand where you're coming from as well as your reservations so I apologize for poor explanations in the interest of brevity.

To clarify, by "Franchise" I simply mean to say *Turn-Key* in the sense they tell you exactly what you need and how to execute the various businesses involved in creating a profitable economy. (I say economy, because there are many chains involved from raw material to final product, in order to reach a point of viability for all parties-- In some areas of larger scale, and complimenting infrastructure, one-off businesses will immediately generate profit, but for smaller removed communities, this is not the case)

What I mean is this: The largest costs of plastic are A) Labour B) Transportation
And so, by reducing transportation costs by incentivizing a robust local supply chain including recyclers, grinders, extruders, and product designers/ manufacturers, the model increasingly becomes profitable. And because Waste plastic is a universal resource, and transportation is such a large portion of cost, the business model doesnt lend itself so well to traditional economies of scale, yet has an optimal point of return.

Long term forces contributing to viabillity:
- Consumer trends will start demanding recycled plastic, and in many ways its a local business akin to farming given transportation costs
- You may have noticed since china banned recycling in 2018, the cost of recycled plastic has gone up- such market forces boad well for recycling.

Regarding your suggestion for ending UI benefits to seasonal businesses, i'd ask, what then might costs become of: Fences, landscaping, framing, contracting, tourist merchandise, etc? You'd see even higher construction costs, and less investment in home and business improvements. And ultimately less output. Further, you'd have higher unemployment and competition for MW jobs, and a further deterioration of middle class. In Canada- where i'm from- teachers are paid salary throughout the summer as well, although by the government so im not sure how different that is in terms of its effect on tax payers?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I believe I understand where you're coming from as well as your reservations so I apologize for poor explanations in the interest of brevity.

To clarify, by "Franchise" I simply mean to say *Turn-Key* in the sense they tell you exactly what you need and how to execute the various businesses involved in creating a profitable economy. (I say economy, because there are many chains involved from raw material to final product, in order to reach a point of viability for all parties-- In some areas of larger scale, and complimenting infrastructure, one-off businesses will immediately generate profit, but for smaller removed communities, this is not the case)

What I mean is this: The largest costs of plastic are A) Labour B) Transportation
And so, by reducing transportation costs by incentivizing a robust local supply chain including recyclers, grinders, extruders, and product designers/ manufacturers, the model increasingly becomes profitable. And because Waste plastic is a universal resource, and transportation is such a large portion of cost, the business model doesnt lend itself so well to traditional economies of scale, yet has an optimal point of return.

Long term forces contributing to viabillity:
- Consumer trends will start demanding recycled plastic, and in many ways its a local business akin to farming given transportation costs
- You may have noticed since china banned recycling in 2018, the cost of recycled plastic has gone up- such market forces boad well for recycling.

Regarding your suggestion for ending UI benefits to seasonal businesses, i'd ask, what then might costs become of: Fences, landscaping, framing, contracting, tourist merchandise, etc? You'd see even higher construction costs, and less investment in home and business improvements. And ultimately less output. Further, you'd have higher unemployment and competition for MW jobs, and a further deterioration of middle class. In Canada- where i'm from- teachers are paid salary throughout the summer as well, although by the government so im not sure how different that is in terms of its effect on tax payers?

A claim no expertise in plastics, recycled or not, (although I find it hard to believe that it is seasonal), but for any business to be viable it must be able to pay its workers at a level sufficient to attract and retain qualified labor in their local market. As any brief research on US wages will show you, less than 3% of workers receive the federal minimum wage - the other 97%+ of US workers are paid more than that.

I work as a self-employed handyman, involved in most of those (bolded above) maintenance/construction trades plus a few more, and can assure you that during my slower seasons my weekly/monthly income drops considerably. For my small handyman business to remain viable (keeping us housed and fed year around) I must make more income (work more billable hours) during busier times to carry us through the slower times (when the workload demand slows down).

The "trick" of paying (full-time) teachers their (contractual) annual salary in 12 equal monthly installments instead of 9 (and forcing them to budget accordingly) costs the taxpayers no more.