The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
Who cares? The argument not really applicable anymore if we are discussing the fact that there will inevitably be a more affordable alternative in a market-driven economy.
(apologies to ronya if I am really butchering this argument)
But this assumes a rational consumer that will accept the more affordable alternative, and consumers are rarely rational creatures.
Again the assumption is irrelevant if there is an alternative to the expensive product.
I am really not getting your point mayhaps.
Could you possibly restate?
Hmmmm...even if there is an alternative to an expensive product, consumers are not likely to buy the less expensive product if they have already established a brand familiarity with a favored brand. Raising prices wouldn't work against generic products, because there will always be competition. But it could, and would work when companies hold a brand monopoly, because people have got to have their freaking Oreos, and they'll cut someone to get them.
I still don't see what the problem is?
Even if there is an alternative to a more expensive product, it does not mean that people will purchase the less expensive product. When you say "price increases don't matter when there is an alternative product to purchase" means little when consumers fail to purchase the less expensive product.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
In the long term, government expenses would fall, in all sorts of ways. I talked a lot about McDonald's at the beginning- if people weren't working there and eating there, it would reduce the number of costly visits to the ER that are paid for by medicaid. With less people commuting to work, we don't need as many highways. Fewer business means fewer government agencies to oversee them. We can also eliminate the foodstamps and subsidized housing programs, since the basic income should cover food and shelter. (medicare will remain, but hopefully decrease in cost with fewer workplaces related injuries).
sounds like we would have even higher unemployment than we have now.
It does seem to be the best solution to the Type I vs. Type II error problem.
I am going to be 100% honest and cite ignorance here.
What exactly do you mean?
The problem of deciding whether to help all those that need while simultaneously trying not to help free-loaders.
Shoeboxes and cheese for everyone solves problem 1. Problem 2 is solved hopefully because no-one wants to live in a shoebox or eat cheese, and even if they do, all we're providing people is basic necessities, no one is using their GBI for drugs, etc.
If we keep with this really simple analogy (which again, I do support) I have to admit this was pretty much my thought process.
But again I don't know much beyond labcoats and pipettes, so you have to keep in mind I don't really know much about economics. I just thought of this and went "ITS BRILLIANT AND FOOLPROOF!"
I am sure there are loads of other problems with it.
I don't know if I agree with your logic regarding inflation, Ronya, as I think it inhabits too much of a vacuum. If we implement a GBI, those products which are disproportionately the majority of purchases by the poor, will inevitably ratchet up in cost because "there's money to be made." Especially considering the fact that the people who will receive the GBI are far more likely to spend the money than save/invest. As these goods are already considered necessary goods by the poor, they will continue to be bought, and I think most every company will take advantage of the extra cash in the market by raising their prices in order to maximize their profits.
(first: the apparently famous Keynesian insight that the poor have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the rich is a result that only holds in the short run, in response to a one-time shock; it is much weaker in the long run. But that aside.)
The amount of stuff supplied is not fixed, of course. Initially there would be more buyers than sellers, which would indeed drive up prices, but then companies will have an incentive to ramp up production to capture more market share and delicious supernormal profit. Which would promptly drive prices back down. Happily, most consumer goods are characterized by increasing returns to scale.
So there is a short-run adjustment cost, but such costs exist for any given vast alteration in income distribution.
(where do the resources for all that extra production come from? Well, someone's income has been taxed to fund those transfers, so someone's now not buying something...)
Again pi-r8 you say some things that I agree with, but a lot that makes me feel icky inside for some reason.
It sounds like you basically agree with me on the moral argument for helping the poor, sort of kind of agree on the economics of it, but disagree with me about the philosophical idea that not working is OK. Is that pretty much your position?
Again pi-r8 you say some things that I agree with, but a lot that makes me feel icky inside for some reason.
It sounds like you basically agree with me on the moral argument for helping the poor, sort of kind of agree on the economics of it, but disagree with me about the philosophical idea that not working is OK. Is that pretty much your position?
Again I pretty much disagree that the point of this program is to downsize things like economy and "useless" or "damaging" businesses as a function of decreased employment.
GDP is not the ultimate measure of a nation's success, to be sure, but it is also not something to be ignored.
I don't care about the philosophy of work/non work I just want people who CANT find a job to have somewhere to live and food to eat (and theoretically for lazy people who are employed to be able to spend their income on "frivolities")
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm in the same boat as Arch, really. I am in my heart completely against almost all of your assumptions. I don't think it's a basic human right to have food or shelter or healthcare or anything of that sort. It just seems a priori false. However, we've got this society thing and it has the ability to help people, and it seems pretty fishy for it to not help people when it can. And, it just so happens that our society at this point is so fantastically rich that we can imagine it being able to provide for all the slackers in the world (even if we're still a bit short, as the economically gifted seem to be pointing out), so it doesn't seem like all that bad an idea to me.
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
I reiterate that, at current levels the US govt. cannot afford a $10k GBI program unless it raises taxes or cuts way more programs than merely just the existing broadly redistributive ones, in which case special-needs will suffer.
Raising taxes likely won't help either. It will just cut into GDP, higher rates will still translate into the same amount of dollars.
The only way to do it is drastically cut spending elsewhere.
Of course, a VAT, consumption taxes, or land taxes are politically untenable, and of those, only a land tax has a minimal impact on long-run growth (total chaos in the short run adjustment period, though). But outside of income taxes it is entirely possible for the US to raise much more revenue. Hypothetically, anyway.
ronya on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I reiterate that, at current levels the US govt. cannot afford a $10k GBI program unless it raises taxes or cuts way more programs than merely just the existing broadly redistributive ones, in which case special-needs will suffer.
Raising taxes likely won't help either. It will just cut into GDP, higher rates will still translate into the same amount of dollars.
Errr. Do you have any reason to think that we are anywhere near the inflection point on the Laffer curve?
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
The concept of a basic human right is a philosophically tricky place cncaudata, but I will on this issue become a document-waver and cite our declaration of rights as pi-r8 did. Whether or not I personally believe that things like food, shelter, and healthcare are fundamental rights is irrelevant in my opinion. The function of a government is to keep its citizens alive.
The concept of a basic human right is a philosophically tricky place cncaudata, but I will on this issue become a document-waver and cite our declaration of rights as pi-r8 did. Whether or not I personally believe that things like food, shelter, and healthcare are fundamental rights is irrelevant in my opinion. The function of a government is to keep its citizens alive.
I'm relatively certain that the founding fathers were even more willing to let slackers die than I am, so anyone citing the DI would need to provide some pretty astounding historically relavent evidence that when they said "Life" they meant "governmentally provided food, shelter, healthcare, clothing, etc. even if they're not willing to work".
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I feel like I am walking into a trap with this post.
....yes as long as they adhere to the social contract?
See, I feel like your position is that a citizen has a right to be protected under the government "regardless of whether or not they adhere to the social contract between individual and government". The founding fathers thought otherwise, what with being proponents of the Enlightenment and all.
The gist is, the social contract between an American citizen and the government is that you have rights, of course, but you also have responsibilities.
To be able to, but to deliberately shirk that responsibility - well, in Modern Man's words, the slacker can fuck off and die, in the eyes of the government.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
Actually... the way I imagined this... that demographic would probably be one of the most likely to quit their jobs, and devote their time to something unpaid, like volunteering or artwork. But other people think that this is just a good way to help the really needy, and that's fine too.
I feel like I am walking into a trap with this post.
....yes as long as they adhere to the social contract?
See, I feel like your position is that a citizen has a right to be protected under the government "regardless of whether or not they adhere to the social contract between individual and government". The founding fathers thought otherwise, what with being proponents of the Enlightenment and all.
The concept of a basic human right is a philosophically tricky place cncaudata, but I will on this issue become a document-waver and cite our declaration of rights as pi-r8 did. Whether or not I personally believe that things like food, shelter, and healthcare are fundamental rights is irrelevant in my opinion. The function of a government is to keep its citizens alive.
I'm relatively certain that the founding fathers were even more willing to let slackers die than I am, so anyone citing the DI would need to provide some pretty astounding historically relavent evidence that when they said "Life" they meant "governmentally provided food, shelter, healthcare, clothing, etc. even if they're not willing to work".
Yeah, government welfare programs are a pretty recent thing in this country. For most of American history, if you weren't willing (or able) to work, you starved. Church charity programs were available, but many of them required the able-bodied to work in exchange for food.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Eddy's saying most of the same thing I am. If you refuse to go out and earn a living, you are effectively reneging on your deal and giving up any right to assisstance you may have had.
I happen to think the founding fathers were even more hard-ass, and would happily let the sick, elderly, mentally disabled, etc. die as well.
I feel like I am walking into a trap with this post.
....yes as long as they adhere to the social contract?
See, I feel like your position is that a citizen has a right to be protected under the government "regardless of whether or not they adhere to the social contract between individual and government". The founding fathers thought otherwise, what with being proponents of the Enlightenment and all.
I think it goes without saying that people who break the law and go to jail stop getting paid while they're in jail. Does that address your concern?
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
Actually... the way I imagined this... that demographic would probably be one of the most likely to quit their jobs, and devote their time to something unpaid, like volunteering or artwork. But other people think that this is just a good way to help the really needy, and that's fine too.
Yeah I mean that will probably happen. But I don't think it will invoke everything else you cited in your post.
The concept of a basic human right is a philosophically tricky place cncaudata, but I will on this issue become a document-waver and cite our declaration of rights as pi-r8 did. Whether or not I personally believe that things like food, shelter, and healthcare are fundamental rights is irrelevant in my opinion. The function of a government is to keep its citizens alive.
I'm relatively certain that the founding fathers were even more willing to let slackers die than I am, so anyone citing the DI would need to provide some pretty astounding historically relavent evidence that when they said "Life" they meant "governmentally provided food, shelter, healthcare, clothing, etc. even if they're not willing to work".
Yeah, government welfare programs are a pretty recent thing in this country. For most of American history, if you weren't willing (or able) to work, you starved. Church charity programs were available, but many of them required the able-bodied to work in exchange for food.
Benjamin Franklin was pretty damn progressive with regards to treatment of the poor if I remember correctly.
But really anyone invoking founding fathers or whatever in an argument that is not about the revolution can diaf.
It's not just the law. Citizens have the responsibility to contribute to the government that protects them. The citizen, after all, is a part of the government. To deliberately fail society is to fail yourself. To deliberately slack is to break the social contract.
Unless of course, you think the social contract only straps society into doing the right thing for the individuals, and not the other way around, which is illogical seeing as they're essentially one and the same
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
If by employed you mean working ten hours in a coffee shop while "getting in touch with their artistic side." I love Portland to death, but God Damn hipsters.
The problem then is determining who is "slacking" and who just can't find meaningful employment Eddy, so I personally think that in the context of this discussion it may be a wash.
I don't know though, I never really expect these programs to become a reality in the US so I have never really thought about how to really address this problem.
So, let's not derail the thread. Hopefully Pi-r8 and Arch (not meaning to lump you in, here, but you were arguing the point) can admit that food, shelter, etc. are not basic rights (simple argument against - what if you are the last human alive) or at least that they're not guaranteed by the DI, but rather that, since the government seems to be in the business of doing this sort of stuff anyway, maybe we should try to do it more effectively. Is that possible?
cncaudata on
PSN: Broodax- battle.net: broodax#1163
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
Actually... the way I imagined this... that demographic would probably be one of the most likely to quit their jobs, and devote their time to something unpaid, like volunteering or artwork. But other people think that this is just a good way to help the really needy, and that's fine too.
Yeah I mean that will probably happen. But I don't think it will invoke everything else you cited in your post.
First off, most hipsters don't work at McDonalds.
:P
No they work as waiters, bartenders, "baristas", in retail, or by temping. If all the hipsters quit because work is uncool (and we decide as society that we're willing to subsidize the wastes), who's going to do the work?
The way I'm imagining it would totally change the way the economy works. Almost everyone who works a low paying job would just quit, and do other things instead. So yes, we might lose some tax revenue from those people, although they don't really pay a lot of taxes anyway. In the short term, we can pay for it by deficit spending, and closing tax loopholes- from what I've read, our economy could benefit greatly from deficit spending right now.
In the long term, government expenses would fall, in all sorts of ways. I talked a lot about McDonald's at the beginning- if people weren't working there and eating there, it would reduce the number of costly visits to the ER that are paid for by medicaid. With less people commuting to work, we don't need as many highways. Fewer business means fewer government agencies to oversee them. We can also eliminate the foodstamps and subsidized housing programs, since the basic income should cover food and shelter. (medicare will remain, but hopefully decrease in cost with fewer workplaces related injuries).
It might hurt the GDP growth, yes. But then, I don't think that GDP is really the best way to measure the progress of a society. Who really lives better- a man with a $100,000 income, but $90,000 in expenses and no time off? Or the man with $30,000 in income, but only $10,000 in expenses and a lot of time off? The basic income would give us all some time off, when we need it.
I'mma go out on a limb and suggest that funding through deficit spending a massive program that you predict will lead to a decrease in GDP is.. not sane.
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
Actually... the way I imagined this... that demographic would probably be one of the most likely to quit their jobs, and devote their time to something unpaid, like volunteering or artwork. But other people think that this is just a good way to help the really needy, and that's fine too.
Do you really think someone living in Manhattan or San Francisco is going to be able to survive on $10K a year? And most of the people who fall into that demographic aren't working particularly low-paying jobs.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
Even if there is an alternative to a more expensive product, it does not mean that people will purchase the less expensive product. When you say "price increases don't matter when there is an alternative product to purchase" means little when consumers fail to purchase the less expensive product.
Oh Oh Oh! I have my stats textbook on me!
a Type I error is when we incorrectly reject a null hypothesis that is true.
A Type II error is when we incorrectly accept a null hypothesis that is false.
sounds like we would have even higher unemployment than we have now.
If we keep with this really simple analogy (which again, I do support) I have to admit this was pretty much my thought process.
But again I don't know much beyond labcoats and pipettes, so you have to keep in mind I don't really know much about economics. I just thought of this and went "ITS BRILLIANT AND FOOLPROOF!"
I am sure there are loads of other problems with it.
(first: the apparently famous Keynesian insight that the poor have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the rich is a result that only holds in the short run, in response to a one-time shock; it is much weaker in the long run. But that aside.)
The amount of stuff supplied is not fixed, of course. Initially there would be more buyers than sellers, which would indeed drive up prices, but then companies will have an incentive to ramp up production to capture more market share and delicious supernormal profit. Which would promptly drive prices back down. Happily, most consumer goods are characterized by increasing returns to scale.
So there is a short-run adjustment cost, but such costs exist for any given vast alteration in income distribution.
(where do the resources for all that extra production come from? Well, someone's income has been taxed to fund those transfers, so someone's now not buying something...)
For some reason, I wasn't even thinking that when I read it.
It sounds like you basically agree with me on the moral argument for helping the poor, sort of kind of agree on the economics of it, but disagree with me about the philosophical idea that not working is OK. Is that pretty much your position?
Again I pretty much disagree that the point of this program is to downsize things like economy and "useless" or "damaging" businesses as a function of decreased employment.
GDP is not the ultimate measure of a nation's success, to be sure, but it is also not something to be ignored.
I don't care about the philosophy of work/non work I just want people who CANT find a job to have somewhere to live and food to eat (and theoretically for lazy people who are employed to be able to spend their income on "frivolities")
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Rigorous Scholarship
Frankly, I disagree.
pssst, that particular empirical result on rates->revenue is only true for income taxes, which is likely where you've read it.
Of course, a VAT, consumption taxes, or land taxes are politically untenable, and of those, only a land tax has a minimal impact on long-run growth (total chaos in the short run adjustment period, though). But outside of income taxes it is entirely possible for the US to raise much more revenue. Hypothetically, anyway.
Errr. Do you have any reason to think that we are anywhere near the inflection point on the Laffer curve?
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I'm relatively certain that the founding fathers were even more willing to let slackers die than I am, so anyone citing the DI would need to provide some pretty astounding historically relavent evidence that when they said "Life" they meant "governmentally provided food, shelter, healthcare, clothing, etc. even if they're not willing to work".
I feel like I am walking into a trap with this post.
....yes as long as they adhere to the social contract?
I have a data analysis and decision making final in two weeks. It's all im thinking about
Rigorous Scholarship
is that really so bad?
i mean now you don't have to see them as much
(jokepoast)
See, I feel like your position is that a citizen has a right to be protected under the government "regardless of whether or not they adhere to the social contract between individual and government". The founding fathers thought otherwise, what with being proponents of the Enlightenment and all.
The gist is, the social contract between an American citizen and the government is that you have rights, of course, but you also have responsibilities.
To be able to, but to deliberately shirk that responsibility - well, in Modern Man's words, the slacker can fuck off and die, in the eyes of the government.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
It is a little bit hobbesian yes
but not completely
Rigorous Scholarship
I happen to think the founding fathers were even more hard-ass, and would happily let the sick, elderly, mentally disabled, etc. die as well.
I think it goes without saying that people who break the law and go to jail stop getting paid while they're in jail. Does that address your concern?
Yeah I mean that will probably happen. But I don't think it will invoke everything else you cited in your post.
First off, most hipsters don't work at McDonalds.
:P
Benjamin Franklin was pretty damn progressive with regards to treatment of the poor if I remember correctly.
But really anyone invoking founding fathers or whatever in an argument that is not about the revolution can diaf.
brb diaf
Unless of course, you think the social contract only straps society into doing the right thing for the individuals, and not the other way around, which is illogical seeing as they're essentially one and the same
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
You get a 1 time pass because youre a biologist and I'm scared of your high tech science-wizardry.
Now please don't kill me with mutated e-coli.
If by employed you mean working ten hours in a coffee shop while "getting in touch with their artistic side." I love Portland to death, but God Damn hipsters.
I don't know though, I never really expect these programs to become a reality in the US so I have never really thought about how to really address this problem.
No they work as waiters, bartenders, "baristas", in retail, or by temping. If all the hipsters quit because work is uncool (and we decide as society that we're willing to subsidize the wastes), who's going to do the work?
Is all work equally fulfilling of the social contract?
But this may or may not be a separate issue for another thread.
I'mma go out on a limb and suggest that funding through deficit spending a massive program that you predict will lead to a decrease in GDP is.. not sane.
Rigorous Scholarship