the jimmymac attack!

Changes have impact in many ways. 100% employment might help make our streets cleaner. It might create more clean public restrooms. These would be really good things. It might help eliminate homelessness. And it might eliminate panhandling. In fact in communities where 100% employment policies are introduced I would make panhandling illegal. I usually do not give money to panhandlers. Too often they use the money to go buy alcohol or drugs. Therefore giving them money is not helping them, it is only allowing them to continue to fund their addictions. If everyone able to work was working they would not need to panhandle. And if someone is unable to work they should be helped with welfare or disability payments. Then there is no need to beg money on the street and it should be illegal. Buskers are another issue and they can be licensed to perform music or magic or whatever on the streets to entertain people.

Everybody who is able to work and wants to work has a job. You are guaranteed a job. Of course some of the jobs might not be too great. Some people would pick up litter and clean public toilets. But these things must be done also and some people are not able to do much more than that. And it would be marvelous to have clean streets and clean public toilets. Also some people can only work a few hours a day or week. But that is better than being unemployed. And people want to do better and have more challenge so even if they started at the bottom people would try to work up to better jobs.

I wonder if it is possible to have no unemployment. Everyone who wants to work and is able to work has a job. It would help reduce poverty, crime, homelessness and despair. Is it possible? I think it is possible but it would require a shift in priorities. Now business is focused on profit and return on investment. There is nothing wrong with profit but people must also be made a priority.

The owner of the Four Seasons hotel chain is a Canadian with a social conscience. He works hard to help find a cure for cancer. It's a very noble cause. I imagine most wealthy business people are basically good people and many help worthwhile charities. But wouldn't it be marvelous if we had no need for charities? Instead of giving money for homeless people how about trying to eliminate homelessness?

If very rich business people started taking action to help employ everybody perhaps poverty and even a lot of disease would be reduced or eliminated. After all disease is aggravated by stress and poor diet and even monetary problems.

Imagine if large corporations developed programs to employ more people. One example could be crews to help make our cities and towns cleaner. Unemployed people could work in teams to clean the streets and be sponsored by the Four Seasons or GM. It would be great public relations and improve our communities in so many ways. That is just one example. Creative thinkers could come up with many different ideas. And as people became employed they could move up to better jobs through training and education. But having 5 or 6% or even 2 or 3% of our population chronically unemployed just leads to the endless problems of crime, poverty and homelessness. And those situations are not good for anybody. In the short run it might cost big companies but in the long run it would be a fantastic benefit for everybody. This idea would require a shift in thinking by some people but if it caught on it could have a profound effect on our world. Such shifts in thinking have happened before. Maybe it can happen again and the welfare of people will take priority over profit.

In the 1920’s the USA tried to reduce and control alcohol consumption by outlawing it. Instead of reducing or stopping the use of alcohol the result was the out of control use and distribution of alcohol. The buying and selling of alcohol was in the hands of criminals. The police and government had little or no power over the control of alcohol use and abuse. Finally in 1933 the government ended the failed experiment.
Now in the twenty first century governments try to control the use of drugs by the prohibition of drugs. The result is out of control use and abuse of illegal drugs. The buying and selling of drugs is in the hands of the criminals. Like prohibition in the 1920’s the police try to stem the flow of illegal substances going from person to person but their efforts are futile. Faster than they can act the users and sellers are always ahead of the law. The whole process is doomed to fail and the users continue to get and use the illegal drugs. The users and drug addicts suffer and die from their addictions. The drug dealers sell and push their products onto the addicts without thought or conscience.
Illegal drugs need to be decriminalized and taken out of the hands of the drug dealers and put in the control of the government. Alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs are handled this way. Why not all drugs? This would also enable the funds put into futile law enforcement into the regulation of the drugs and treatment for the drug addicts. Drug use and abuse is a health care issue and not a criminal issue.