The Job Guarantee Is A Good Idea.

Re: CI may not be acceptable by societyWell, as I stated in round 1, 78% of people who know about cooperatives, prefer to shop at them. That's indication that it would be accepted by society since the people who know about them, strongly prefer cooperatives. Remember, CI is just a society that has a majority prevalence of worker cooperatives. The question is, would society accept JG? You haven't personally offered any statistics on whether society would. Now, I don't exactly trust the huffington post, but it was the only poll I found that was relevant to JG. According to this poll, only 47% of Americans support JG[10], that's barely more than the 41% who oppose it, and it's within the margin of error. Keep in mind, the number in support of JG may be inflated a little considering huffington post has a liberal bias[11]. They may have worded the question in such a way, with a liberal bias, that made more people respond that they support the JG than who actually do. The actual number of people who support the JG, then, could be lower for 1) it's within the margin of error and 2) the question may have been worded with a liberal bias considering it came from a liberal organization. Now, as anyone knows, I'm neither conservative nor liberal, so I don't trust any sources that have either bias. I generally go with independent sources that have minimal bias and I seek out sources usually like this unless I can't find a source talking about the relevant information I need. If that's the case, then I sometimes rely on a conservative or liberal source for the information, but with much scrutiny, like I did here where I pointed out that the percentage is within a margin of error, and the question may have been worded with a liberal bias. Anyways, these numbers, if we are to accept the Huffington Post numbers outright, indicate that cooperatives would be more acceptable to society than a Job Guarantee program. Both conservatives and liberals alike support cooperatives(granted I think the number of conservatives who do is a little lower, but I believe it's still a majority of conservatives given how high the support for cooperatives is), whereas I'm pretty sure just liberally-minded people support Job Guarantee. Cooperatives would be a bi-partisan solution essentially, and JG wouldn't. The greater point, weather it is JG or CI the government of the day could seek to dismantle either one.It would be foolish of the government to dismantle CI. Again, a vast majority of people who know about cooperatives prefer cooperatives. If we ever got to the point where we transitioned to a cooperative individualist society, I'm quite certain everyone would like it much more than our capitalist system, and it would be foolish for anyone in the government to dismantle it, because if they did, they would likely be voted out quickly. However, when it comes to JG, the numbers of those who oppose it and support it are so close, it's more likely a government official will do something against it. I would argue that the CI is unlikely to be a better alternative to JG {at least at this time} because it is not a widely tested approach.It may not be a widely tested approach now, but neither is JG by my understanding. Additionally, one society is very close to being cooperative individualist. The Romagna province in Italy has 40% or so of their businesses as worker cooperatives. . Co-operatives are also not always successful. Some have failed and some have found it hard to keep up with the competition because of the slow process of democratic decision making.Actually, this isn't true. Sure, some of them fail, but when you compare the percent of cooperatives who fail with the percent of traditional businesses, traditional businesses fail at three times the rate. 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model. [12, pg 8]. Sure, 1 in 5 cooperatives fail pretty early, but look at how bad traditional businesses are in comparison! They fail at three times the rate! 20% of cooperatives fail whereas for traditional businesses, about 60% fail. If we had mostly worker cooperatives, this would provide security for workers in comparison to the current economy. More of them would not have to worry about their business failing. Additionally, worker coops are actually much faster and efficient for a number of reasons according to this scientific peer-reviewed publication on the matter:1) "A co-op mitigates the agency cost associated with a corporation's division between ownership and control". Since co-ops are owned by the workers, they are much more likely to be informed about the business decisions than if they weren't owners, thus there is no need to spend extra time from business owners to educate them on this matter.[13, pgs 124-125)2) Worker co-ops eliminate "the separation of interests between workers and owners."[13 pg 125] As one can imagine, there are many instances in which a conventional firm would be presented with opportunities where they can make a decision that more benefits them and harms the workers. The workers would be opposed to this, and normally what happens in a conventional firm, is that bargaining goes on and this takes up precious time that could be devoted to work. In a co-op, this bargaining would not take place, since worker-owners would likely choose what benefits the majority of the workers, whereas in a traditional business, the owner would choose what only benefits themselves and that leads to bargaining.3) Workers are able to monitor each other better than in traditional businesses where the monitor is a single manager [13, pgs 125-126]. This makes sense as well, since in co-ops, the workers are the ones who make the decisions of the company, and would be involved in hiring and firing other workers. Co-workers are more often among their co-workers than a manager is, so they would be able to monitor their co-workers more effectively than a manager. This provides incentive for each worker to provide their best work and not laze around.JG is backed up by government funding and so the government can just keep allocating money to not for profits or allocating money for public sector jobs during recessions.This money has to come from somewhere. If we borrow it, then we'll just be in more debt. At some point, the loaners will come after the US governemnt to pay off that debt. Sources:[10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[11] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...[12] https://www.uk.coop...[13] citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.366.5059&rep=rep1&type=pdf