Is it the government's job to keep people employed for the sake of employing them? No!
There are times in history where government spending can help, like during the Great Depression. The government spent a lot of money on public works projects to help put some people back to work. But this didn't do much to actually end the depression. It was the onset of WWII and the subsequent ramp-up to a war economy that really ended the Depression.
WWII and the rampup was still a public works project.
What really turned the economy for good imo was not WWII but the result of WWII -- all of our competitors on the international stage having large parts of their population and infrastructure destroyed. A few year grace period while the rest of the world rebuilt turned into 50 years of global corporate hegemony.
> Is it the government's job to keep people employed for the sake of employing them? No!
The most basic task of government is to maintain a stable social order (see, e.g., the preamble to the U.S. Constitution). With sustained, pervasive unemployment comes social unrest (see any number of examples from the past 100 years). So ....
> The government spent a lot of money on public works projects to help put some people back to work. But this didn't do much to actually end the depression. It was the onset of WWII and the subsequent ramp-up to a war economy that really ended the Depression.
According to most economists (from what I've read), the New Deal was doing OK at getting people back to work until 1937, when the government suddenly cut its spending and raised taxes. That threw the economy back into recession.[1] And yes, the massive deficit spending of WWII did indeed pretty much take care of unemployment, and then some.
>The most basic task of government is to maintain a stable social order (see, e.g., the preamble to the U.S. Constitution).
I must say I don't see this language appear in the preamble of the Constitution. The Preamble outlines the purpose of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare" -- not to "provide the general welfare". All a reasonable, healthy government can do is provide a few basic structures for its people to build off of, it can't support the whole country (or really anyone) by itself. Unemployment is a governmental problem only insofar as governmental policy impedes useful production; anything else is pandering politicians attempting to dodge the wrath of an uninformed, slothful populace (because the politician likes prominence, money, and power).
Right, I'm not arguing the philosophical aspect of employing people for the sake of employing people.
However, laid off militants are likely to apply for unemployment benefits + whatever other entitlement programs they have. So in terms of pure numbers there might be some win, but when you cut $100 of military salary, you don't magically save a total of $100, you generate some liabilities on the other end.
All those military salaries also generate income taxes for Federal and state coffers, so now you've got lower revenues to deal with, too.
However, laid off militants are likely to apply for unemployment benefits + whatever other entitlement programs they have.
Perhaps initially. The military population in general is disciplined, educated (or even technically inclined), proud, and self-reliant. I've got to think that demographic is more likely to respond to unemployment by going out and doing stuff than any other.
There are times in history where government spending can help, like during the Great Depression. The government spent a lot of money on public works projects to help put some people back to work. But this didn't do much to actually end the depression. It was the onset of WWII and the subsequent ramp-up to a war economy that really ended the Depression.