Getting the US out of debt

Your personal observations about the proficiency of female workers is noted, but in the event that one of those colleagues was just as competent to you, all else being equal, she would not be paid as much, and performance reviews would rate her as less competent. This is not to suggest that being male is an automatic guarantee of success, but it does contribute to employment and pay.

Again, cost is not the only factor in employment. 

pervasive stereotypes affect employer decisions in pay.

Not on any meaningful level. Employers care about money, not genitalia or other social stereotypes, otherwise, robots wouldn't be replacing people.

Regardless of actual output, it was shown that perceptions about productivity of certain genders play into hiring decisions when qualifications are equal. 

Unless you suggest that absolutely no female candidate can equal a male in terms of delivering output, your argument doesn't really hold water. 

Not at all when your 1st source has the word "might" in it.

The second source has the word "may" in the 1st thesis statement.

The fourth source throws the cost to the employer for retaining a worker into the ether, although they acknowledge the "mystical unexplained 1/3" exists...while admitting 2/3 can definitely be attributed to production incompetency

I noticed how nearly all of these studies lie heavily on worker testimonials and very little on employer testimonials. I already pointed out nearly every worker is subject to some form of Dunning-Kruger where a worker artificially overinflates their self-worth. That is a known psychological trait of all humans, which is why a competent researcher should be relying much more on employer testimonials and little to none of the worker testimonials to get accurate actual data on productivity.

Alright then. What is it attributed to? 

One of them used randomized data samples from 3,000 people. 

Are you gonna edit the comment again? This seems to me like you ceded sarcastically. 

It's in sheet 37.

There's 90 jobs on the list.  They would need a good reason to reject all 90 jobs.

Employers have training programs for prospective employees already put in place.  If they don't have the skills for one job, then they try a different job.  There's 90 jobs on the list.  They'll find something that they like.

It leads to both.  If you work for a nuclear power plant for instance, as the population triples, the energy demands triple as well.

As that happens, the number of people who need to manage the energy supply also needs to triple.

This is explained by the fact that the US population is growing, but unemployment is going down.

If the US had 1 billion people in it, it's population density would be around 100 people per km2.  To put that into perspective, the population density of the UK is roughly 3x this.  The UK isn't exactly the most crowded place in the world, and America's population density would still be a third of that.

With the exception of federal employees, how?

If your middle class or rich, your saving more than 10% probably.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13C09M6rSyjeQKNWXh_hG-9MreNwat2vEZVfO4E1zZKY/edit#gid=320988619 shows how the poor can afford this (B114).

Your plan is targeting the poor, who typically have a 10% debt-to-savings ratio. Will you pay for classes that teach them about saving? Furthermore, what the specific effect of a 10% savings rate in your plan?

Whoever had the stock to begin with.  The poor, if they pursue my plan would get enough money from their jobs to buy stock.

I said $60,000 per year.  Given that they are working 3 months, every homeless liberator gets $15,000 for helping out 100 homeless people.

15000* 5000 (the number of liberators) = 75 million.  For the federal government, this is not expensive; about 25 cents per taxpayer.

My calculation assumes that the homeless person gets hooked up with a job opportunity on the first day, they take their time with the courses, all with the government taking a hands off approach to the person's progress out of poverty except for asking questions if they get stuck on the way, then a homeless liberator helps them out with advice and potentially whatever they need.  It only takes one day to sign up for a course, and then the homeless person does pretty much the rest.

Sales tax and capitol gains tax.  These taxes are harder to dodge for immigrants and rich people, and given that our population would skyrocket with open borders, we can have less taxes but more government revenue because there would be more salaries paying taxes to the government.

No because the poor would get better jobs that increase their overall salary.  Some of the money they would spend on better nesseseties, some they would spend on luxuries, some on investments.  These all would get taxed one way or another.  Some they save, but there's more money overall in their checkbooks so they can do more things with it.

Sure, the EPI data was flawed. I'll buy that. But one of the criticisms of the EPI report is chiefly the point that I am trying to make. When we are concerning ourselves with non-supervisory and production jobs, there is a discrepancy between pay and productivity (1). The BLS data also showed this. Would this affect employment prospects? I would imagine so if the jobs in question are subject to this discrepancy.

State-sponsored vocational rehabilitation programs are far from detention centers. I don't know exactly what program you refer to when you describe homeless rehabilitation as such either. But, I think that we can agree that private enterprises would likely never want to create a holistic "homeless rehab" program to get people placed into jobs. The homeless can't pay for it. 

Don't underestimate the detriments of depression or anxiety. They cost employers (2) and are major predictors of gainful employment (3). The cost of depression alone is pegged to be $210 billion dollars per year (8). Employers worry about the cost of accommodating mentally ill people, cohesion with other coworkers, and absenteeism (4). Those with depression are often blamed for being unproductive when compared to their peers, too (4). 

There's also the issue of severity. Homeless people are more likely to be victimized by sexual predators and perpetrators of assault. These traumas tend to worsen mental health issues. A 2015 HUD study concluded that 25% of the homeless population had a severe mental illness using head counts from 2015 (or roughly 140,000 people) (5). Other studies tend to conclude that a higher proportion of the homeless population suffers from extreme mental illness.  My original post also shows that there were other barriers to employment too, such as incarceration and persistent stigma against homeless people. Image is also a problem. If someone showed up to an interview for any position, they would be expected to look somewhat presentable. Without showers or clean clothes, the homeless cannot meet this expectation 100% of the time.

The homeless population is aging and may not be suited to manual labor given the wear-and-tear of age and poverty that make them more prone to on-the-job accidents (6). Strapping young people are more likely to take these jobs and outperform their older counterparts. Plus, the homeless are precluded from the workforce for quite a few reasons that my original post highlighted and that I've already written above. These don't suddenly vanish because manual labor jobs have lower entry-level requirements than other sectors. Also, the homeless aren't competing with no-one. What about undocumented immigrants and penal labor? What about sheltered workshops that are allowed to pay their employees sub-minimum wages (and often no more than a few cents an hour) (7)?

Are purely un-subsidized profit-generating institutions going to spend their limited resources rehabilitating the homeless when there are plenty of other highly qualified candidates for jobs? Who will pay for these rehabilitative institutions if they do exist? The homeless? If the private companies are interested in rehabilitating the homeless, they would have already shown this support through their investment. 

I'll put it this way. I would not have been able to pay for higher education without Voc Rehab. A certain member of my family would have never landed a job without Voc Rehab's support, and he is now in the process of being promoted to a full-time position. Finding jobs in FL with a diagnosis is hard. I'll say that and no more. 

I don't know what specific laws would prevent companies from starting businesses that served the homeless besides the obvious fact that doing so would be economic suicide. There is no profit in providing services unless they are paid for, and the only way that can happen is through people's hard-earned dollars. I know of few homeless people who would be able to buy their way into these programs and eventually pay for a residence. This is the reason that the public sector is championing the rehabilitation movement, private businesses don't want a part in them, and that's not necessarily bad, but "thems the breaks." 

I hope I don't come off as disrespectful.

Well.

Function dictates ability and therefore levels of achievement.

Nonetheless, just answer a question:

Do you think that money is  an integral part of society  or separate from society?

It's just interesting to see how  other discussions within this thread tend to disregard the human issue and solely focus upon the academic issues of monetarism. National debt and debt in general, seemingly become a mathematical and statistical  exercise rather than a social concern.

I personally cannot see how the perceived problem of debt can be addressed unless one also takes into account, perceptible social inequalities.

Nonetheless, I still hold that the monetary system mirrors human ability and therefore as such, is utilised as a stabilising and controlling mechanism that gives order and stability to society.

• How 2019 GDP per human is $79K/year.
  

• How tax revenue would be raised(2020).
  

• How tax revenue would be raised (2021-2036).
  

• How X can pay the taxes.
  
• Spending(2019-2036).
  
• Spending graph(X).
  

Hello.

I think that we have a somewhat circular debate going on here.

I would suggest that answers to all these questions  can be found within previous discourse.

If I'm not mistaken, your 2020 budget proposes a nine trillion dollar increase in the Federal Budget, where 43% (5.4 Trillion) will be appropriated to Medicare 4 All. How is that not an increase in spending?

What about the administrative and utilization costs?

What if they refuse?

What if they don't have the skills? 

Why does a tripling in the population necessarily merit a tripling in energy demanded?

Paying or giving "tax breaks" to employers for taking on low-skilled homeless labor as opposed to high-skilled non-homeless labor.

Where do you account for Utilities? Clothing? Cell phones? Television? Personal computers? Car payments? Public Transportation? What about the cost of living by State?

Will you pay for classes that teach them about saving? Furthermore, what the specific effect of a 10% savings rate in your plan?

And how much of the poor do you expect will purchase stock? 

They do not work on commission.

There are 328 million people in the U.S.

209 million constitute the adult population.

61% of them are employed which amounts to 127.5 million people.

75% of them pay taxes which amounts to 95.6 million.

But you haven't liberated them from poverty in a single day. You merely set them up.

You're assuming an influx of labor supply that would easily be met by a proportional increase in labor demanded. 

The principle on which the calculation is based is simply wrong, yet I still think it is worthwhile to point out that while an increase in wages has been observed in recent years in the US, the Covid-19 situation is likely to profoundly alter last years economic trends.  

I will say what I understood of each spreadsheet before commenting, I won't cover them all, though.

While I have seen many ways to calculate GDP, I must say doing so by adding healthcare bonus to median salary (I believe it is median) is a novelty to me. 

the US government revenue in 2019 being $3.5 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office's Summary for Fiscal Year 2019.

Another important point is that it is assumed the US stock market will triple because of an increase in corporate profits

a ~700 million influx would probably yield apocalyptic economic results on the short and mid runs.

The author assumes a constant GDP increase that, even if it were true on average, is irrelevant since it is being ignorant of economic cycles and brutal shifts in trends caused by external events.

A sales tax for example (as you propose it) is a non-discriminatory flat tax

A tax on "stock revenue" can discourage investing as well and even lead corporations to move financial operations elsewhere (Luxembourg attracting a large number of European investment funds is an example, even though they do have taxation they offer an overall easier framework than other countries)