Is littering good for the economy?

Question

I was wondering if littering could possibly be good for the economy, hear me out. There are thousands of unemployed people all over the country looking for jobs. Now say littering wasn't illegal, it was encouraged. Now were not talking oil spills but little stuff like cans and wrappers. Now the Government would then give jobs to people who desperately need them. They would pick up the trash and get a paycheck each week. Also they would be responsible for getting recyclables and other segments of trash into correct groups. The money from their paycheck would come from this. Company's already pay for recyclables and we wouldn't be wasting some by throwing them in the trash. It would also be good for nature because people litter everyday right now, but their is no one to pick us up and our streets look very dirty. With littering being legal, most people wouldn't change their habits, but the litter would now be picked up. This idea would give more people jobs, we would be a more Eco society by using more recyclables and we would also be helping the environment. Any thoughts?

Answer 1

uncat - very good answer

littering and recycling are not related.  In fact you are wasting the energy of the "jobless" by having them wander all over creation to pick up the unsightly results - which would always be unsightly, as they could never keep up unless you lined the streets with unemployed people.  Ridiculous.  You might better make it unlawful to litter and set the unemployed on treadmills to create electricity - and please forget I mentioned that!  Some idiot will think it's a good idea.

This is not an occupation that leads to pride or a feeling of self-worth.  I have nothing against setting prisoners to pointless, dirty, unpleasant work, but it is of little value to the unemployed.  Might as well make them sit, speak, roll-over-and-play-dead for their cheque: the mentality is the same.  We need to minimize and streamline the dirty work, so as to leave people free for more pleasant pursuits.

There are plenty of beautification projects, for instance, that could keep people with few skills employed in a much more rewarding manner.  It has been shown that communities with many trees and gardens have lower crime and better health.  Start planting.  And quit littering.

Answer 2

You are suggesting creating another problem to correct an existing problem, and that is just illogical.

During the Great Depression, the "New Deal" was introduced by FDR, which created jobs by builidng dams, and other things that provided jobs and also improved America as a whole.

But creating a new problem just to attempt to fix an existing problem just doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Also health and safety would be a concern. Littering laws are not just to have pretty clean streets. It is a sanitation issue, and can cause disease. Did you know that street sweepers have reduced disease by almost half since that practice began. So if you simply allowed people to be lazy and litter because it will provide a job for someone else to later come and pick it up, the time between would cause a mess, and possibly fester bacterial diseases and other nasty stuff.

Answer 3

No.  This is also known as the "broken window" fallacy (I break someone's window, they have to pay somebody to repair it, therefore I helped the economy.)  You're right that people could be employed in picking up the litter, but at the end of the cycle (street is empty -> people litter -> litter is picked up -> street is empty,) you've spent money, but you haven't produced any new goods or services for the economy, you've just gotten back to zero.

Adding the idea of increasing recycling complicates things, but if you want to increase recycling, there are more efficient ways to do it than encouraging people to litter -- putting more recycling bins out in public, for example.  Also, recycling doesn't really add new goods or services to the economy, it's just a more efficient way of dealing with the costs of waste, so while it's less of a negative for the economy than landfilling usable stuff, it's not really a net positive for the economy.

Answer 4

It's a good idea in theory. But I doubt it'd work.

For one, most of these people are living off government assistance, and don't want to change that. Second, yes, recycling would be great; however, it would not pay enough to actually pay these people a decent salary.

And what happens in the rural areas where they don't have any government officials to take care of things? The litter would just pile up and hurt the environment.

Also, it often costs more to recycle than to create new objects. That would drive prices up for us, and since our economy is struggling as it is, I don't think that's exactly a good idea.

So yeah, good idea. But it still needs some work, ok?

Answer 5

Where I live criminals have that job

if you are in prison you clean up the streets

if you are doing community service you clean up the streets

Answer 6

hmm i agree. however there would have to be a limited amount of littering allowed or else people would just throw whatever they want into wherevr they want  

Answer 7

Yes, that is why i like to p**p on the highway.  Thank you very much.