We could employ 100k people to dig holes and then fill them back in; should we?
We shouldn't employ people in economically un-viable ways just because they need income. We can just give them money directly, or redirect them to other work, or a combination of the two.
> We could employ 100k people to dig holes and then fill them back in; should we?
If that is what's necessary to provide a social safety net, then maybe so. See the works progress administration for an example of this.
> We can just give them money directly, or redirect them to other work
Ideally yes, but that isn't happening, hence the first option.
We may be straying here, though: this discussion didn't start out with someone saying what someone else should or shouldn't do. We were discussing the ethical and economic consequences of an idea.
We shouldn't employ people in economically un-viable ways just because they need income. We can just give them money directly, or redirect them to other work, or a combination of the two.