Communism protects against job insecurity

The argument

If the United States government were to own all means of production, then there could be a job for anybody. Instead of the present system of competing for jobs, communism would recognize the skills and strengths of every individual and tailor a job for them. Each individual would be expected to do their part in order to receive benefits. In a communist society, everyone would be allowed to be educated, for free, which would overall increase jobs and skills for people. People would not be pushed to live their lives or career "for the money". Thus, because of elevated levels of anxiety, frustration, disappointment, alienation, and depression. The unemployed are expected to exhibit poorer mental health. In addition, these emotions are likely to be more pronounced among those who assume greater financial responsibilities and individuals with a greater sense of self-efficacy fostered by previous success in various fields, including school and work. Communism would ensure job security and, therefore, happier individuals. Everyone can work harmoniously in communist societies without stepping on each other's toes. Work, accountability, and rewards are shared equally between people. If individuals feel no envy, jealousy, or have goals that are contradictory to the state's objectives, then it is possible to sustain harmonious economic growth. The opposite, or capitalism, enables the rich to become richer and the poor to stay poor.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Under a communist society, everybody would be paid the same in order to live the same. This would be damaging to the USA because it could lead to individuals becoming "lazy" or unmotivated in their job field. It would be unfair for a doctor or scientist to be paid the same as a server. A doctor or scientist has a harder job that requires more skills than that of a server, which most people could do. If these three jobs were paid the same, then there would be no motivation to improve or create innovative jobs or positions that improve society. Under communism, people have a guaranteed job, and the standard of living stays the same. They have health insurance, and they have education; there is no fear of poverty. If individuals have guaranteed jobs without fear of being terminated, people become lazy.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Matching every person to a tailored role requires information no central authority has ever held. The historical attempts produced administrative allocation, quotas and directed labour rather than tailoring, and full employment was sustained substantially through overstaffing. A guaranteed post is not a job matched to a person's strengths, and the premise treats the difficulty as solved by ownership alone. [Rejecting P2] Free education and guaranteed work are separable from common ownership; several market economies provide the first and approximate the second through active labour-market policy, job guarantees and unemployment insurance. The premise attributes to one system what does not require it — and the mental-health literature it invokes concerns loss of income, status and structure, which directed work can supply badly as easily as well. [Rejecting P3] The comparison sets an idealised version of one system against an unflattering version of the other. Security is one determinant of wellbeing among several, alongside autonomy at work, the ability to change occupation, and voice. The objection on record is about incentive: if effort, training and difficulty are not reflected in reward, the premise needs an account of what sustains the long training a doctor undertakes. Viability in the USA is besides a question of political feasibility, which none of the premises addresses.