Solution to California housing problem and prisoner employment issues: use prison labor:

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by GSR13

You gotta build up at this point, not out.

From crescent city to San Francisco there’s so much free coastal land it’ll make your head spin.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Those are just "wages". What about the training cost? The various overhead cost including "work place violence" so insurance cost, having armed guards watching these guys build homes, etc?

Mind you, I don't work in the prison system so I'm not an expert but from what I've researched, the inmates participating in this type of program would have to be low-risk and have minimum-custody status, just like the ones who work as firefighters. Those inmates undergo a two-week training for that specific task but as construction workers, I think they would have to fall under the same category (minimum risk) and commit to working along side those more experienced. There may be one or two guards present during working hours but that's just a supposition. Maybe there are none and only show up at the end of the day to transport them.

As for pay? That's up to the prison but as firefighters, these people are paid $2 per day and $1/hr when they are on the front lines. Of course, construction is totally different so I'm sure they wouldn't be receiving any other incentive like hazard pay. They might also receive good behavior credits. i.e. one day off their sentence for every day they work. That's how it works with the firefighters.

Prisoners are insured through the state, like they've always been. And it doesn't matter whether they are working inside or outside prison walls. It's just as likely they'd cut their finger off with a saw as is it to being knifed on the inside.

One thing that stands out is the recidivism rate. The rate of re-offending is 10% lower than those who don't work in these types of programs.

This type of work would do best for government sanctioned housing. I see nothing wrong in utilizing low risk inmates for this. It's a good trade and an opportunity for a better future.

[semispherical]

Originally Posted by majoun

Nitpick: there was no such thing as crack cocaine when Nixon was president, and the overwhelming majority of cocaine users when Nixon was president were white. I think you mean heroin or meth

Thanks for factchecking me majoun! Duh. Yes, Nixon (according to John Ehrlichman, who ought to know) increased the penalties on heroin, thought to be used disproportionately by black people.

Report: Nixon aide says war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies - CNNPolitics

It was during the Reagan years that the distinction was made between crack and powder cocaine, for a similar reason.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Private sector employees also have to be trained and have insurance costs, you’re ignoring the facts.

Yes they do, and private sector employers, such as myself who has hired over 400 different individual employees in the past 7 years, have to shoulder an enormous cost to provide that insurance for their employees.

You want to talk about facts? How many people have you hired for your company, and what was your group cost for providing that insurance?

Oh wait, you never actually ever hired anyone, let alone were responsible for paying anyone money and benefits as part of their compensation, so you are probably completely unfamiliar with what it costs.

Maybe you should do some research.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Mind you, I don't work in the prison system so I'm not an expert but from what I've researched, the inmates participating in this type of program would have to be low-risk and have minimum-custody status, just like the ones who work as firefighters. Those inmates undergo a two-week training for that specific task but as construction workers, I think they would have to fall under the same category (minimum risk) and commit to working along side those more experienced. There may be one or two guards present during working hours but that's just a supposition. Maybe there are none and only show up at the end of the day to transport them.

As for pay? That's up to the prison but as firefighters, these people are paid $2 per day and $1/hr when they are on the front lines. Of course, construction is totally different so I'm sure they wouldn't be receiving any other incentive like hazard pay. They might also receive good behavior credits. i.e. one day off their sentence for every day they work. That's how it works with the firefighters.

Prisoners are insured through the state, like they've always been. And it doesn't matter whether they are working inside or outside prison walls. It's just as likely they'd cut their finger off with a saw as is it to being knifed on the inside.

One thing that stands out is the recidivism rate. The rate of re-offending is 10% lower than those who don't work in these types of programs.

This type of work would do best for government sanctioned housing. I see nothing wrong in utilizing low risk inmates for this. It's a good trade and an opportunity for a better future.

So that's what you and Perma Bear have to figure out.

Are the costs of converting and training prisoners into becoming full on tradesmen, plus insuring them, guarding them at the work site, etc, cheaper than simply keeping them in prison? Also, compare that cost to hiring an already fully trained tradesmen. What if the market for construction starts to boom again, and now suddenly all of these talented tradesmen are in the labor pool, PLUS all these converted prisoners? Would the program still make sense?

If so, what's the difference in cost, and is the benefit significant enough that the program is not only fiscally responsible, but also effective at re-integrating these people back into public life. Who will do this study? How much will it cost? University studies can be quite expensive.

We haven't even discussed what private sector developer would be willing to use "prison labor" to build their tract homes. Would there be any takers? If not private sector developers, then is the state going to get into the business of building homes? If so that increases the cost further.

For many people who think with their "feelings", programs like this seem to resonate, until they actually work out the cost/benefit. I wish more people would do this before jumping on tax increases, voting for Democrats, or any other questionable action they might take in their lives.