Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In another thread, I posted the idea of eliminating existing unemployment AND welfare programs (cash, food and public housing) to a direct jobs program using existing funding. Here's how it works:
1. The goal is to give a temporary job in the public/healthcare/nonprofit sector to anyone who wants one.
2. While in the program, employees can train for a permanent career within in-demand fields like nursing, etc.
3. Certain hours off to interview for permanent positions.
4. Child care assistance for non-school age children, but the employee would pay a portion to help prevent abuse.
5. Program would cost $152 billion/yr to give the 7.6 million families in poverty a $20,000 per year job. (We currently spend $456 billion/yr on all combined welfare programs)
6. There would no longer be food stamps or public housing for anyone who isn't disabled or elderly. People could buy their own food and housing with their salary.
Since people must work to receive assistance, and have programs to help them permanently, this seems to cover liberals concerns about helping the poor, and conservatives concerns about giving handouts. Plus, it uses funds already spent in the existing welfare system and will actually cost much less.
For the libertarians out there, we can do this on the state level if you're worried about the feds controlling jobs nationally.
Do you agree with this type of system? Why or why not?
My original post from the other thread is below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
The employers/nonprofits/hospitals/govt agencies where we placed our clients in the Hurricane Katrina jobs program needed workers and had plenty of work to do, they just didn't have enough current funding to hire anyone. I worked for the government and we provided the funds and paid the employees directly every two weeks.
We also paid for their training within fields that were in-demand, like health care. We actually sent many single mothers through accelerated nursing programs as a CNA (4 weeks), LPN (1 yr), and RN (2 yr) free of charge. Some went through each program, and were off our jobs program in 4 weeks once they got the CNA license and later finished their LPN or RN while working for a health care provider.
In my proposed program, the money to pay employees comes from shifting existing welfare funds to jobs and would follow a similar path as what we did after Katrina. The jobs would be temporary, until they can either be hired on permanently in the current position, or have finished training for an in demand career. There are plenty of nursing jobs for women (or men too), and plenty of skilled blue collar jobs available like machinists, people just aren't training for them so the positions remain open. If government's going to be in the welfare business, they should at least help pay for the training in these in-demand fields.
I am pretty sure there is plenty of work around the country by agencies that don't have enough funding to hire people, the government just doesn't seem to be interested in providing direct jobs instead of sending people welfare and unemployment checks. They should at least use the existing welfare / unemployment funds to hire people part time and give them the rest of the day to search for work / train for a new career.
Last edited by Freedom123; 06-15-2011 at 10:56 AM..
what do you think it will do to wages if every one on Welfare was forced out of the system and into the work force?
Good morning,
Thanks for the response.
I didn't propose they be sent into the private sector (although I'm not 100% against that, but the logistics would have to be worked out). I referred to nonprofits, hospitals/health care, and govt agencies. These temporary jobs should be basic, entry level skill jobs and should have no effect on skilled jobs. Also, the goal is to get these people into the private sector and off the public jobs program through in-demand field job training.
Are you assuming that it's better to give people checks than to give them jobs because it will drive down wages for everyone else?
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
. . . Do you agree with this type of system? Why or why not?
It sounds like a great idea, but the hard part is changing the system.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"
It sounds like a great idea, but the hard part is changing the system.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"
Thanks for the reply. I agree with you, but many things have been changed in history once the public has become aware of and agreed with a better alternative.
I didn't propose they be sent into the private sector (although I'm not 100% against that, but the logistics would have to be worked out). I referred to nonprofits, hospitals/health care, and govt agencies. These temporary jobs should be basic, entry level skill jobs and should have no effect on skilled jobs. Also, the goal is to get these people into the private sector and off the public jobs program through in-demand field job training.
Are you assuming that it's better to give people checks than to give them jobs because it will drive down wages for everyone else?
Places with high rates of poverty have already lowered their qualification for a person to work, Some city Government jobs don't require even a GED. Many low level unskilled jobs are already being filled by people who see these jobs as the last resort or second jobs. IMO welfare is just a way of subsidising small towns or Urban areas where there are not enough opportunities to go around. People who are on disability or welfare solely by choice are bad for the labor system. I wouldn't want to see a whole class of work or certain jobs degraded into "welfare people's jobs"
If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a "reservoir of public employment." These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector.
The problem is the law does not REQUIRE the government to create those jobs, it only gives Congress the permission. Congress has passed the ball to the Federal Reverse to achieve the goal of low unemployment through monetary policy instead of working to directly create the pool of jobs during times of high unemployment.
As someone who leans libertarian, I would support this. What I think it would do is give people purpose and a sense of responsibility, and therefore they wouldn't be complacent and continue to live off of the government, and our tax money. I say let's do it! I am all for helping those that are less fortunate, as there are those out there that just can't catch a break, and I think those people would truly benefit from this type of system, giving them confidence and keeping their self esteem high (hey, being out of work sucks, I've been there). But as for those that are too lazy to work and want to continue to receive a free hand out... well... too bad! Guess ya don't get paid! We cannot continue to go down the current road of government handouts with nothing in return, whether it be to our citizens or our corporations with the bailouts!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"
