Employment Guarantee

[metis]

It would be demeaning for me to have demeaning work. That's just how I'd see it. I've been asked to do meaningless work, I hated it. Others may see it differently, that's fine.

I just think we could somehow do better.

If one is on the dole, they should be willing to take any work. Either that or they shouldn't apply for either u.e. or welfare, imo.

 

[metis]

I think I once posted an idea about 'Pointless work' sponsored by govt. for people who needed welfare. The managers should try to make work as meaningful as possible, but in cases where there were competition with the private sector it would be better to do pointless work than compete with the market. Work like that is pretty difficult for most people. I believe the objections given to me at the time were that it would be demeaning, but I think as long as the hours were reasonable it wouldn't be demeaning. Also, bear in mind that automation is likely to take away more kinds of work in the near future.

I have not recommended pointless work-- quite the opposite. I paraphrased Keynes because even pointless work is probably better than no work at all if one is on the dole. And what could be more pointless than sitting around and doing nothing while collecting u.e. or welfare. Mentally or physically handicapped are the exception to the rule, of course.

When I look at the conditions of our major cities, for example, there's a lot of work that could be done. Whether it be cleanup, helping the elderly and handicapped, minor repairs on homes for the poor, etc. In the Detroit area, for example, it's hard to tell the difference between a garbage dump and our expressways. Some inner-city lots are just places for dumping. Rivers and streams can be cleaned up.

So, instead of just doling out checks and getting nothing in return, why not employ those who cannot find a job. It helps them and it helps society. When they find a better job, then they're free to switch.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That was sarcasm but, you might like this...

"Capitalism and Corporations have devised a new method of slavery under the guise of the free market system. We are led to believe that we live in a free economy, and have the right to choose both our profession and employer. If you examine how our economy really works, you will find that corporations in a capitalistic society are not very different from the slave owners of the earlier generations. The social level we are born into generally dictates our profession and opportunities for employment. In fact, I believe that corporate employment is no more than a new method of slavery that is even more profitable for the ruling class. I heard a quote recently from Chairman Mao of China that stated, Capitalism is the highest form of Communism. We have been duped by propaganda into believing that we have economic freedom, when this is actually far from the truth."

Corporate Slavery

I'm well aware of the idea. W.E.B. De Bois wrote that modern capitalism is creating a new form of slavery, and he lived during a time that provided him a very unique and insightful look at the development of modern capitalism.
Personally, I'm not too fond of using the word slave, because we are not owned. Imprisoned doesn't really quite fit either. But, given that "human resources" has become the commonly used word, I think it is suitable and appropriate to say that under capitalism we are resources to be exploited and squandered. We need to focus more on the "human" part, and neglect the "resource" part if we are to make any significant progress in achieving a more equitable economic climate.

 

[Nakosis]

If one is on the dole, they should be willing to take any work. Either that or they shouldn't apply for either u.e. or welfare, imo.

How do you feel about the folks in Seattle asking to work less hours now that they are making $15 an hour. They could be making more money, but if they do, their welfare gets cut off.

Seattle workers are asking for less hours so they can stay in subsidized housing - Jason Rantz Show at KIRORadio.com

The current setup maybe incentivising folks to work less. Get paid more, work less, keep the welfare.

 

[metis]

How do you feel about the folks in Seattle asking to work less hours now that they are making $15 an hour. They could be making more money, but if they do, their welfare gets cut off.

Seattle workers are asking for less hours so they can stay in subsidized housing - Jason Rantz Show at KIRORadio.com

The current setup maybe incentivising folks to work less. Get paid more, work less, keep the welfare.

This is not really an issue I've been dealing with, and I would have to know more about that local situation in order to even think of having an opinion on it. As it is, I don't have time to read the link as I'm outta here in just a few minutes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is not really an issue I've been dealing with, and I would have to know more about that local situation in order to even think of having an opinion on it. As it is, I don't have time to read the link as I'm outta here in just a few minutes.

My guess is it is probably a situation of making too much for assistance, but not enough to actually make it on your own. In a way, similar to my position of being advised by a case worker to be choosy about what jobs I take, because if they offer insurance I will lose the insurance I have and have to settle for the insurance offered, even if it doesn't cover the services I need.

 

[Revoltingest]

Like punishment? Kind of demeaning isn't it? In California it's not PC to demean the poor. Slave labor....
You get to be a slave to the state until you can afford to pay for your own debts. Just can't word it that way. Slavery isn't PC either.

It wouldn't be slavery at all.
Anyone who didn't want to work would have the option to opt out.
But they won't be paid.
Slavery is so misunderstood by many.....it's not about the necessity of working in order to receive compensation.
It's about being owned, & not even being paid for work, with no choice in the matter.

 

[dust1n]

How do you feel about the folks in Seattle asking to work less hours now that they are making $15 an hour. They could be making more money, but if they do, their welfare gets cut off.

Seattle workers are asking for less hours so they can stay in subsidized housing - Jason Rantz Show at KIRORadio.com

The current setup maybe incentivising folks to work less. Get paid more, work less, keep the welfare.

"Workers recently asking for reduced hours, as they feared that their higher wages now put them at risk of losing housing subsidies.

Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority.

Gibson told KIRO 7 she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle’s phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents.

For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organization’s 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer’s patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies. They now earn at least $13 an hour, after they increased wages at all levels in April, Gibson said.

“This has nothing to do with people’s willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life,” Gibson said.
Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours.

“The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge,” she said."

Nonprofit employer: Workers requested reduced hours to stay in... | www.kirotv.com

 

[Wirey]

I'm imaging the terrible scummy people who will gravitate towards such projects are the ones that are already a tax burden, but are broke, resigned to not changing, and not working.

I'm originally from Eastern Canada, and it's an economic backwater. There have already been programs like this tried out there, and they have all failed for exactly the reason I mentioned. There are people who subsist exclusively on government handouts and continue to stay in areas with little or no future while there are economic booms occurring in other sections of the country. We give them a free handout, they take it, and everyone looks surprised when they show zero ambition. Right now Canada has to bring in workers from foreign countries, including the US, while my brother in law makes $25 an hour watching a pile driver build a dock for a fishing industry that no longer exists. Why should he try to do better by uprooting his family and working harder?

 

[Nakosis]

My guess is it is probably a situation of making too much for assistance, but not enough to actually make it on your own. In a way, similar to my position of being advised by a case worker to be choosy about what jobs I take, because if they offer insurance I will lose the insurance I have and have to settle for the insurance offered, even if it doesn't cover the services I need.

I've wondered why the government doesn't hire it's own doctors and open it's own clinics.
Open it's own factories, run it's own farms. This would provide competition for workers and companies with competition in the market place. Hire folks to build housing. Take some land and put people to work building their own housing. If they are unskilled then hire skilled folks to train them.

You can still fight the war on over consumption. Just to provide enough food, enough housing, enough medical. There should be plenty of work available. Just use the resource of unemployed people.

 

[metis]

I'm originally from Eastern Canada, and it's an economic backwater. There have already been programs like this tried out there, and they have all failed for exactly the reason I mentioned. There are people who subsist exclusively on government handouts and continue to stay in areas with little or no future while there are economic booms occurring in other sections of the country. We give them a free handout, they take it, and everyone looks surprised when they show zero ambition. Right now Canada has to bring in workers from foreign countries, including the US, while my brother in law makes $25 an hour watching a pile driver build a dock for a fishing industry that no longer exists. Why should he try to do better by uprooting his family and working harder?

Just a quick note in that this is not what I was proposing since I lean more in the direction of having a stop-gap approach more around the minimum wage level.

Gotta go, so I hope all here have a great weekend.

 

[dust1n]

I'm originally from Eastern Canada, and it's an economic backwater. There have already been programs like this tried out there, and they have all failed for exactly the reason I mentioned. There are people who subsist exclusively on government handouts and continue to stay in areas with little or no future while there are economic booms occurring in other sections of the country. We give them a free handout, they take it, and everyone looks surprised when they show zero ambition. Right now Canada has to bring in workers from foreign countries, including the US, while my brother in law makes $25 an hour watching a pile driver build a dock for a fishing industry that no longer exists. Why should he try to do better by uprooting his family and working harder?

I'm lost. Why would you have a program that pays people 25/hour to build docks that no one needs?

 

[Nakosis]

"Workers recently asking for reduced hours, as they feared that their higher wages now put them at risk of losing housing subsidies.

Yes, increasing the minimum wage doesn't necessarily solve the problem. It is a lot more complex.

The government subsidizes housing, but they don't build it? Why not take some government owned land, hire and provide training for folks to build housing? It doesn't have to be great homes, just clean and affordable.

I suspect because it will cause harm to the real estate business. It will cause private industry to suffer losses.

 

[Wirey]

I'm lost. Why would you have a program that pays people 25/hour to build docks that no one needs?

For the exact same reasons mentioned in your OP.

 

[dust1n]

Yes, increasing the minimum wage doesn't necessarily solve the problem. It is a lot more complex.

The government subsidizes housing, but they don't build it? Why not take some government owned land, hire and provide training for folks to build housing? It doesn't have to be great homes, just clean and affordable.

I suspect because it will cause harm to the real estate business. It will cause private industry to suffer losses.

Basically. Every time the government doesn't anything, private interests are going to complain that they are cutting into their business. It's also a bit harder to compete with public projects generally have to disclose all the activities to the public, including their competitors. Not to mention the trademark case that made it essentially impossible for the government to trademark anything a employee might make with its money and resources.

 

[dust1n]

For the exact same reasons mentioned in your OP.

Right, except we have huge infrastructure problems that actually need to be addressed; not building pointless infrastructure for the sake of building pointless infrastructure. We need bridges and roads maintained.

 

[Wirey]

Right, except we have huge infrastructure problems that actually need to be addressed; not building pointless infrastructure for the sake of building pointless infrastructure. We need bridges and roads maintained.

That's not what will happen. Areas with heavy usage of the infrastructure also have heavy rates of employment. Hence the heavy usage. It's the places where everything has died that require the assistance, and fixing roads no one is using doesn't accomplish a thing. If you're going to force the people to move to a more economically viable area anyway, so they can fix infrastructure that's in use, why not just legislate that you have to move when a job is available, and use the money to cover moving expenses one time? Saves taxes and gives people an incentive to improve themselves instead of getting a handout that the rest of us foot the bill for. Is society about some of us carrying the rest, or do we all have a part to play?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here in America, we do have a very dire need for bridge maintenance. People won't have to move, because chances are very good that the bridges in their own community need worked on.

Is society about some of us carrying the rest, or do we all have a part to play?

Pretty much. We constantly work so a few can rake in the huge profits and sit on their *** and make even more money because they have a ton of money because we propped them up and put them there.

 

[Wirey]

Here in America, we do have a very dire need for bridge maintenance. People won't have to move, because chances are very good that the bridges in their own community need worked on.

Do these people have the skills necessary to fix a bridge? Most people I know who are chronically unemployed can't weld or build concrete forms. Those tasks require actual skill and training. And what do you do with the bridge maintenance guys you just put out on the street? Bring them back at reduced pay on Workfare so society can make sure they're not unemployed?

 

[Revoltingest]

Pretty much. We constantly work so a few can rake in the huge profits and sit on their *** and make even more money because they have a ton of money because we propped them up and put them there.

Boy, I wanna belong to that group!
But alas, I find that the more I make, the more that I am the one propping up the system with 6 figure income taxes.
People who receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes are just along for a free ride.