Would you support having to work for your benefits?

[prolesunited]

I was talking to my dad, who's 85, last night about the current situation. I really would like to see a WPA-type program put in place. There's so much work to be done to shore up our communities and our infrastructure and so many unemployed people out there with so few jobs to be had.

I would say the majority of those unemployed would like to work, to make a contribution. But there needs to be some organization at the top to channel this energy.

Of course, there would be exceptions, but I think most can find a way to contribute to the collective good.

Do you think this idea is any good? Do you think Americans would buy into it?

[cobalt1999]

1. Americans want to work.

Most don't want handouts. There are plenty of things to do too.

[Warpy]

2. I think just about everybody of working age

would rather get off the couch and out of the bathrobe and go to a job. Staying home with no hope of finding work is the most horribly depressing thing I know, even worse than being old or sick.

If their work showed some real accomplishment, that would make it all the better. Jobs pushing paper all day might be more comfortable, but when you can point to something concrete you helped build, it's a completely different type of satisfaction.

So yes, I think people would appreciate such a program.

[prolesunited]

7. Actually, there sitll would be jobs pushing paper

organizing all of the projects, qualifying people, scheduling, etc., for people with skills in that area. Actually, you could create a whole little shadow economy.

[treestar]

3. Yes. The welfare plan we have comes out of earlier times

It supports mothers with children. In the 1950s and earlier, that was a woman's job. In fact, right wingers should understand this, as they are the ones who insist women should stay in the home taking care of the children. Therefore they should have no problem with welfare as it exists today, and their opposition is probably racist in origen.

But people feel better about themselves if they earned it, and now that includes women. New Deal style job creation could substitute for it.

[napi21]

4. It sounds like a good idea to me. Check out tghe wiki link here

to see how it worked back in the 30's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

[pipi_k]

5. The only problem I have with that would be...

if someone decided that benefits could be cut, like wages, if someone didn't work an "appropriate" number of hours.

But if it's left up to people to choose, then yeah...why not....everyone needs to feel useful in some way.


I myself receive disability benefits, so I can't work, but I am able to contribute to society in a small way. I like to knit and crochet, and I've made preemie hats and burial gowns and blankets for one of the large area hospitals with a NICU. In fact, I have a box upstairs waiting to be mailed out.

I'm also thinking of making lap afghans for donation to area nursing homes.


Even if people can't work for pay, they can still contribute somehow...

:)

[prolesunited]

6. That's really nice

I'm sure the parents appreciate it so much.

[pipi_k]

9. I got the idea when

my grandson was in the NICU for a bit after he was born.

My daughter showed me some of the little hats he wore while he was there.

I was so touched.

Some unknown person went to the trouble of making that hat. We'll never know who she is, she'll never know who we are.

Anonymous giving is the best giving of all...

:)

[Blue Dog Dominion]

8. I already do work for my benefits.

I don't want to have to work harder for paying for others benefits while reducing mine. Call me selfish.

[LanternWaste]

11. O-kay, consider it done.

"Call me selfish..."

O-kay, consider it done.

[Blue Dog Dominion]

20. Let's do lunch

You pick up the tab. I'll cover the tip.

[LanternWaste]

21. Sorry-- I stopped doing lunch

"Let's do lunch..."

Sorry-- I stopped doing lunch with people who call themselves selfish some time ago, and relegate myself to lunches only with the nice people of the world.



Dignity has no income level...

[prolesunited]

12. Perhaps you are not getting my point

Rather that just handing out unemployment checks, start a job works program so that we get projects completed in our communities and give people the satisfaction and dignity of work.

Or maybe you can explain your point better.

[Blue Dog Dominion]

19. Ok, now I get your point

For projects like roads and other infrastrucure, then hell yes.

For projects to build an Opera House that relativly few in the community will use, I'd rather not.

[Ganja Ninja]

10. If I'm working then I expect to get a paycheck not a handout.

The idea that I'm getting unemployment and working for it seems like just another step backward for labor in this country. If you're not working then you're not working. If you are working then you have a JOB and that's what it should be called.

[prolesunited]

13. I think we're arguing about semantics

or maybe I'm not making myself clear. Instead of just collecting unemployment, people would be enrolled in a federal jobs program structured like the WPA.

[Ganja Ninja]

15. This kind of program has a potential for abuse

What happens if the government offers me a job and for some (good) reason I have to turn it down? Am I then declared ineligible for unemployment? Will I have to take whatever they offer where ever its located despite any physical limitations I have or no matter the hardship it may impose upon me?

See, I ask these questions because this is what the GOP will try to turn a program like this into. They'll use it as an excuse to deny people's benefits. I'm too old to be swinging around on the side of a mountain somewhere with a jack hammer trying to build a dam. If people are going to be employed by the government then they should be considered an employee of the government and they should get all the benefits other government employees get. There should be no second class employees public or private.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. I Think Any Individual That Is Capable To Do So Should Have To Do Community Service Or Other Work In

order to receive benefits. Why not?

(and by capable I mean not just physically, but also circumstantially such as not having to take care of their children etc)

[stuckinlodi]

16. I don't "work"

I take care of my elderly, disabled father full time. I would just like to be able to buy into Medicare - I don't want any money for what I do. If I don't "work", should I be denied heathcare?

[ThomWV]

17. My dear friend, they wouln't call it unemployment benefits if there was a job to be had

Once the Government hires you your unemployed status ends - doesn't matter if its a make-work project or not. Unemployment is for people who haven't been hired by anyone yet and for those who still will not have been hired even though Government hiring - which is what you are really talking about - has not utilized them yet.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. It sounds good, but actually it's the start of a slippery slope.

There are several good arguments against it:

People who can't work, because they're disabled or caring for someone or something. In principle, you can create exclusions for such people; in practice, some people who deserve such exclusions will always fail to get them.

The fact that it's likely to lead to increasingly unpleasant jobs for increasingly low wages once the principle has been established.

The fact that if you're doing one of these makework jobs, it will be a lot harder to find a decent job than if you have more time and energy to spare.

The fact that even people who could work and don't shouldn't outright starve.

What motivation would people in such jobs have to work hard? There is no way of motivating them that doesn't give their line managers and foremen undue power over them, without going outside your "no benefits without work" scheme.

Once you've opened the trapdoor to such options, what will happen the next time the Republicans are back in power?




By all means, have the government try to create more jobs restoring infrastructure. But always remember that a) some people will have legitimate reasons for not taking them and b) even those who don't shouldn't starve in a first world country.