"Welfare"
"Welfare"
Instead of the existing welfare/food stamp system I have an alternative. Any one, who receives any type of government largess, be it welfare/food stamps/ lives in government paid housing, who is of working age lets say 18-65. This person is required to work at least 35 hours a week at no less than minimum wage. Instead of a welfare check, he/she must work 8 hours a day five days a week paid minimum wage at least. If he can't find private employment the government will find something they can do for pay. He/she may find themselves fixing potholes, sorting garbage at the waste treatment plant, picking apples on a farm, or whatever the gov finds for them to do. If he doesn't show up for work no pay. If he turns 18 lives in a household that receives government benefit (is not a full time student) he has 6 months or so to find work, if not work will be found for him or he has to leave the residence. To qualify for food stamps same deal no work no food stamps. If one is in prison and is deemed low risk, he/she can work on work release same deal minimum wage.
-
Carl White
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm
Re: "Welfare"
The problem with your plan is that organizing the makework will cost more than the work is worth, as well as prevent the welfare recepient from looking for work.williatw wrote:Instead of the existing welfare/food stamp system I have an alternative. Any one, who receives any type of government largess, be it welfare/food stamps/ lives in government paid housing, who is of working age lets say 18-65. This person is required to work at least 35 hours a week at no less than minimum wage. Instead of a welfare check, he/she must work 8 hours a day five days a week paid minimum wage at least. If he can't find private employment the government will find something they can do for pay. He/she may find themselves fixing potholes, sorting garbage at the waste treatment plant, picking apples on a farm, or whatever the gov finds for them to do. If he doesn't show up for work no pay. If he turns 18 lives in a household that receives government benefit (is not a full time student) he has 6 months or so to find work, if not work will be found for him or he has to leave the residence. To qualify for food stamps same deal no work no food stamps. If one is in prison and is deemed low risk, he/she can work on work release same deal minimum wage.
I suppose you could make the program truly cost-effective if everyone just reported to one place. Six tenths could carry rock up a hill, and four tenths back down again. That should please the Grinches who believe that everyone on welfare is a lazy slacker.
Even if that is true, under the existing system we get nothing back, and by giving people something for nothing we encourage indolence. The "workfare" recipient would be free to apply to other jobs if they find one that say pays more than minimum wage, as well as the gov free to contract out the employee to private enterprise. There is all this talk of decaying infrastructure in the U.S. and the supposedly exorbitantly high cost of fixing them. Wonder what 10-40million or so new minimum wage workers would do...surely they could paint bridges and overpasses, fix potholes, pour cement etc. Wonder if the cost estimates are based on paying the existing public works employees who no doubt make allot more than minimum wage to fix them?
Ok, either the system works very, very different in the US from the way it does here, or you are just ignorant.Instead of the existing welfare/food stamp system I have an alternative. Any one, who receives any type of government largess, be it welfare/food stamps/ lives in government paid housing, who is of working age lets say 18-65. This person is required to work at least 35 hours a week at no less than minimum wage. Instead of a welfare check, he/she must work 8 hours a day five days a week paid minimum wage at least. If he can't find private employment the government will find something they can do for pay. He/she may find themselves fixing potholes, sorting garbage at the waste treatment plant, picking apples on a farm, or whatever the gov finds for them to do. If he doesn't show up for work no pay. If he turns 18 lives in a household that receives government benefit (is not a full time student) he has 6 months or so to find work, if not work will be found for him or he has to leave the residence. To qualify for food stamps same deal no work no food stamps. If one is in prison and is deemed low risk, he/she can work on work release same deal minimum wage.
Here, everyone who is unemployed has to report to the Arbeitsamt (office for work, or whatever you want to call it). It is an agency that used to be government run but is now privatized and paid for by the government (dont ask). This office will find a job for you, if you are unable to find one within 6 months of being unemployed. They will send you to apply for whatever open positions that are even halfway matching your qualification, that they can find. You have to bring a stamp from the company that you applied at that you were there to apply for the job.
If you absolutely can not find a job for your qualification, they will simply give you anything, even janitorial jobs, etc.
If you refuse to apply for these jobs, they will cancel your wellfare money.
Some long time unemployed also get courses paid for them, so that they can change their education to a field that is better suited for them.
Things are very different here. And he is not necessarily ignorant, but we can certainly be a bit silly.Skipjack wrote: Ok, either the system works very, very different in the US from the way it does here, or you are just ignorant.
I've been thinking about the same kind of thing except that in order to receive your "unemployment" insurance check you would be required to do 40 hours per week of some sort of community service, job seeking being an acceptable service. This follows the "commonwealth" concept.
I am not sure if someone already posted this in some other discussion on the board, but I like the way these guys try to solve a part of the issue:
http://www.foodonfoot.org/
http://www.foodonfoot.org/
Yes it does work differently here. Which begs the question: since having people work for their benefit is self-evidently better, as the system described by "Skipjack" seems to work, why isn't our system set up along those same lines? Who benefits by keeping them out of the workforce?KitemanSA wrote:Things are very different here. And he is not necessarily ignorant, but we can certainly be a bit silly.Skipjack wrote: Ok, either the system works very, very different in the US from the way it does here, or you are just ignorant.
I've been thinking about the same kind of thing except that in order to receive your "unemployment" insurance check you would be required to do 40 hours per week of some sort of community service, job seeking being an acceptable service. This follows the "commonwealth" concept.
I mean the welfare recipient does, but do they vote in sufficient numbers to explain the existing system?
I am not saying that our system is working particularily well...
How exactly is your system different? From what I understand, people in the US also get unemployment for 6 months and then wellfare after that.
People on wellfare are not required to look for a job? They can simply be on wellfare indefinitely?
How exactly is your system different? From what I understand, people in the US also get unemployment for 6 months and then wellfare after that.
People on wellfare are not required to look for a job? They can simply be on wellfare indefinitely?
My GUESS is the unions.williatw wrote: Yes it does work differently here. Which begs the question: since having people work for their benefit is self-evidently better, as the system described by "Skipjack" seems to work, why isn't our system set up along those same lines? Who benefits by keeping them out of the workforce?
Re: "Welfare"
That's a lot of jobs to create for the government, and I don't think they're particularly good at it. Its better to have private employers create those jobs, and the government do what's required to support job creation.williatw wrote:If he can't find private employment the government will find something they can do for pay. He/she may find themselves fixing potholes, sorting garbage at the waste treatment plant, picking apples on a farm, or whatever the gov finds for them to do.
But what do you do if it turns out that you can't find a job for everyone?
If he can't find work, wouldn't pushing him to a separate household just increase costs?If he turns 18 lives in a household that receives government benefit (is not a full time student) he has 6 months or so to find work, if not work will be found for him or he has to leave the residence.
Re: "Welfare"
That's a lot of jobs to create for the government, and I don't think they're particularly good at it. Its better to have private employers create those jobs, and the government do what's required to support job creation.
But what do you do if it turns out that you can't find a job for everyone?
I wouldn't be pushing him to a separate household, if he is over 18 he could stay provided he worked...if he could not find a job on his on, gov would find/make one for him.If he can't find work, wouldn't pushing him to a separate household just increase costs?
Yes it would be better to have private employers create the jobs. But If goverment found itself required to find something for these people to do to earn their money it would have a very powerful incentive to figure out ways to get private companies to higher them. Tax breaks, any company that gets government contracts, other incentives. The gov would probably end up doing a fair amount of arm-twisting to get companies to higher them. And I think that is the meat of why we don't do it that way...that would be like a type of affirmative action on steroids. We love complaining about the lazy sod on welfare that could find a job if only he wanted to, but like "Skipjack" described in his post there are ways you could make them work if you wanted to.
A lot of these things are already happening here. They dont particularly help much.
Government created jobs are usually a bad idea. Lots of money for very little actual work done.
It is better to get these people an education. That way they will find better paying jobs which will enable them to pay more taxes and so give back to society what they took.
Government created jobs are usually a bad idea. Lots of money for very little actual work done.
It is better to get these people an education. That way they will find better paying jobs which will enable them to pay more taxes and so give back to society what they took.
And on the point of job creation, another idea: Import Quotas. Limit how much foreign(& domestic) manufacturers are allowed to make cheap goods in China or India and import them to the states. Any company foreign or domestic can build a factory in the US employing Americans and are free to sell whatever they produce for as much as the market will bare. But if an American (or foreign) company builds a factory in china, India, they can sell all they want to there, but limit strickly what they are allowed to import here.
Yes...government created make jobs I can believe suck..but compared to paying someone to do nothing I will take the jobs.Skipjack wrote:A lot of these things are already happening here. They dont particularly help much.
Government created jobs are usually a bad idea. Lots of money for very little actual work done.
It is better to get these people an education. That way they will find better paying jobs which will enable them to pay more taxes and so give back to society what they took.