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.
I don't know if there should be mandatory programs but when you have more people consuming the food and water in a lifeboat than you have those who are working the paddles and bale buckets, get ready to swim with the fishes.
Except in the case of this country, the folks with all the food toss half of it overboard instead of sharing with the others.
Except in the case of this country, the folks with all the food toss half of it overboard instead of sharing with the others.
I lived in an era where excess food was freely shared with neighbors, businesses and others in need. However, these days these same people and businesses would be in danger of being charged with breaking Federal and State public health and safety laws, or being sued by one of the hundreds of lawyers in any city seeking to make an easy case for themselves.
Your example has less to do with greed and more to do with laws and the regulations that implement those laws. Whether or not those regulations are excessive or fair, I will leave to your judgement.
IMO it would not be long at all until the powers that be started using these laborers instead of employees, unless the pay was similar. If it was similar, you're really just talking about giving people on welfare JOBS, which is a great idea. That isn't the topic though. the topic is service in exchange for benefits, not for salary.
The school has existed for 25 years using the same process. Still no jobs have been eliminated. Paid nurse, secretary(s?), paid custodial staff, paid maintenance staff, paid cafeteria workers. But instead of working massive amounts of unpaid overtime, the Kindergarten teachers set out stacks of pre-printed construction paper and volunteer parents cut them out. No parents work "security" at the school, but parents do help chaperone field trips. Instead of one or two overworked volunteer parents counting and sorting Box Tops (and other school revenue generators) by themselves, there are scheduled "counting days" where the PTA head manages a score of volunteer parents.
Again, this is not forced. Parents always have the choice to withdraw and send their kids to their regular zoned school, or to pay for private school.
Back on topic, the "laborers" I"m talking about would be employees. It would be basic, entry-level jobs where people (basically kids) cycle in and out. Of course the powers-that-be would use these employees instead of hiring private contractors. Jobs like cleaning and maintaining National Park facilities, building trails (currently mostly done by volunteers anyway), watching kids for other government employees, distributing food at food banks, picking up trash on the highways, and yes, even military service. Anything that benefits the public.
The benefits would include establishing a work history for everyone and a transition between high school (living at home) and college (a sudden level of freedom that leads to quite a few catastrophes) or a trade school.
A few good workers would even have the opportunity to stay on as managers/mentors.
For what it's worth, I know that this idea would never work in this country. First, I acknowledge that there are huge problems with this plan, the number one being how to deal with a workforce that isn't used to working and literally can't be fired; it isn't like it's the 1960's where we can just run them through a "Full Metal Jacket" style boot camp. Also, too many people here (like the OP) believe their rights and freedoms have always been and should forever be given to them without any associated cost whatsoever.
I lived in an era where excess food was freely shared with neighbors, businesses and others in need. However, these days these same people and businesses would be in danger of being charged with breaking Federal and State public health and safety laws, or being sued by one of the hundreds of lawyers in any city seeking to make an easy case for themselves.
Your example has less to do with greed and more to do with laws and the regulations that implement those laws. Whether or not those regulations are excessive or fair, I will leave to your judgement.
I'm talking about waste in general. When we go out to eat, just our family with the kids there probably leaves enough food for 3 or 4 people. Your lifeboat example seemed to presume their severely limited resources exist that must be fought over by a few, however the extraordinary amount we waste on a daily basis shows that is not the case.
I don't think it would help. I still think until there are jobs where people on welfare actually live, nothing is going to change. Bussing people 3 hours away to build a bridge isn't going to help them rebuild their lives, if afterward there still aren't any jobs close to them nor the ability to afford a car nor daycare. Also I still believe there are people not on welfare who would want those jobs, so that will open a whole can of worms where people who cannot find work but aren't on welfare will be on here complaining that they only give jobs to those who are poor. The beginning premise of this was "jobs no one wants". They are the jobs like picking blueberries, cleaning toilets, not building infrastructure, those jobs are desired even the unskilled ones, so is it really fair to just remove entire segments of the job market (unskilled blue collar jobs) from the free market? I do still think there would be abuses as well, both by the employees and the employers.
I wanted to add, every road crew I come upon has someone (quite often a woman lately I've noticed) whose only job appears to be to hold a sign that says "Slow". That's an unskilled blue collar job - that lady or whoever it is has a union job in many cases and benefits. So now you give the state the option of using what are in essence indentured servants for a small percentage of what the paid employees are getting, do you really think there's not going to be abuses of the system? Is destroying the middle class even more by eliminating some of the few remaining unskilled but decent jobs, and adding more of the middle class to the rolls of those who need benefits? I can see the irony of someone who lost their job so someone on benefits could have it, ending up getting it back for a fraction of the pay because she ended up getting public benefits due to being unemployed.
The New Deal and the infrastructure building jobs that helped end the depression were NEW jobs created by adding millions (which could be billions today to be equivalent) of dollars to infrastructure, and the government approving many new infrastructure projects across the country lasting for years. That is why it helped end the depression, not because it gave people experience only to find there are still no jobs, but instead gave people well-paying, long-term jobs, jobs that paid enough to allow them to save and to buy homes and cars and rebuild the economy.
That would never happen now. The current Congress would never in a million years approve all that new spending. If you recall, Obama pushed for increased infrastructure spending early on in his first term in order to create jobs and it crashed and burned just as quickly due to resistance from conservatives, who only wanted to slash spending more. And now there are many more ultra-conservative Tea Party congressman, who would be even more opposed to increased government spending.
So we are instead talking about replacing jobs, not creating them, no matter how you look at it. It wouldn't and couldn't be in any way similar to what happened back then. If it could, if all those new jobs could actually be created, you would naturally decrease welfare rolls. The lack of good jobs is the reason so many are on them. It just isn't a practical plan in reality in any way, IMO.
I also think your idea could end up being very expensive, especially considering it would be the government running the program...there will be many layers of administrators and pencil pushers and overseers, all collecting big salaries and state pensions.
I do think it would be a good idea to pay for college for poor kids in exchange for them working for Americorps or something after graduation.
Conscription (a/k/a "the draft") has been diminishing in use since the end of the two World Wars and the fall of the last of the authoritarian states which made heavy use of it. Of the 27 major European nations, only six still have it, but two (Denmark and Norway) have a strong tradition of the concept of "national service" and a third with a similar orientation (the Netherlands) abandoned it only as recently as 1997.
And as we all should recognize, the advancement of industrialization tends to identify a category of "jobs nobody wants" and the present surplus of refugees and displaced persons notwithstanding, the pool of "bottom off the barrel" labor will continue to shrink.
So I want to pose a question (to people of any political orientation) here? in return for personal access to a more generous set of social benefits (health care, insurance, pension, etc,) would you be willing to surrender 2-4 years of your future to the government in a militaristic (but not combative) environment dedicated to filling undesirable roles? Comments as to why, or why not, are welcome.
No, I don't believe in living off of others (government benefits). In 2-4 years I could get my own "benefits" by WORKING (old concept, I know).
I wanted to add, every road crew I come upon has someone (quite often a woman lately I've noticed) whose only job appears to be to hold a sign that says "Slow". That's an unskilled blue collar job - that lady or whoever it is has a union job in many cases and benefits. So now you give the state the option of using what are in essence indentured servants for a small percentage of what the paid employees are getting, do you really think there's not going to be abuses of the system? Is destroying the middle class even more by eliminating some of the few remaining unskilled but decent jobs, and adding more of the middle class to the rolls of those who need benefits? I can see the irony of someone who lost their job so someone on benefits could have it, ending up getting it back for a fraction of the pay because she ended up getting public benefits due to being unemployed.
The New Deal and the infrastructure building jobs that helped end the depression were NEW jobs created by adding millions (which could be billions today to be equivalent) of dollars to infrastructure, and the government approving many new infrastructure projects across the country lasting for years. That is why it helped end the depression, not because it gave people experience only to find there are still no jobs, but instead gave people well-paying, long-term jobs, jobs that paid enough to allow them to save and to buy homes and cars and rebuild the economy.
---SNIP---
I do think it would be a good idea to pay for college for poor kids in exchange for them working for Americorps or something after graduation.
The replacement of higher paid workers could definitely be a problem if the government put in place programs like FDR did. Industry is always looking for less expensive employees and that is much of the reason our immigration system remains broken. We're very likely at the point of having a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation if we're trying to do what FDR did.
The government can certainly make work for people just as FDR did. However, I seriously doubt we have the money to do what that President did. We simply do not have the money for the number of people we now have. And regarding private industry work, you can't simply replace jobs that no longer exists. Many things have driven this change, e.g., technology, economics, new laws as well as new opportunities for business outside America in a bustling world economy.
Regarding the disappearing middle class, no one is more aware of this than my family who have in the last few years moved from the middle class to low income. We, however, will survive since we are retirement age and have somewhat planned ahead probably due to my innate pessimism I inherited from my dad who suffered through the Great Depression.
Of all the recommendations that have been put forward as to how to get people working again, recommendations like blocking the border, heavily fining or taxing companies who move out, deporting illegals, retraining everyone for the few jobs that we still have or any of the other recommendations that have been made, I am stumped. I am not an economist. However, I truly believe the economic problems America now faces are much deeper than any of our politicians are capable of addressing. The simple fact is that the World's economy is growing, albeit slowly, while ours seems to be slowly shrinking. We remain a very wealthy nation but that wealth more and more is shared between the wealthy and the poor. Even under Obama's liberal policies of wealth distribution, that division has grown greater. Two economic classes are almost always very evident in third world economies. It's also true that many of those nations are socialistic. I truly hope this is not prophetic of where we are headed.
Regarding paying people for service to their country, I would not limit it to poor kids. If a person gives part of their life in service of their country they should be rewarded. The G.I. Bil for military service certainly doesn't limit educational awards to poor kids. I'm a very grateful recipient of that particular program. However, in these days of high national debts, I don't know where the money will come from. You can tax the wealthy but the unintended consequences of that is wealth fleeing the country. We see that already happening.
I wish I had answers but I'm sure I'm not alone. It doesn't surprise me that the younger folks are seeking politicians who claim to be "outsiders" in the upcoming Presidential race. Unfortunately for my nearly 50 years of voting, that scenario has always been repeated in every race I have lived through. If I had a dime for every time a campaigning politician offered "change" in his/her platform, I would be back in the middle class.
Last edited by High_Plains_Retired; 02-16-2016 at 11:24 PM..
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.
