Welfare vs right to work

MMAFan123 · 04-27-2007, 10:17 AM

Hi guys, I'm pretty left-wing, even would go so far as to call myself a "socialist", but some of my views aren't "standard left".

What do you guys think about replacing (at least partially) welfare with a "right to work". In other words, if you're unemployed and you want money, the gov't doesn't give you a handout but guarantees that work will be made available to you. Therefore you can never not have the opportunity for a job so if you're willing to work you can get a living, but handouts for no work come to an end (except in cases where the person has a medical condition or something so that they just can't work).

This would probably necessitate developing some kind of government public works programs (like road building or similar) in order to be able to employ all these people. Some might see that as wasteful of tax money but, would it be worth it to "reform" welfare in this way and to grant a new right to our citizens (the right to work)? Right now I'm tending towards saying yes, what do you guys think?

clmetal · 04-27-2007, 10:23 AM

All for it. I think this is what Clinton/Gingrich passed in the 90s; workfare, requiring able-bodied people to work 20 hours a week. I don't know if it really happened though

I dont see it as wasteful, because the spending is for something instead of nothing. I think it would force people dependent on welfare to enter the workforce (when many of them probably think it is not possible).

HomeCheese · 04-27-2007, 10:25 AM

Like cleaning up the highways, picking up trash in the streets or cleaning up public schools and parks. I would be in favor of some kind of program that tried to do this. It is at least worth a shot on an experimental basis.

TheMMAn · 04-27-2007, 10:26 AM

Didn't Clinton and the Repubs do this in the 90's?

shoffma1999 · 04-27-2007, 10:28 AM

I love this idea, and have had the same belief for some time now. Major conservatives will pan it as communism, but it is better then paying someone for sitting on their ass spitting out kids that will just end up as another drain on society.

MMAFan123 · 04-27-2007, 10:31 AM

Thanks for dropping the "workfare" term, I just read up on it a bit. The difference between this and that, to me, is that in workfare the people had to find employment among private firms. This was trouble for some people especially given whatever the local job market was like (could be very high skill oriented, the person could have some disability, etc). The idea here would be that the government would be providing the job rather than the person being obligated to work 20 hours / week in the private sector and the government throwing them money on top of that. I mean having them get private sector employment basically says screw you to the whole group of people on welfare because they can't find private sector employment!

One concern I read about was it not working well for single mothers with lots of kids, since they don't have much time to work. I guess I'd try to solve that with daycare services for people who are in these gov't work programs.

AmericaOverAll · 04-27-2007, 10:33 AM

johndredd05 · 04-27-2007, 10:34 AM

i think its bullshit. we have unemployment insurance...anyone who cant find a job in 6 months doesnt really want one.

Libero cane · 04-27-2007, 10:35 AM

AmericaOverAll · 04-27-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johndredd05

i think its bullshit. we have unemployment insurance...anyone who cant find a job in 6 months doesnt really want one.

lol true dat. there are always jobs out there...

Plus we all know how much the government likes to overpay their employees. This is a recipe for disaster. The government should create jobs by doing the services it is supposed to. It shouldnt turn that around, and instead find policy in order to fit workers. This will cause perpetual pork projects.