Job Guarantee

This sounds like an interesting concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee.  Basically, instead of collecting an unemployment check while you don't have to work, discouraging you from looking for work until you absolutely have to, you get minimum wage (or perhaps the equivalent to your unemployment check) for a job that you are guaranteed to get from the government.  Maybe that's in the line of work you have skills in, maybe it's digging a ditch or spreading mulch somewhere.  It would produce some useful service, albeit likely underemployed, and keep people working.

Forums (1):Discussion Forum

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Oliver wrote on October 28, 2010 at 2:10 pm

I wouldn't equate an

I wouldn't equate an unemployment check (which workers have to pay into, right?) with a welfare check. That resource is a lifeline for many who still have bills to pay and to survive on while trying to find a new job.

As for the "interesting concept", in my opinion, by the time the federal government got its hands on it, it would be some massive, wasteful program fraught with misuse that would simply produce more tax hikes and unsustainable debt . HOWever, perhaps at the state or local level, some provision for earning basic, nutritional food could be provided for those out of work by their doing such tasks already mentioned.

thechampaignlife wrote on October 28, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Workers don't pay into

Workers don't pay into unemployment but I believe the employer does. I guess you could say the worker pays indirectly in wages their employer otherwise *might* have paid to them. I actually wouldn't consider unemployment insurance and social welfare insurance to be all that different, however. When it comes down to it, both are paid from employment - mandatory unemployment insurance rates or income taxes. Both are designed to assist those who find themselves temporarily unable to support themselves even though they are capable of work (social security/disability insurance covers those unable to work). Rather than giving them direct cash payments, I'd simply argue that they should have to work for their income. It gives them a sense of worth versus a charity-like handout (yes they paid into it but it still feels like a handout, especially when you draw more than you paid in). It keeps their skills fresh or gives them new skills. It produces a tangible result to improve public infrastructure. It will also encourage them to seek out permanent employment at a higher wage, an easier job, or one that more interests them. These incentives would hopefully reduce the number of people on unemployment (and welfare) and lower the costs of both these programs so unemployment insurance rates could be lowered and income taxes diverted to another function such as paying down the national debt. It just seems to me that giving someone a wad of cash and assuming they'll be motivated to seek out employment is only going to result in lots of cash getting paid out unnecessarily. While I think the federal government could do this and actually lower costs, I would not be opposed to a state or local level form either and would expect the same relative cost savings (although the feds would probably see all the savings and the state/local all the expense).

freechampaign wrote on October 28, 2010 at 1:10 am

Picking up trash on the

Picking up trash on the streets and in parks in exchange for a check. why should they get a check for sitting at home doing nothing. Blows my mind. Welfare parents breed welfare kids. it's a never ending cycle.