This is by far the best solution i have heard of, why is this Idea not in media/government proposals? There is more than enough stimulus money to provide for the infrastructure of most these jobs, why dont we require people accepting government money to work for it? This would help us rebuild at the same time it pays for the unemployed. The only condition should be that the jobs MUST be dissolved at some point, (as government jobs have a history of not leaving.) Who could possibly complain about this proposition?
1)Easy those of us who suffer the fate being the customer of an unemployment worker. Merely transporting these bozos to "work" would end up costing more money than just flushing(I mean doling ) it out. Now maybe something could be said for making it a requirement for continuing to collect benefits. 1ST MONTH payments as now. 2nd month work for it. 3rd month onward 2 teams blue team digs a hole, while red team within sight of blue team proceeds to fill them up. For the infirm confetti makers/pickers.
There are companies out there that do this sort of thing, i remember when i was 21 and i literally didnt have money to eat or a place to live, and there was a company called "Labour Ready" who would give you a daily cheque provided you worked the worst jobs imaginable, I remember working for 10 hours driving 5 foot tent spikes into the ground with a 20 pound sledge, it aint fun work but it is something, and the companies who needed the work would contract it out to "labour ready" so people needing money could do shit work for a day and make some sort of money...... You would walk up to these places, and say you wanted to work for a day, and they would tell you where you were going and how much you would be getting paid, why cant we have offices like this where people wanting to work show up, and get paid through a company according to the work they are willing to do, rather then just handing it out. If the government didnt get their hands all over it they could subsidize companies like this and have people who atleast did something to earn a cheque........ I think there are ways you could make it work......
make the unemployed work off their checks by doing national service. ------------------------ My first thought with this idea: Sounds like the fast track to a disability check. People could get hurt doing work. To make this work though, we could unionize the unemployed. If someone collects 99 weeks they could have seniority for the good unemployed "jobs". Ie "work at home".
That's stupid, you are talking about people who actually want to work.. Nothing wrong with bringing potential employees and employers together but having gubbermint make you work for the cheese is a "money wasting idea" unless specifically designed to make workers quit and thus ineligible for benefits.
Somehow, losing a few hundred a week that is your only income source will likely have a strong influence in making people wnat to work. If they cannot perform, then they starve...
BTDT about the same age too. No GI Bill (thanks Reagen), no prospects...but day labor was always paying.
This idea gets kicked around a lot. The economic fallacy of putting the unemployed to work is it destroys existing private sector jobs. If the unemployed build a bridge, private sector workers go hungry. So it's a net wash on employment. Except now the project costs more since we're using unskilled labor bureaucratically managed. Costs go up. Quality suffers. The only type of busy work the unemployed can do without destroying private sector jobs: picking up trash on the highway, rescuing sea turtles, things that aren't critical or helpful to the economy. Which is why doing them wouldn't stimulate the economy. The only benefit is the incentive it provides for the unemployed to get a real job.