Your Government Owes You a Job

[srlip]

I've never seen a job that I liked. If I HAVE to do it, I don't like it. In fact, having my (passionate) hobby become my job would ruin it as a form of fun for me.

 

[srlip]

govt cant create anything. all it can do is take money from some people and give it to other people. Naturally, the "tick" type of "human" just LOVES this sort of thing.

 

[Kondor3]

This is the flipside of "government owes you a job", wherein government assumes the role of "encouraging" productive employment. We might think of it as "you owe government a job".

And is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your mind?

Very bad

That's where I thought you were going with that, but I wasn't sure, so it made sense to ask.

Frankly, I don't understand the perspective.

Within the realm of the able-bodied, who are unemployed and in need of help to find or re-tool for a career that will pay decently, and get them off welfare, etc...

How is a government program which encourages folks to go back to school, to become productive again, a 'very bad' thing?

Maybe I'm just being 'dense' about this, but I really don't "get it".

 

[dblack]

And is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your mind?

Very bad

That's where I thought you were going with that, but I wasn't sure, so it made sense to ask.

Frankly, I don't understand the perspective.

Within the realm of the able-bodied, who are unemployed and in need of help to find or re-tool for a career that will pay decently, and get them off welfare, etc...

How is a government program which encourages folks to go back to school, to become productive again, a 'very bad' thing?

Maybe I'm just being 'dense' about this, but I really don't "get it".

I don't like it because it puts government in the position of deciding what we should be doing with our lives and pushing us in that direction. I want a government that protects our freedom to decide for ourselves what the "good life" looks like and pursue our own versions of "happiness".

 

[Jarlaxle]

The government doesn't owe any of us a job.

In the context of the so-called Social Compact, we don't owe each other jobs, either.

But I'm all in favor of using tax-dollars to train or re-train workers, rather than going to the outside (offshore job relocation, skilled immigrants, etc.) where practicable.

If I spend a one-time front-end load of $5K or $10K in tax dollars on worker training, and that money results in a self-sufficient worker (for the first time, or once again) and metaphorical paying customer, and avoids recurring tax-dollar expenditures of $25K or $50K per year in safety-net handouts, well, the job (re-) training seems like the wiser of the two investments.

There are a lot of folks out there who might benefit from such assistance; a hand-up rather than a hand-out; in cases where they can't afford to pay for the training themselves.

Anyone interested can look up their local County-level Workforce Investment Board and its subsidiary agency(ies) - usually some sort of County Workforce Development Agency - and usually connected to the Federal W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct) programming; one of the few Liberal -leaning initiatives that usually gets comprehensive bipartisan support.

Or we can eliminate the recurring tax dollar expenditures (hand-outs). And the people that want to buy training can get a frigging loan.

There are actually a lot of people that buy training while they are still employed, just to make sure they don't become obsolete in the work force.

I'm giving serious thought to doing so soon.

 

[Kondor3]

Very bad

That's where I thought you were going with that, but I wasn't sure, so it made sense to ask.

Frankly, I don't understand the perspective.

Within the realm of the able-bodied, who are unemployed and in need of help to find or re-tool for a career that will pay decently, and get them off welfare, etc...

How is a government program which encourages folks to go back to school, to become productive again, a 'very bad' thing?

Maybe I'm just being 'dense' about this, but I really don't "get it".

I don't like it because it puts government in the position of deciding what we should be doing with our lives and pushing us in that direction. I want a government that protects our freedom to decide for ourselves what the "good life" looks like and pursue our own versions of "happiness".

Look at in the context of Unemployment and Food Stamps and TANF and LIHEAP and all of that - a.k.a., the Safety Net, or the 'dole', or 'welfare'.

If the choice is between having an able-bodied person languishing on welfare for lack of work, or putting that person back to work by spending some money on his-or-her retraining, I'm a little hard-pressed to see how that's a bad thing; especially if participation in any such government-funded re-training is entirely voluntary.

Under such circumstances, those who WISH to languish on welfare are free to do so, until their benefits run out, I suppose.

 

[dblack]

That's where I thought you were going with that, but I wasn't sure, so it made sense to ask.

Frankly, I don't understand the perspective.

Within the realm of the able-bodied, who are unemployed and in need of help to find or re-tool for a career that will pay decently, and get them off welfare, etc...

How is a government program which encourages folks to go back to school, to become productive again, a 'very bad' thing?

Maybe I'm just being 'dense' about this, but I really don't "get it".

I don't like it because it puts government in the position of deciding what we should be doing with our lives and pushing us in that direction. I want a government that protects our freedom to decide for ourselves what the "good life" looks like and pursue our own versions of "happiness".

Look at in the context of Unemployment and Food Stamps and TANF and LIHEAP and all of that - a.k.a., the Safety Net, or the 'dole', or 'welfare'.

If the choice is between having an able-bodied person languishing on welfare for lack of work, or putting that person back to work by spending some money on his-or-her retraining, I'm a little hard-pressed to see how that's a bad thing; especially if participation in any such government-funded re-training is entirely voluntary.

Under such circumstances, those who WISH to languish on welfare are free to do so, until their benefits run out, I suppose.

Well, that's exactly why the welfare state is such an insidious thing. It drives us toward slavery.

 

[Unkotare]

I've never seen a job that I liked. If I HAVE to do it, I don't like it. In fact, having my (passionate) hobby become my job would ruin it as a form of fun for me.

That's a poor attitude.

 

[Kondor3]

I don't like it because it puts government in the position of deciding what we should be doing with our lives and pushing us in that direction. I want a government that protects our freedom to decide for ourselves what the "good life" looks like and pursue our own versions of "happiness".

Look at in the context of Unemployment and Food Stamps and TANF and LIHEAP and all of that - a.k.a., the Safety Net, or the 'dole', or 'welfare'.

If the choice is between having an able-bodied person languishing on welfare for lack of work, or putting that person back to work by spending some money on his-or-her retraining, I'm a little hard-pressed to see how that's a bad thing; especially if participation in any such government-funded re-training is entirely voluntary.

Under such circumstances, those who WISH to languish on welfare are free to do so, until their benefits run out, I suppose.

Well, that's exactly why the welfare state is such an insidious thing. It drives us toward slavery.

I wasn't coming at this from the angle of Welfare is bad-or-good.

I was coming at this from the angle of 'Welfare exists' and 'this is one way to get people off of Welfare' - for those who would rather work than take the perpetual hand-out, anyway.

You can always take-away Welfare, I suppose, and let 'em starve, and live under bridges.

I was trying to be a little more here-and-now focused, and a little less Draconian.

Silly me.

 

[Unkotare]

You can always take-away Welfare, I suppose, and let 'em starve, and live under bridges.

I was trying to be a little more here-and-now focused, and a little less Draconian.

Silly me.

And yet you seemed so eager, on another thread, to let what you imagine to be the 'Baby-Boomers' to die off under any circumstances just to get them out of the way.

Silly you.

 

[Unkotare]

I wonder if the OP ever spent any time in a communist country where everyone was 'guaranteed' a job?

I'll take his silence on the matter to indicate he has not.

 

[Kondor3]

You can always take-away Welfare, I suppose, and let 'em starve, and live under bridges.

I was trying to be a little more here-and-now focused, and a little less Draconian.

Silly me.

And yet you seemed so eager, on another thread, to let what you imagine to be the 'Baby-Boomers' to die off under any circumstances just to get them out of the way.

Silly you.

Non sequitur, and inaccurate.

Anyone even vaguely interested in the truth of the matter can find it there for all to see, in its full context and framework of meaning.

Personally, I'm fond of Boomers, being one myself, and being married to one.

Some of my best friends are Boomers.

Meanwhile, back to the topic of the Government and Jobs, and the sidebar on government -sponsored job (re-) training, and why some folks see that as metaphorical 'slavery'.

 

[dblack]

Look at in the context of Unemployment and Food Stamps and TANF and LIHEAP and all of that - a.k.a., the Safety Net, or the 'dole', or 'welfare'.

If the choice is between having an able-bodied person languishing on welfare for lack of work, or putting that person back to work by spending some money on his-or-her retraining, I'm a little hard-pressed to see how that's a bad thing; especially if participation in any such government-funded re-training is entirely voluntary.

Under such circumstances, those who WISH to languish on welfare are free to do so, until their benefits run out, I suppose.

Well, that's exactly why the welfare state is such an insidious thing. It drives us toward slavery.

I wasn't coming at this from the angle of Welfare is bad-or-good.

I was coming at this from the angle of 'Welfare exists' and 'this is one way to get people off of Welfare' - for those who would rather work than take the perpetual hand-out, anyway.

You can always take-away Welfare, I suppose, and let 'em starve, and live under bridges.

I was trying to be a little more here-and-now focused, and a little less Draconian.

Silly me.

I wouldn't call it silly. But I think there's risk in making those kinds of concessions in the name of pragmatism.

It's like the argument over whether welfare recipients should be drug tested (or otherwise sacrifice their usual rights to privacy, etc ...) as a condition of receiving benefits. There's a certain logic to it, but it's a slippery slope and, as government increasingly assumes the provider role, puts us in a position where we might face similar conditions in order to use other government 'services', health care seems ripe for that kind of scheme.

It's just frustrating to have the left foisting welfare state policies on us, and then the right using it as an excuse to take away our rights, in the name of 'getting people off welfare'.

 

[Unkotare]

Personally, I'm fond of Boomers....

Very fond...you just want them to die as soon as possible is all...

 

[Kondor3]

Personally, I'm fond of Boomers....

Very fond...you just want them to die as soon as possible is all...

Seen. Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Kondor3]

Well, that's exactly why the welfare state is such an insidious thing. It drives us toward slavery.

I wasn't coming at this from the angle of Welfare is bad-or-good.

I was coming at this from the angle of 'Welfare exists' and 'this is one way to get people off of Welfare' - for those who would rather work than take the perpetual hand-out, anyway.

You can always take-away Welfare, I suppose, and let 'em starve, and live under bridges.

I was trying to be a little more here-and-now focused, and a little less Draconian.

Silly me.

I wouldn't call it silly. But I think there's risk in making those kinds of concessions in the name of pragmatism.

It's like the argument over whether welfare recipients should be drug tested (or otherwise sacrifice their usual rights to privacy, etc ...) as a condition of receiving benefits. There's a certain logic to it, but it's a slippery slope and, as government increasingly assumes the provider role, puts us in a position where we might face similar conditions in order to use other government 'services', health care seems ripe for that kind of scheme.

It's just frustrating to have the left foisting welfare state policies on us, and then the right using it as an excuse to take away our rights, in the name of 'getting people off welfare'.

That's an interesting 'take' on remedial social service programming like the WIA initiative; one that I do not share, but, to each his own.

It should be noted that that particular program - Workforce Development - as authorized by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1996 - was (and is) largely a bipartisan matter.

I've seen it in-action up-close, having repeatedly visited my own county's local Workforce Development Services department, talked to some of the staff, visited their pre-training career-readiness preparation classes, and attended several of its board meetings as an observer, and having hired several folks out of that particular program in the past half-dozen years, and, obviously, I'm something of a fan of the idea.

We're talking about Federal pass-through dollars here, I think; the US Dept of Labor, feeding money to the States, who, in turn, feed the money to their individual counties; many of whom have set up a Workforce Development Board and related agency(ies); mixing Federal and State and County funding with Federal and State and County guidelines; while leaving many of the details (grant amounts, eligibility criteria, intended uses, vetting, administration, etc.) to the local (County) level. At least there seems to be a Home-Rule aspect to that particular programming, if I'm reading it correctly.

The program is purely voluntary. The county's share of WIA training-grant dollars only stretches so far. There are far more people applying than can be accommodated, so, to be honest, I don't see that particular program as nudging people towards wage-slavery.

In addition to meeting unemployment and low-income criteria, the program requires its applicants to pass basic literacy and math and other skill-level testing, and requires them to jump through several hoops - including a two-week -long career-readiness boot camp - to separate the serious from the frivolous, and to ensure that precious job-training grant only goes to those with (a) a decent chance of making it through subsequent training and (b) the resolve or determination or persistence to do so.

Rather than encouraging 'wage-slavery', I see it as a 'hand-up', which puts several obstacles in the path of the applicant, before he-or-she actually receives a training voucher to hand off to a pre-approved junior college or trade or technical school, to train for eventual placement in any of the job-roles that the County-level Workforce Board has determined to be an 'In-Demand' job within the county.

Our company may simply have been fortunate in the people that we've hired out of such programs over time, but, after several years of casual tapping of that faucet, we've yet to run across a bona fide Loser or non-starter. My own soft-and-fuzzy impression of the program's successful graduates (the County vetting process, plus subsequent training by an accredited school) is that they come out of such a program tough-as-nails; ready to take on the world; damned grateful for the hand-up; glad to be getting off of welfare; realizing that they've had a 'close-call' on the road to the poor-house, and proud that they're once again supporting themselves or their families, and back to being 'paying customers' again.

But, like I said, I'm a fan of that particular piece of remedial social programming, so I may be looking at it with rose-colored glasses, and overstating the case.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Look at in the context of Unemployment and Food Stamps and TANF and LIHEAP and all of that - a.k.a., the Safety Net, or the 'dole', or 'welfare'.

If the choice is between having an able-bodied person languishing on welfare for lack of work, or putting that person back to work by spending some money on his-or-her retraining, I'm a little hard-pressed to see how that's a bad thing; especially if participation in any such government-funded re-training is entirely voluntary.

Under such circumstances, those who WISH to languish on welfare are free to do so, until their benefits run out, I suppose.

Well, that's exactly why the welfare state is such an insidious thing. It drives us toward slavery.

I wasn't coming at this from the angle of Welfare is bad-or-good.

I was coming at this from the angle of 'Welfare exists' and 'this is one way to get people off of Welfare' - for those who would rather work than take the perpetual hand-out, anyway.

You can always take-away Welfare, I suppose, and let 'em starve, and live under bridges.

I was trying to be a little more here-and-now focused, and a little less Draconian.

Silly me.

Look. I am all for job training and education. Here's the problem with the current system. The way it's put together breeds complacency. It tells people that they can get paid, get free stuff without having to lift a finger. They can sit at home or whatever and not worry about a thing. This is especially true when pubic assistance pays for ancillary things such as health benefits. At that point to these people, working is useless.
Our system of social safety nets has made poverty comfortable.
The idea of "workfare" has been mentioned many times. The first reaction is howls of protest from far left wing politicians, race based advocacy groups and a whole host of other bleeding hearts who claim that making people work for public assistance to which.....wait for it.....they are ENTITLED is UNFAIR...
IN other words the established norm is the various safety nets are OWED to the less fortunate. And we all are just supposed to accept that. And if we don't, we are called rich arrogant racist bigoted selfish pricks who 'have theirs and screw everyone else'....
Quite frankly most people are sick of it. The whole system needs to be blown up and remade. Because the current one which gobbles up over 50% of the federal budget is going to bankrupt the country.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Personally, I'm fond of Boomers....

Very fond...you just want them to die as soon as possible is all...

*Not only is this a left talking point that illustrates the mentality that we are trying to deny something we preciously had or could have had.

You generation is asking for a guarantee of good health and life devoid of work or responsibilities!!

The older generations had no such guarantee, but yet somehow I and millions of others now have the responsibilities to care for leeches on today's society. Where are your responsibilities?? When do you put in the work and do your part?? When do you become a RESPONSIBLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY??

So now when you make that claim he and others want anyone to die, we both know that is low life lie told to gin up your base ....
We are not cold, cruel, in compassionate, nor do we wish to see anyone die!!
Now a little food for thought, just like Marc Twain, I have never killed anyone, but I have read a few obituaries that put smiles on my face ... yours would certainly be one of those with the attitude you have!!

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't like it because it puts government in the position of deciding what we should be doing with our lives and pushing us in that direction. I want a government that protects our freedom to decide for ourselves what the "good life" looks like and pursue our own versions of "happiness".

Look at in the context of Unemployment and Food Stamps and TANF and LIHEAP and all of that - a.k.a., the Safety Net, or the 'dole', or 'welfare'.

If the choice is between having an able-bodied person languishing on welfare for lack of work, or putting that person back to work by spending some money on his-or-her retraining, I'm a little hard-pressed to see how that's a bad thing; especially if participation in any such government-funded re-training is entirely voluntary.

Under such circumstances, those who WISH to languish on welfare are free to do so, until their benefits run out, I suppose.

Well, that's exactly why the welfare state is such an insidious thing. It drives us toward slavery.

Which is why Obama turned off all welfare reforms, outlawed independent funded health care, and is now outlawing coal and cows. The left are attempting to starve us of labor, energy, health care, and food to enslave us to give themselves power over every aspect of our lives.

 

[Kondor3]

Well, that's exactly why the welfare state is such an insidious thing. It drives us toward slavery.

I wasn't coming at this from the angle of Welfare is bad-or-good.

I was coming at this from the angle of 'Welfare exists' and 'this is one way to get people off of Welfare' - for those who would rather work than take the perpetual hand-out, anyway.

You can always take-away Welfare, I suppose, and let 'em starve, and live under bridges.

I was trying to be a little more here-and-now focused, and a little less Draconian.

Silly me.

Look. I am all for job training and education. Here's the problem with the current system. The way it's put together breeds complacency. It tells people that they can get paid, get free stuff without having to lift a finger. They can sit at home or whatever and not worry about a thing. This is especially true when pubic assistance pays for ancillary things such as health benefits. At that point to these people, working is useless.
Our system of social safety nets has made poverty comfortable.
The idea of "workfare" has been mentioned many times. The first reaction is howls of protest from far left wing politicians, race based advocacy groups and a whole host of other bleeding hearts who claim that making people work for public assistance to which.....wait for it.....they are ENTITLED is UNFAIR...
IN other words the established norm is the various safety nets are OWED to the less fortunate. And we all are just supposed to accept that. And if we don't, we are called rich arrogant racist bigoted selfish pricks who 'have theirs and screw everyone else'....
Quite frankly most people are sick of it. The whole system needs to be blown up and remade. Because the current one which gobbles up over 50% of the federal budget is going to bankrupt the country.

You might be on to something there.

Frankly, I wasn't prepared to deal with Welfare System angst, and I was a bit surprised to see some of this, given that the particular Job Training Program that I'd mentioned (WIA) was (a) voluntary and (b) designed to get people OFF of welfare, but what-the-hell... that's what a message board is for...

I'll continue to champion or advocate-for or beat the drum for this particular solution, in light of the idea that it gets results that lessen the welfare burden on the taxpayer (albeit, probably only a small dent, if not quite so bad as a drop-in-the-bucket).

If we ever DO get around to another massive overhaul or burn-and-reboot of the Safety Net in this country, it's my hope that the handful of worthwhile initiatives tied to it aren't tossed out with that particular batch of bath-water, but, that's for the future, and, like you, I don't have a crystal ball, to see how this is going to play out.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even in the worst-managed and most messy collection of social programming, every so often, you come up across a piece that might be worth saving as we move forward, and it's my hope that this particular kind of programming (WIA) makes the cut, if it ever comes to that.

Meanwhile... in dealing with Present Realities... I've gotta confess to being a fan or supporter... for better or worse... but respectful of genuine opinions to the contrary.