To Put Nation to Work, Give Jobs to Those on Welfare

Don't know where on the timeline to collapse our nation's economy is, or if it is even for sure careening toward such a fate.

But, I do know one little trick to turning the economy around, a sure trick. Bring your sense of logic along as you listen, for I feel if you listen with logic, you shan't disagree.
.
To put the nation back to work, of course, you need to get people off social programs and back into the workforce, you need to funnel them from one to the other.

I hear some of you say, "Good thought, Einstein. We all know that."

And, I hear others say, "Yes, we want to get people back into the workforce, but, no, we don't want to rip them out of the social net. We want to protect, mother, and care for our needy."

Second objection, first. Moving them from the social net to the workplace is not a lack of help. It is a way to help. And, it is the better way to help them. They are better off in jobs than on welfare.

First objection, next. Do we? Do we know that to put us back to work, we need to transfer people from our welfare rolls to our work rolls? Do we? Why, then, do we extend unemployment benefits? Extending benefits preserves them a spot in our care system, but it does not move them off the welfare rolls. It extends the incentive to stay on those rolls. I have heard, studies show many find their jobs just before the benefits expire. It shouldn't, though, take a study to tell us this will happen. We should see the law of carrots at work. Put a carrot in front of staying unemployed, and that's what you'll get.

Having a safety net is a must, if you want to be an advanced society. And, no, we don't want anybody to go hungry or without life's necessities. But the safety net cannot be so comfortable, a person stays wrapped safely within it when a job becomes available. Your safety net cannot be allowed to compete against your jobs. It should never dissuade a person from working.

And, our social programs do, very often, compete with our jobs. We can see, can't we, that our carrots are arranged so as to entice many to remain on unemployment? Ever hear someone say, "Why should I take a job at $9 and hour when I can get $11 on unemployment?"  Our safety net is competing against our jobs. And winning. And, leaving jobs unfilled.

Not so, you say, for someone else will take the job? Perhaps. All I know is that the person passing up the job remains on unemployment insurance, so that is one more person not working.

So, when are we going to learn this is not a good system? The Social Security Act was passed in 1935. It enjoyed its 75th anniversary in 2010 with little fanfare. It came in response to the Great Depression. Our nation did two things back then. One, it created jobs through the  Civil Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration. And, two, it created a way to survive if you didn't have a job, a safety net through the Social Security Act. We created jobs, but we also created an alternative to those jobs. From the get-go, welfare was competing against the jobs available.

The disappointing thing is that in 76 years, we haven't figured this out. We haven't changed things. Year after year passes, and (even though we complain about our welfare system), we don't change it.

If we are complaining, that means we surely can see it's wrong, that it's not a good system. Now, there's a quote about people who will not learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that's us. Are we blind? Or are we just not learning? Why does session after session of Congress go by without something being done? How have 76 years swept past without us correcting a fundamental flaw in how our economy is operating?

Why do we have welfare programs in which, if the person works too much, they lose all their benefits? Clearly, what we are trying to do is to not allow a person to have benefits if they don't need them. But, what we have achieved is to give them incentive for working under the table, and incentive not to work at all, or to work very little.

Again, our carrots are in the wrong place.

Better to have a system that says, "Take a job, even though it is low-paying, and we'll make up the difference. If it doesn't pay for all your essentials, we will." Now, you're placing your carrots so the incentive is to go out and get a job, not stay out of a job.
 
Have the benefits agency help find the job. Have it be an employment office, as it invites companies and charities to list openings. Have the benefits agency on the prowl to find work for the person. Encourage charities to -- instead of just providing handouts -- provide jobs for these people.
 
Now, at the beginning of this post, I said the idea is logical. Our unemployment rate is running around 10 percent. Some are suggesting that 10 percent, once considered high, is becoming the "new normal." If all those on unemployment, and disability, and other benefits had jobs, what would our unemployment rate be? There is no way it would not go down. Argue, if you will, that you cannot place them into jobs that don't exist, but this might lead to the creation of jobs of types that now hardly exist, for, with charities providing jobs, they can be custom created to fit with the limitations of the disabled, whereas now there are few jobs for those with those limitations. This means this jobs idea can reach into the far corners of the labor field. Instead of just creating jobs with no regard for whether they'll fit all potential workers, it reclaims most everyone to the job force.
 
There will be some, perhaps, for whom no job can be found.  Once the agency has exhausted efforts to find the person work, help them, anyway. Let the job market decide if they truly are unemployable. Then, if they are not, give them the flat-out assistance.

If 10 million Americans are placed back into jobs, many of which are productive jobs, how could this not help the economy?