Unemployment Rate Drops! But There's A Catch...

[nathanm]

Promoting and sustaining mediocrity, which is what most all entitlement and safety net programs do.

That's better than promoting and sustaining failure.

It would be nice, though, if we could capture some of the idle labor by putting those on unemployment more than a few weeks or a month to work doing useful stuff for the various levels of government two or three days a week, leaving them the rest of their time to look for a regular job. It would help ameliorate some of the pain of the budget cuts.

I bet there's enough people on unemployment here in Tulsa to get the parks mowed and graffiti abated...

[Red Arrow]

That's better than promoting and sustaining failure.

It would be nice, though, if we could capture some of the idle labor by putting those on unemployment more than a few weeks or a month to work doing useful stuff for the various levels of government two or three days a week, leaving them the rest of their time to look for a regular job. It would help ameliorate some of the pain of the budget cuts.

I bet there's enough people on unemployment here in Tulsa to get the parks mowed and graffiti abated...

Good luck trying to implement that idea.  It's not a bad idea but I can envision cries of heart conditions, heat problems, child care.......

[nathanm]

Good luck trying to implement that idea.  It's not a bad idea but I can envision cries of heart conditions, heat problems, child care.......

If a person is on unemployment, they were previously employed and are not disabled. It might be hard to match needed work to a person's physical capabilities, but I'm sure there are things that people who are unable to do physical labor can do that we need, even if it is something as simple as answering phones. It just seems silly to let all this available labor go to waste when we're already paying for it through unemployment and we need people to do some minor jobs that the city can't afford right now.

[we vs us]

That's better than promoting and sustaining failure.

It would be nice, though, if we could capture some of the idle labor by putting those on unemployment more than a few weeks or a month to work doing useful stuff for the various levels of government two or three days a week, leaving them the rest of their time to look for a regular job. It would help ameliorate some of the pain of the budget cuts.

I bet there's enough people on unemployment here in Tulsa to get the parks mowed and graffiti abated...

I like it.  You can do that with your excess processor power.  Volunteer your desktop to any number of scientific organizations and they'll take some of your CPU power for larger calculations during downtime (overnight, while you're at work, etc).  Think of worker "processing power" the same way.

[Red Arrow]

If a person is on unemployment, they were previously employed and are not disabled. It might be hard to match needed work to a person's physical capabilities, but I'm sure there are things that people who are unable to do physical labor can do that we need, even if it is something as simple as answering phones. It just seems silly to let all this available labor go to waste when we're already paying for it through unemployment and we need people to do some minor jobs that the city can't afford right now.

Go back about 20 or more years and replace the word "unemployment" with the word "welfare".  What kind of liberal are you anyway?  I'm going to take away your ID card. 

[guido911]

Go back about 20 or more years and replace the word "unemployment" with the word "welfare".  What kind of liberal are you anyway?  I'm going to take away your ID card. 

I kinda thought the same thing, because I found myself sort of agreeing with him.

[nathanm]

Go back about 20 or more years and replace the word "unemployment" with the word "welfare".  What kind of liberal are you anyway?  I'm going to take away your ID card. 

Cash welfare is better than letting people starve, if there really is no employment to be had and no work we can have people do, but it's not optimal.

Also, a large part of our success relative to other nations is that we have a highly mobile workforce. People will just up and move across the country for a new job. It might not be a bad idea to help the unemployed do that, if they're relocating from an area with higher than average unemployment to an area with lower than average unemployment or to any area if they have a firm job offer.

I believe in helping people achieve their full potential in the best way we can. In some cases, the best way to handle that is just giving people money (SSDI, for example). In others, it might be acting as the employer of last resort. In still other cases, that effort might be best achieved through regulation. And yes, there are even cases where getting out of the way and doing nothing other than monitoring is the best option.

[Conan71]

I completely agree with Nathan that we could put idle brains and hands to work while they are unemployed. As it stands now, Nathan we already do pay for people to move in relation to employment with personal tax credits for relocating IIRC

[Red Arrow]

Cash welfare is better than letting people starve....

I have to agree that a "let them eat cake" policy doesn't work so well.  Making people work at something for their benefits should at least give them a little dignity.  People unable (unable, not unwilling) to provide any self support deserve to be supported.  

Standard unemployment benefits are an earned benefit.  Part of the cost of employing you was to pay into the "unemployment" system.  Kind of like insurance.  Extended unemployment benefits are different but necessary in an economy like the present.  Making a recipient do some work for the benefits makes sense.  Making that person work enough hours to preclude them from searching for a new "real job" would be counterproductive.

[Hoss]

I have to agree that a "let them eat cake" policy doesn't work so well.  Making people work at something for their benefits should at least give them a little dignity.  People unable (unable, not unwilling) to provide any self support deserve to be supported.  

Standard unemployment benefits are an earned benefit.  Part of the cost of employing you was to pay into the "unemployment" system.  Kind of like insurance.  Extended unemployment benefits are different but necessary in an economy like the present.  Making a recipient do some work for the benefits makes sense.  Making that person work enough hours to preclude them from searching for a new "real job" would be counterproductive.

Wow, that *almost* sounded like a liberal stance!  I know better though.

[nathanm]

As it stands now, Nathan we already do pay for people to move in relation to employment with personal tax credits for relocating IIRC

I believe it's a deduction, not a credit, so it provides less assistance to the people who most need it. Additionally, even if you can get a thousand bucks or whatever from the government next April, it doesn't do you a lot of good when you don't have the cash on hand to move or anyone to borrow it from. In any event, it's just something that would be helpful to a lot of people individually as well as the economy as a whole, although it may be unworkable in the real world.

And Red Arrow, yes, making them work 40 hours a week would be counterproductive, but 4-6 hours one or two days a week from many of the folks on extended unemployment would mow a lot of parks, clean up a lot of graffiti, and change a lot of light bulbs.

[Gaspar]

That's better than promoting and sustaining failure.

It would be nice, though, if we could capture some of the idle labor by putting those on unemployment more than a few weeks or a month to work doing useful stuff for the various levels of government two or three days a week, leaving them the rest of their time to look for a regular job. It would help ameliorate some of the pain of the budget cuts.

I bet there's enough people on unemployment here in Tulsa to get the parks mowed and graffiti abated...

Great idea!  There's hope for you.  Don't start paddling backwards now.

Baby steps. . .

[Red Arrow]

Wow, that *almost* sounded like a liberal stance!  I know better though.

Learning from the French Revolution isn't necessarily liberal or conservative.  It's just not being stupid.  Thanks for including the "almost" though.

[Hoss]

Learning from the French Revolution isn't necessarily liberal or conservative.  It's just not being stupid.  Thanks for including the "almost" though.

NP; I consider myself an *almost* liberal simply because I'm actually more socially liberal but fiscally I'm a conservative.  I'm at odds with myself most of the time.

[Conan71]

Really, Nathan's idea is nothing new.  It's essentially what Roosevelt's WPA did in the 1930's utilizing hard-core unemployed people and it left a great legacy of infrastructure.  I'd far rather see us getting some tangible benefit from the UE benefits and not make them no-strings attached, or at least no more than the requirement to be "looking" for work.  I can't tell you how many people show up at our office every day to "get their card punched".  I'd say one in 8 or 10 actually wants a job, they just want to show they are still looking for work.

I consider myself quite fortunate I've never had to depend on UE benefits and hope I never have to.