h a l f b a k e r yWe don't have enough art & classy shit around here.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The idea: a combined benefits/temporary jobs agency, run by the government, that will pay people a fixed sum each week. In exchange for this, they will have to work a maximum of 40 hours a week at whatever job the agency manages to find for them (with allowance for capability - if someone has a bad back,
they will not be expected to do heavy manual labour). The income from the jobs that are found for them will be paid to the agency, and used to reduce the money that is required to be spent by the government on the scheme.
This would enable people to have a guaranteed income each week, even when the work is seasonal or volatile for other reasons. People enrolled in the scheme would not have to worry about losing their benefits because they've found a job, only to have to sign on a couple of weeks later because the work has dried up.
(I originally had the idea from a discussion on the radio about fruit pickers - a caller made the suggestion that is commonly made, of making welfare recipients do the work).
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Another way of guaranteeing everyone an income is to pay everyone an income. |
|
| |
Why don’t the workless just go and work their share of the land? |
|
| |
Because it belongs to someone else. |
|
| |
Does anyone have any air freshener ? There's a nasty whiff of socialism in this idea ... |
|
| |
//How come?// Because some people put more effort than others into choosing their ancestors. |
|
| |
" One effect of this would be a dramatic drop in the innovation supply. People would not have the time to come up with arbitrary ideas, of which some may survive, and of which some may be useful, of which some may advance civilization. " |
|
| |
Some of which may wind up on the halfbakery. |
|
| |
I.e. The Civilian Conservation Corps? It was a great idea in
the 30's and helped get this country through the Great
Depression. |
|
| |
Sounds like a combination of welfare and a temp
agency.
OK. |
|
| |
How does anything like this handle people like me,
though? My body is incapable of sticking to a 24-hour
sleep/wake cycle for more than a few months, and
even for those few months it's painful. I go to sleep
and get up at different
times each day; some weeks I'm more diurnal and
some
weeks I'm more nocturnal. I don't imagine I'd be
much
more compatible with shift work either. |
|
| |
I'm a definite fan of coming up with a workable system to
a) utilise the labour pool of people on welfare schemes,
b) train/prepare/develop welfare recipients for future
participation in employment and c) deincentivise welfare-
as-a-choice such as that may be. |
|
| |
As much as people try to obfuscate the issue - there is a
definite incentive for people to remain on generous
welfare schemes (such as exist in many places outside of
the US) - which is proven to establish itself as an inter-
generational issue. This is not and should not be just an
individual choice - the rest of society have to fund the
program. I don't think anyone should be able to just
choose to live off society without any obligation (outside,
of course, for genuine reasons for not being able to
support yourself). I'm yet to hear a compelling argument
for why someone should be able to choose to benefit from
the labour of others with no obligations themselves. |
|
| |
//How does anything like this handle people like me,
though? // |
|
| |
Without being overly blunt - I don't think that problem is
so common that this system should specifically cater for
it. As much as this sounds like a rather debilitating issue
to have when trying to fit into a rigidly 24-hour society,
arguably this condition of yours is for you to manage. |
|
| |
That said - I would think that a scheme of this size should
definitely be able to handle some level of ad-hoc
participation from participants who have been certified
as needing that. |
|
| |
It's got to be a challenge though. My chronic insomnia is
hard enough to deal with, but I can at least pretend to fit
into a long-term 24-hr cycle. |
|
| |
// I don't think that problem is so common that this
system should specifically cater for it. As much as this
sounds like a rather debilitating issue to have when
trying to fit into a rigidly 24-hour society, arguably this
condition of yours is for you to manage. // |
|
| |
I actually agree with that. My chosen solution is to be
self-employed. |
|
| |
[notexactly], I wouldn't expect everyone who is unemployed to be forced into a one-scheme-fits-all system. See "(with allowance for capability - if someone has a bad back, they will not be expected to do heavy manual labour)". |
|
| |
[RayfordSteele], not exactly. It would basically be the government purchasing peoples labour and reselling it. They purchase 40 hours of your labour each week, and then sell it on to companies and individuals looking for it - and if they can't sell all of it on, you still get paid. |
|
| |
I'm thinking it would be best to do it on a weekly basis? So if someone loses their job, they can sign up and commit themselves for the next week, but if they find a job by the end of that week they don't have to sign up for the following week. |
|
| |
I also think it would be a good idea to work an education aspect into this, for those who want it. Say up to half the time can be chosen to be spent enrolled on a course to learn a skill. Obviously it shouldn't be possible to use it to be an eternal student, of course... |
|
| |
I'm not sure that I see much here that's meaningfully new
and it seems to verge on the MFD across multiple
territories, including "heard it on the radio" and "widely
known to exist". The specific tuning of various programs --
including for instance being enrolled in a qualified
educational program qualifying as "work"-fare -- has all
been and/or is being tried
in numerous jurisdictions. |
|
| |
If people want to work in menial jobs to make ends meet,
they have ample opportunity to do so and in fact even
many (if not most) on benefits already do other activities,
just typically off the books -- in fact, one of the arguments
for basic income is that you wouldn't actually discount
benefits with other gotten wages, as that disincentivises
work. |
|
| |
//I'm yet to hear a compelling argument for why someone should be able to choose to benefit from the labour of others with no obligations themselves.// |
|
| |
Well the same can be said for benefitting from the land of others. i.e. obtaining monopoly over an area of land without compensating others for depriving them of it. |
|
| |
Workfare is hardly a new idea. |
|
| |
//obtaining monopoly over an area of land without compensating
others for depriving them of it.// |
|
| |
Fine, but the landowners arent the majority tax contributors. Tax is
largely paid by the wealthy-but-not-rich. |
|
| |
I keep reading this as "literal reverse army of Labour" - leading Jeremy Corbyn's race back to the 1970's. |
|
| |