It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do We Need A Work Projects Adminstration (WPA) Type Program Now?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I think so. It doesn't seem like the unemployment situation in the U.S. is getting any better. And reading this article tonight seems to confirm that:


Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 07:30 PM PDT.

Long-term Unemployment Worse Now Than During Great Depression

About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months - a higher percentage than during the Great Depression.
The bigger the gap on someone's resume, the more questions employers have.

"(Employers) think: 'Oh, well, there must be something really wrong with them because they haven't gotten a job in 6 months, a year, 2 years.' But that's not necessarily the case," said Marjorie Gardner-Cruse with the Hollywood Worksource Center....

Here's another problem: more than 1 million of the long-term unemployed have run out of unemployment benefits, leaving them without the money to get new training, buy new clothes, or even get to job interviews.


source

More on the Works Progress Adminstration here:


The Works Progress Administration (renamed during 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest and most ambitious New Deal agency, employing millions of unskilled workers to carry out public works projects,[1] including the construction of public buildings and roads, and operated large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects. It fed children and redistributed food, clothing, and housing. Almost every community in the United States had a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, which especially benefited rural and Western areas. The budget at the outset of the WPA in 1935 was $1.4 billion a year. (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP), and in total it spent $13.4 billion.[2] At its peak in 1938 it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men (and some women), as well as youth in a separate division the National Youth Administration.

The WPA was a national program that originated its own projects (in cooperation with state and local governments) and sometimes took over state and local relief programs that had originated in the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) or FERA programs. Headed by Harry Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States. Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost eight million jobs.[3] It never managed to come anywhere close to full demand for employment.[4]

Liquidated on June 30, 1943 as a result of high employment due to the industry boom of World War Two, the WPA had provided millions of Americans with jobs for 8 years.


and more here:


The direct focus of the WPA projects changed with need. 1935 saw projects aimed at infrastructure improvement; roads, bringing electricity to rural areas, water conservation, sanitation and flood control. In 1936, as outlined in that year’s Emergency Relief Appropriations Act, public facilities became a focus; parks, buildings, utilities, airports, and transportation projects were funded. The following year, saw the introduction of agricultural pursuits in projects such as the production of marl fertilizer and the eradication of fungus pests. As the Second World War approached, and then eventually begun, WPA projects became increasingly defense related.


source

And here's a video with a brief overview of how the program worked:















edit on 6/7/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Let's do it. It'll stimulate the economy.

I find it a little baffling that employers won't hire someone that has been out of work for months, etc. It's just adding to the problem and it's ridiculous. I've also noticed that some companies seem to be adding more and more to what is even required before someone can apply for a job (ie, more and more qualifications, ludicrous amounts of experience for jobs that aren't even high-level, etc.)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Slave state come to mind...go deeper my friend.

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I couldn't agree more. We need it now more than ever. Our infrastructure is falling apart and the private sector is hoarding wealth at the top instead of creating jobs. People will see more benefit from this then from bailing out the banks.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


The issue of requiring a person to be "currently employed" to get a new job, appears to now be under federal review as per this site:


.Businesses Refuse to Hire Unemployed, EEOC says

by FindLaw on February 18, 2011

When speaking to the unemployed, discrimination is usually the last thing on their mind. After all, they’re not employed, right? But once they settle in and start browsing the web for that next job, things change. Inevitably, they come across a promising ad, only to be devastated when the ad lists “currently employed” under qualifications. Discrimination has taken on new meaning.

Discrimination against the unemployed has finally come to the attention of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has just announced that it is now investigating whether the practice is as widespread as anecdotal evidence suggests, and whether the practice of requiring current employment is illegal. Employment law experts are unsure what the EEOC will do, reports The Wall Street Journal.


source



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
That's great to hear, because that is clearly discrimination and there are no grounds for an employer to do that.

It actually kinda infuriates me how some of these companies' business practices are evolving.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


So when will they be going after those that also list "if you have used tobacco products you need not apply". Because tobacco is legal and they can't discriminate against people who drink but they can for tobacco, which is also legal and a lot less harmful then alcohol.

Why isn't the EEOC all over that one too?
They are doing this for the unemployed, why not go after all unfairness in hiring?


I also don't think the WPA thing would work. They would find they could do this for the illegals and pay less and in the end the true citizens would still get th #ty end of the stick. Beside theres 22 million unemployed citizens and the numbers they projected then would hardly meet the country's needs in that respect.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


I am not sure what you are referring to when you said this kind of project would not work today. The WPA put 8 million people back to work in less than 10 years. I think I read somewhere recently that we had about 35,000 - 50,000 jobs created in the last month, and weren't many of those from the McDonald's hiring spree?

There is plenty of work to do in this country with our deteoriating infrastructures of bridges, over passes, highways, etc. Not to mention major improvements are needed in sewer systems nationwide and national parks. There is also the matter of a wall that needs to be completed to help secure our borders; that project alone would put more than a million people back to work imo. In other words some of the exact same things that were needed then, are needed now. I don't see any proposals being suggested that will increase our employment numbers more than about a half a million or so a year, and that aint't going to cut it as the expression goes.

Obviously our unemployment numbers are much higher than they were in the thirties, making it even more important that something be done NOW.
edit on 6/7/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Many of the arguments against the WPA during its existence in the 30s did not come from people who opposed its core principles rather they criticized the ineffectiveness of the program. For example, workers and project managers would be encouraged to prolong the period of construction on certain projects so as to keep the funds coming. Another example would be that the Western part of the country received far more assistance per capita than the much more impoverished and undeveloped South due to Roosevelt already having the South as a secure vote.

It allows for three things to happen; one, poor management of funds and lousy workmanship, two, political favoritism and basically vote-buying and, three, enlarging the national debt to levels which are completely unsustainable.

Please do remember that during the era when the WPA first was created our national debt was far less than what it currently is as percent of GNP. Had President Obama started this program rather than pursue all the other policies he did in the past 2.5 years this might have worked but it is too late.

Unfortunately our nation truly needs rebuilding and our people need employment but our government at all levels is already neck deep in debt in addition our manufacturing base is not only depressed but almost gone. Before we were able to stimulate the economy by purchasing the products for reconstruction we need by buying them from domestic industries but now we would have to purchase our reconstruction needs from overseas giving our economy less of a fiscal stimulation than the WPA did during the 1930s.

So while the WPA sounds great it is basically unrealistic today.
edit on 6/7/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Many of the arguments against the WPA during its existence in the 30s did not come from people who opposed its core principles rather they criticized the ineffectiveness of the program. For example, workers and project managers would be encouraged to prolong the period of construction on certain projects so as to keep the funds coming. Another example would be that the Western part of the country received far more assistance per capita than the much more impoverished and undeveloped South due to Roosevelt already having the South as a secure vote.

It allows for three things to happen; one, poor management of funds and lousy workmanship, two, political favoritism and basically vote-buying and, three, enlarging the national debt to levels which are completely unsustainable.

Please do remember that during the era when the WPA first was created our national debt was far less than what it currently is as percent of GNP. Had President Obama started this program rather than pursue all the other policies he did in the past 2.5 years this might have worked but it is too late.

Unfortunately our nation truly needs rebuilding and our people need employment but our government at all levels is already neck deep in debt in addition our manufacturing base is not only depressed but almost gone. Before we were able to stimulate the economy by purchasing the products for reconstruction we need by buying them from domestic industries but now we would have to purchase our reconstruction needs from overseas giving our economy less of a fiscal stimulation than the WPA did during the 1930s.

So while the WPA sounds great it is basically unrealistic today.
edit on 6/7/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)


What he said.
This is a good reply to the question I was asked.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


Great idea, helps out in every way. Provides jobs, stimulates the economy, and will improve americas infrastucture. Someone with more ambition than me should write a state rep or something to get the ball rolling.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Unrealistic...I don't think so. Difficult to implement with success? Yes. Impossible, no.

I do believe that if a person is not a part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

We have plenty of representatives in Washington telling us all the reasons why something can't be done.

I for one, would like to see some, or a lot of politcians telling us what can be done....



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
This is probably gonna piss alot of people off, but the best way to get this economy humming is a world wide war. Its what finally brought us out of the Great Depression. I'm not talking small engagments like Iraq or Libya but a knock down drag out. Preferably against China , i'm talking full mobilization with millions of boots on the ground. That will get this economy humming.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lokdog
This is probably gonna piss alot of people off, but the best way to get this economy humming is a world wide war. Its what finally brought us out of the Great Depression. I'm not talking small engagments like Iraq or Libya but a knock down drag out. Preferably against China , i'm talking full mobilization with millions of boots on the ground. That will get this economy humming.


While there is no doubt that an industrial boom from WW II brought us out of the depression the country was in at that time, I really don't think that WW III is the best solution.







edit on 6/7/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join