something similar was tried in Ontario with it's welfare recipients, it didn't go over well. we have seen here on ATS recently all the complaining
in the UK about "slave labour", due to yet another similar scheme for people on assistance. i suspect the reaction in the states would be even
part of the reason is "laziness" and the fact some would balk at the thought of having to work. yet for others it would indeed feel like "slave
labour", low wages and skilled trades work. on top of that you would also face the wrath of those who do the same work already for taking away work,
especially since many of the thing you mentioned are "skilled trades" that earn higher wages and so the work would ultimately go to those being
payed low wages. thus even further impacting their livelihoods. not to mention the "shoddy work" that using what would basically be forced labour
tends to create which would cause a fair chunk of the work to need to be re done.
no if you want to have something that works out you would need to PAY those higher wages, plus training costs. then the infrastructure and materials
to pay for on top. it would fast become a VERY EXPENSIVE operation that for all the good it would do, would become even more of a burden on a cash
strapped governments funds. the wages would need to be at least equal to the wages of those already doing similar work, or at least a fair chunk MORE
than the people would receive "on the dole", in order to get people to WANT to do those jobs, as well as to deal with the problems that would
develop with those already doing work at a higher wage.
this type of thing has been successfully done in the past. yet the circumstances were a fair amount different from what circumstances are today, that
is even an understatement in a lot of ways like night and day or comparing apples to oranges.
first off you have to remember that only UNMARRIED (and in that time would also have meant no children), MALES 17-28 (the ages actually seemed to
change a few times during it, with at least 3 different age brackets) were included. in fact $25 out of an earned $30 was sent back to the parents to
help them and siblings. that right there shows a major
societal difference from today. that figured as was common at the time that unmarried
children normally still lived with parents which is a thing that tho still happens is something to be looked down upon for, and considered "lay
abouts". not to mention family sizes
were also commonly much larger than is the norm of today.they ALSO received food, clothing, shelter
and medical care
. now what is that $30 wage comparable to today?
historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is $531.00 www.measuringworth.com...
Standard of Living measures a subject (income or wealth) against the cost of a "fixed" bundle of consumer goods and services (the CPI or RPI) or the
cost of all goods and services (the GDP deflator).
(calculation based on 1933 compared to 2012)
that $30 seems now to be worth $531 (but if you look at other worth measurements it was even worth more buying power than that) now that does not
to be all that much, but remember that this is what they received AFTER
food, clothing, shelter(rent/mortgage) and medical care. in
other words after their basic needs were taken care of.
gotta admit that's not bad. it's no wonder that when it was running young men flocked to
be a part of it. due to the way society is now this money would not likely go back to the parents unless of course the person decided to do it. as an
addition issue would be since in this day and age most people of that age range live away from home there would be a need for their possessions to
either be transported with them or stored if they were not going to be working close to home as was often the case when this was done last time.
to be continued.