It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why can’t we have another Civilian Conservation Corps's in the U.S.?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:00 PM
The U.S. transportation infrastructure is crumbling. The electrical grid is venerable. Dams are in need of repair. I can go on.

Do we need a civilian corps that is as strong as the military? Nope, I don’t think so. I think the POTUS really screwed the pooch stating such.

However, with so many people receiving benefits, why not put them to work in order to receive them? They’d be getting paid, learning a new trade and things that are in dire need of repair across the U.S. would be getting fixed.

Mothers that have children can be trained as day care employees using renovated abandoned schools to watch over the kids. Disabled can do administrative duties, and those who are physically able will be put to work.

Yep, it would be tough to implement, as people would fight it, after all, why work for it when you can get it for free? But after a year or two I think that it could work. I know that the various unions would hoop and holler as well. They need to bite the bullet as well since they are already pretty much subsidized by the Government anyways already. They would be getting qualified member after all in the long run.

What is wrong with this idea? It seemed to work back in the 30's and 40's.

edit on 25-5-2013 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:19 PM
The reason it won't work anymore is because you have so many that have grown up suckling the government teet that they would just refuse to work.

It is like you said why work when you can get it for free?

While I agree with your idea the people in general are too lazy.

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by SecretWeapon

That’s why I say it will take a year or two. (More than likely two…maybe even more)

The thing is. Give them an ultimatum. Work, get benefits, Don’t work and starve. The ones who would fight back so to speak because they are lazy would end up in prison and on the chain gangs, doing the same thing they would have anyway, but not getting paid (ok, maybe a small stipend)

Oh there will be those who cannot work due to disabilities and intelligence limitations and those people should be taken care of. After all, it’s rarely their fault. And more caregivers can be trained to help take care of them.

edit on 25-5-2013 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:57 PM
Perhaps the CCC was too successful and did too much good for the country. BTW, my dad and at least one uncle served in the CCC.

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by TDawgRex

I dont think its a bad idea if after a short period of time the pay is real money.

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:02 PM
I'm not sure about this idea. On the one hand you have a section of society that gets money for nothing coupled with the notion of putting them to work on a failing infrastructure. To be effective, they would need training in some cases. These new workers would need transportation, supervision, tools etc. Seems to me the idea would have a significant cost factor because though the workers were getting paid minimally to begin with the organization required to make them effective would cost a fortune

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:20 PM
I think the only major issues with bringing back the Conservation Corps is the cost, finding them something to do, and getting them to actually do it.

One thing I've learned over the years, having worked in a number of disaster areas and combat zones is that there are plenty of people who will take the money but not do the work.

I suppose you could offset the cost of a Conservation Corps by eliminating Welfare, which currently costs somewhere around $900 billion per year. But then, you would be taking people who were getting something for nothing and asking them to work for it instead. Probably wouldn't go over well.

Theoretically, one alternative could be to get folks into a Conservation Corps which is also turning a profit. For example, what if the Conservation Corps were hired at minimum wage to plant, grow, maintain and harvest crops used for biofuel and also operate production facilities to make the fuel. At which point, the fuel could be sold to the public and everybody wins. But that would require the land, the facilities and the infrastructure to support it. It would probably take years to get such a system up and running.

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:57 AM
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 worse.

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

Historic 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 seem 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.

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:57 AM

another issue that would appear is that you would be working against all the indoctrination that has been given in school. not only do they indoctrinate a sense of entitlement to the youth today but they also demean things like manual labour in favor of "office type work", computers and such along with he "importance of higher education", or you are a failure. add into that the genuine dislike a fair majority of "city dwellers" (where a fair portion of food stamps and social assistance ends up being), have absolutely NO desire or liking for the outdoors at all. in fact some are almost downright paranoid about the outdoors. since a lot of this work was done in parks, forests the middle of nowhere and the like how will you get them to accept that? then add in as well the reliance quite a few people have on technology like computers, the internet and cell phones. something else that would cause a lot of our modern society to balk at the thought of going without, even ONE week is more than many people can seem to hack without these conveniences (to them necessities).

heck many of these conveniences people are used to having are not readily available out side of cities. i have a friend who moved outside of a big city and that was one of his biggest issues since his job is online. just barely a half hour away and reliable internet was difficult to get as well as cell service. he was able to achieve it with a better phone and an expensive internet setup which his cell phone is a backup net source for. but much farther away would have been even more difficult, heck he can't even get "cable" he would need a satellite dish. and providers of these services seem not to have any interest in providing them as there is not enough money to be made to bother. so even "working on farms" might put any people off. and i'm sure there would be all sorts of calls about "slave labour and inhumane lack of needed amenities" if they were to be forced, even if they were getting over $500 plus food, housing and clothing. so how do you deal with that?

now how much did it all cost, a rather relevant question i think?

The total cost over its nine years of operation was $3 billion

that was a heck of a lot of cash back then. using the same converter site what does that equal going from 1933 dollars to 2012. now that was for some 3 million men with a maximum enrollment of 300,000 at any one time.

If you want to compare the value of a $3,000,000,000.00 Project in 1933 there are four (only gave 3 typo?) choices. In 2012 the relative:
historic opportunity cost of that project is $44,000,000,000.00
labor cost of that project is $150,000,000,000.00(using the unskilled wage) or $185,000,000,000.00(using production worker compensation)
economy cost of that project is $834,000,000,000.00

Historic Opportunity Cost measures a subject (generally a project) against a bundle of consumer goods and services (via the CPI or RPI) or a bundle of all goods and services (using the GDP deflator.) For a project of a person or household, the CPI or RPI is preferred. For investment and government projects, the GDP deflator is more appropriate.

labor cost of a project is measured using the relative wage of the workers that might be used to build the project. this measure uses one of the wage indexes.

economy cost of a project is measured using the relative share of the project as a percent of the output of the economy. this measure indicates opportunity cost in terms of total output of the economy. the viewpoint is the importance of the item to society as a whole, and the measure is the most inclusive. this measure uses the share of the GDP

so the money value shows a cost of 44 BILLION, but it seems that the "economy cost" may be the more accurate for a project like this (especially when we know how government projects have a tendency to way over blow the initial cost projections), which is a whopping 834 BILLION. that for only 300,000 people working at any one time over 9 years. how many people would we require at any one time today? and how much MORE would that end up costing? and if i'm correct and that really big number is the most accurate cost comparison can the government even AFFORD it? heck would even the 44 billion for 300,000 people at one time even be affordable?

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 06:56 AM
reply to post by minkmouse

Of course there would be training and transportation. That's part of the overall program. One way would be to offer retirees a wage to teach to supplement their income. Use military people on their last hitch (they did that with the first one) to provide other training and transportation.

I don't know of any military service member who would not want to be working around their home of record their last year in.

Remember that it would be a tax payer funded program, but at least we would be seeing our tax dollars at work.

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by generik that was some education.
At the time I wrote the OP it didn't dawn on me to convert 1930's dollars to todays.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:46 PM
If you legalized and made most popular drugs as cheap as candy and soda, and took away food stamps etc... You would have people lining up for jobs, Let me tell you, there would be millions of people happy to have a job and a way out of their stagnant lifestyles. We could have a huge and unprecedented workforce return that could begin to build a new foundation for this country. The outcome would be kin to getting over a hangover in the beginning but a steady trend of work ethic would begin to take root.

A little off topic here, but if we decided to make advertising outlawed in places that it was not sought out, people might then be able to get their heads out of the clouds and come back to reality. Big money advertising leads to unimaginable vices and bad habits. We have more than anything just lost sight of the things that really matter, like quality time and health...

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 06:36 AM

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by generik that was some education.
At the time I wrote the OP it didn't dawn on me to convert 1930's dollars to todays.

it was an education to me as well. i tend to enjoy history. i was actually shocked when i found out how few people it actually employed at a time considering how much it seems to be revered a part of the "saving of america during the depression". i actually figured it would have had much more people involved. i always thought it would have been in the millions employed at a time considering the population was about 125 million or so, with about 31 million unemployed. 300,000 gaining employment is rather small compared to that . it's no wonder it was so popular young men must have been lining up to "get in", not only as it was a job but seemingly a well paying job.

as for converting the dollar value, well it just made sense to check on it as the "value" of the money has changed so much since then. probably also helps that since i am in another country from home i am always working out the price of things to compare the prices to prices back home, and looking at how much of a person earns here compared to prices of things. (and let me tell you things like gas and electronics are generally FAR cheaper in north america when looking at the cost of them compared to wages here). so it was more an automatic reaction i guess for me to think of it.

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 11:24 AM
The CCC was a great program but if you have researched it you will see that it was mostly comprised of young strong men simply looking for work during the depression years.

The majority of people today that are welfare sucking the life out of the US are lazy, drug addicted, individuals with no motivation to do anything more than watch soaps all day.

Even if you did get them into the program they wouldn't be able to do the work that the CCC did. They simply are not physically capable of it.

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by Hopechest

Your disdain of people down on their luck never ceases to amaze me. Wise people never stereotype and paint everybody with the same broad brush. You couldn't possibly know everybody, or their reasons for receiving government assistance, yet you pretend like you do.

Your thinking is narrow, cruel, and shows that you are immature.

I think the CCC for today is a fantastic idea, and those who are out of shape would quickly become in shape, because that's what happens when you work outside and use your muscles. You'd be surprised at how many young people would like to do honest work, make lifetime friendships, and be outside in the fresh air doing something worthwhile that they can be proud of.

I worked in welfare for years, and for every lazy "welfare sucker", there were at least 4 others who wanted a chance to work, to have self-respect and to be proud of their efforts. But I guess that doesn't fit into your narrow world view and need to feel superior to others who are down on their luck.

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by Hopechest

The majority of people today that are welfare sucking the life out of the US are lazy, drug addicted, individuals with no motivation to do anything more than watch soaps all day.


A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work. (See Figure 1.) This figure has changed little in the past few years.

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

You are doing nothing but perpetuating the stereotype of the drug addicted, lazy, good for nothing, welfare queen sitting atop her throne of government cheese, when more often that not, that is simply not the case. The vast majority of it goes to people that really need it, not to these lazy system sucking vampires that you are imagining to be the status quo.

Is there welfare fraud? Yes.
Are there people who take advantage of the system? Yes.
Is this the norm? Absolutely not.

You continually amaze me. Riding around on that high horse of yours must be really exhausting. It must get tiring being up there... looking down on all the people that you so clearly think are below you...

I hope one day you will come to understand what its like to need help so that maybe you can learn to be more sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings.


I also wanted to add in response to the OP that in some areas, mine included, people ARE required to work to receive cash assistance.

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by Hopechest

You know. For someone who has the word *HOPE* in their username. You are so reluctant to give some to those who need it most....or, so it appears to me. jmoho.......


posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by TDawgRex

To the OP
I think it would be a great idea
To the troll.....not everyone is drug addicted...geesh

top topics


log in