The American Spectator : An Alternative to Unemployment

Text Size

Another Perspective

An Alternative to Unemployment

By Gary Shapiro on 8.26.11 @ 6:08AM

Why do we pay the jobless not to work? Why not tie benefits to voluntary service?

If there’s any question that the Obama Administration is coming up dry with new ideas for job creation, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack all but confirmed it last week. In an interview, Vilsack bragged that one in seven Americans are now on food stamps. Why brag about such a thing? Because, said Vilsack, every dollar from the food stamps program “generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity.… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times.”

Seriously, this is what passes for economic thinking in the Obama Administration right now. By Vilsack’s logic, if food stamps are such a boon to the economy, then why not put all Americans on food stamps? But it’s this same faulty logic which seems to be governing the White House’s plans for job creation. Even after extending unemployment insurance to an unprecedented 99 weeks two years ago, the White House seems prepared to fight any effort to eliminate the extension.

Consider the explanation from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on the economic “stimulus” of extending unemployment insurance: “It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it; they’re going to spend it.”

The White House should know better, especially given what we already know about extending unemployment benefits. According to an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks increased the U.S. jobless rate as much as 0.8 percentage points. In fact, note the Fed economists, the long-term unemployed now account for nearly half of all people out of work.

This shouldn’t come as any surprise. I saw this firsthand when trying to hire a nanny in the Detroit area. One otherwise-qualified nanny said she didn’t want to start until her unemployment benefits ran out. In the context of some 13.9 million out-of-work Americans collecting up to two years of unemployment, we must wonder if our well-intentioned social programs are backfiring.

Losing a job is definitely one of the toughest setbacks in life, and certainly unemployment insurance helps soften the blow. But when unemployment compensation of such length actually discourages unemployed Americans from finding jobs, then it’s time to question the benefits of yet another extension. Moreover, at a time when federal and state budgets are so deep in the red, we can’t continue to perpetually fund a program that is now costing federal and state governments some $129.5 billion annually.

We must look for an alternative that might actually lead to job creation. One idea is to provide a shorter duration of unemployment insurance and then require those receiving these checks to volunteer at a non-profit for 20 hours a week. Whether it is a church, local government, or a charity, in these tough financial times when charitable giving is down, these non-profits will appreciate the support, as will the community they serve.

Just as important, the unemployed job seeker will benefit also. He or she can gain skills, contacts, references and maybe even a full time job. Moreover, studies have documented the psychological damage one endures while unemployed for an extended period. Sometimes, without meaningful work, a person simply gives up. By tying their benefits to performing meaningful work, we can help lift the person’s self-esteem and confidence, which will keep them motivated to find a regular job.

A program like this doesn’t require a new bureaucracy. It simply requires a non-profit official to certify the person’s weekly 20 hours to the unemployment office, which is already equipped to certify when someone is eligible for benefits.

If the government is giving away taxpayer money for those who deserve it only because they lost their job, then we should have no problem attaching some strings. Tough times call for trying something new. But the Obama Administration seems willing to ignore the mounting evidence that extending unemployment insurance is only hurting job creation. As the old adage goes, if we try more of the same, we’ll get more of the same.

Our choice doesn’t have to be the stark choices offered by extremists in either party (pay or not pay two years unemployment). This “volunteering” third option is one which will help our nation, the Treasury, and the unemployed.

About the Author

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (145) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jdmeth| 8.26.11 @ 7:06AM

Everyone who receives public assistance should be required to do some kind of work. The unemployed and welfare recipients would be drafted into the public service corp. Sargent s and platoon leaders would direct draftees in performing cleaning and policing public housing areas. No one would be allowed to sit around and collect a check and cause trouble. I was in the military, non coms can find lots of work for idle hands.

Darin| 8.26.11 @ 7:08AM

During the Depression, men who got food handouts were expected to do something like cut wood. And they did so willingly. Now we have a generation of freeloaders who have been brainwashed to think they "deserve" what they have not earned.

PolishKnight| 8.26.11 @ 10:42AM

Indeed. And the precedent was set back then that while men had to work to earn their keep, women could count on the state to be a substitute husband. Look at how well that's turning out.

Dan Hirsch| 8.26.11 @ 11:29AM

PK,

You have no idea...

I have an acquaintance whose twenty-something, unmarried, unemployed daughter decided that she needed a baby to make her life 'complete.' Not to mention that she knew that the benefits for an unmarried mother were more generous than for a single woman or married mother. No father or sperm donor is anywhere in the picture...

This is just the start...her best friend observed these proceedings and thought the plan so smart that she did it, too. So she got herself (I'm being vulgar on purpose here.) knocked up by a guy she knew. She's going to deliver in a few weeks. Yes, she's unemployed and on public aid. Her semen donor? He's got two deliveries scheduled for that week. Yup, he got two different women pregnant at about the same time, with no plans to marry either, with no plans to support either child or mother. Nope, you stupid taxpayers can pickup all the bills, forever...

I say, if you want public aid and get pregnant or father and desert your baby and its mother, the first requirement for both parents would be forced sterilization. There is no excuse, with all of the birth control floating around, to have a baby that you cannot support. If you CHOOSE to do so and then expect the taxpayers to support you and yours, then the taxpayers are reasonable to limit their liability at the hands of your reproductive organs.

Sound Draconian? I say no. If my kid expected me to support him or her and their offspring, I would demand my kid marry the other parent, and there would be a short time limit on my support - and it would not be 18 years, not 99 weeks...I would do that to my own - how could I expect taxpayers to more for strangers? Strangers who make a career of irresponsibility?

Oh yeah, when I was 14 years old, my mother took me aside and laid that plan out for me and my brothers, should any of us wander down that path!

The lack of this societal more is a key reason our culture is dying!!! Children cannot raise children- self-sufficient mothers and fathers
have a hard enough time!

Don't tread on me...

LiveFreeOrDie| 8.26.11 @ 1:02PM

"Don't tread on me..."

Unless it's forced sterilization? Hope you were joking. There's a million REASONABLE ideas that ought to be tried before even considering something so ridiculous.

Appleby| 8.26.11 @ 1:27PM

In Georgia when I lived there, a common practice for the FRA/Welfare clerks was to hang around the hospitals and get the "proud papa" to sign the paper admitting paternity while he was in the Lookit-What-I-Did mode; then they could go after him for child support. It was also the practice that unless the mother could/would name the father (or give the names of a few likely suspects), no welfare.

As far as "forced volunteerism", we hvae a program in Toronto in which children are forced to "volunteer" a certain number of hours in order to get their high school diplomas. What happens is they jam earbuds in their ears, twiddle their binkies in a corner, and continually whine "CanIgohomenoooooooowwwwwwwww?" until somebody will sign their slip and kick them out the door. Calling this "volunteering" is like calling taxes "investmens".

I do believe they ought to be required to do something, and I suggest stoop labour -- picking up trash, sweeping streets and sidewalks, scraping off gum from stadium seats, and cleaning up dog poo in parks.

Dan Hirsch| 8.26.11 @ 1:34PM

Sorry,

I mean forced sterilization - if you as a citizen CHOOSE to reproduce and expect your fellow citizens to support YOU and YOUR progeny, there needs to be serious consequences.

After all isn't this just theft? The deadbeats can choose to avoid pregnancy or the deadbeats can choose to support their progeny, but they choose to irresponsibly reproduce, knowing that taxpayers will pay for the consequences of their irresponsible actions.

Hell, all they would have to do to avoid the consequences is to support their children-what, do you find this unfair?

If you are uncomfortable with forced sterilization, incarceration would be undesirable, as the state ends up raising the children (there would necessarily be at least two;) a situation I find entirely deplorable.

So I have identified 4 ways to avoid this: don't reproduce, support your progeny, forced sterilization (for BOTH parents.), incarceration. You know of a million REASONABLE ways to avoid this and you find forced sterilization unreasonable, you owe us 999,997 ways. How about just two or three, because I don't see them.

More birth control, handing out condoms, more abortions, really do not work. The first two fail because they have not worked yet, and I don't find murdering an innocent in vitro human to be REASONABLE.

Your turn.

PS.

IS executing murders unreasonable? I say it is, but then I had a friend who was murdered. If you haven't experienced this, no amount of watching CSI will ever communicate the effect to on victim's families and friends. DH

LiveFreeOrDie| 8.26.11 @ 2:24PM

I think we can agree entitlements and the inefficient, wasteful and generally incompetent way they're managed is the problem. And I hope we could agree on a number of remedies. I'm just saying forced sterilization does not happen in a free country and it's an extremely hypocritical to suggest it as a viable alternative then close with, "Don't tread on me." You can't regulate reproduction, China anyone?

I'd surely enjoy debating the death penalty with you but it's rather off-topic in my opinion.

PolishKnight| 8.26.11 @ 2:43PM

I hate to sympathize with the left, but there are times when government intervention becomes necessary if not desirable. If free markets were sufficient to solve problems, the founding fathers wouldn't have called a Constitutional Convention.

As ugly as China's policy is, it's quickly becoming apparent that it's only a close second to the welfare-as-substitute sugar daddy we have here. This is not eugenics. This is about holding parents accountable for their actions.

Regarding chasing down the fathers to make them pay support. Funny story about Georgia but I wonder if that slowly stopped working as the fathers wised up (it takes time, but even a dumb ol' dog can learn new tricks) and now they're stuck again. The welfare system as evolved from going after divorced men to make them pay for women to remain housewives on alimony and "child" support, then going after fathers from one-night stands, to then going after sperm donors.

Eventually, the women will start just paying $400 to a sperm bank and being done with it.

And cutting off welfare mothers if they don't produce a father? I doubt they held to that policy for long once the bay-bees started starving to death.

Appleby| 8.26.11 @ 4:12PM

Nobody lets babies starve to death; the floozy just finds a new man...or a liberal.

DG in GA| 8.27.11 @ 12:03PM

OK, if you can't get your mind around forced sterilization, how about required Norplant? As long as a woman is taking taxpayer money to support her children, she MUST agree to Norplant implants and to keep them current. If she doesn't want Norplant, then she doesn't need to take taxpayer money to support herself and her kids.

Don't know how to prevent the MEN involved from fathering multiple children, but if the women can't get pregnant, and don't even have to be responsible for remembering to take their birth control pills or using a condom, we could cut way down on the illegitimate births.

I also think women should be REQUIRED to name a father on the birth certificate, and the government should go after these men to support their kids. I think it is a rare female who doesn't have a pretty good idea of who the baby daddy is. If a guy gets named erroneously, he can get a paternity test to clear himself. But in my experience, most of these women are having multiple babies by the same guy - who takes no responsibility for any of them.

chemical castration| 8.27.11 @ 1:09PM

FYI: Chemical Castration is currenly available for both sexes.

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 8:56AM

There's a big difference between China and what this "Don't Tread On Me" guy is proposing and you know it. Having kids in order to increase your "gubmint" money is gaming the system. I agree, have two kids that you can't support and society gets to render you incapable of producing a third. Society has the right to defend itself from leeches, parasites, freeloaders and other opportunistic infections. Explain to me how it can be legal, ethical and moral to force me at gunpoint to provide for children that I didn't produce. You do not have an automatic God-given right to plunder the wealth that I create.

Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 12:44AM

I saw this crap happen to New Zealand all the time. The decline of marriage in European (and European derived societies like Australia and New Zealand) is astounding. One particular gorgeous intelligent Pakeha college girl of my acquantance got knocked up by her shiftless Maori boyfriend...Oy. College gone, living in mommy's home with boyfriend shacking up there.

My kids are being homeschooled for a reason. We will pound proper values into them.

Welfare| 8.27.11 @ 1:14PM

welfare pays less than $400.00 per month in cash. I encourage all of you to find a room for rent much less one for children as well. How sad that this woman could not see a different way of life for herself and was unable to do anything other than create another potential taxpayer and her highest goal was to collect less than $400.00 per month as a paycheck. sad indeed. Teach your daughters well. Look carefully at the messages she is getting from the TV and society in general. Send her to all girls schools as they are proven in creating self assured independent thinking and successful women.

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 9:06AM

More disinformation.

The little girl that my daughter graduated high school with that had a kid in her senior year got the $300.00 a month from the "gubmint." She also got free public housing because she was a "single mom." She got state paid tuition and books at the University of Loserville, free public transportation to and from and free childcare. Not to mention AFDC and a WIC card. The pimple on society's butt was bragging to all the other little girls that she had $150.00 a mumff left over.

Women having kids is a welfare racket, a planned part of Lynddon Baines Johnson's, "Great Society" grand master plan to literally grow a constituency for the Democrat party. It's worked wonderfully, the man was a genius. You have to admit that it's not every day that you hear tell of a guy that single handedly hijacked a superpower.

Buck Ofama| 8.26.11 @ 1:33PM

WELL I DUZ DESERVS FREE MUNY......CUZ OBAMABA HE DUN SED I SHUD GET WYTE MUNY FO FREE.

NO MUH SAYIN?????????????

lily | 8.28.11 @ 6:59AM

These that keep unemployment are very "picky" about a job offered. The law should be , if physically able, you take the job , or the checks stop.I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Lindasunny2002 on--a'ge'l'es's'da'te.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

Mike D.| 8.26.11 @ 7:51AM

Simple, it would put union municipal employees out of work. I totally agree, every person who collects welfare should put in 8 hours a day of work doing something AND should be graded on their efforts and have that tied to their benefits.

jobshare?| 8.27.11 @ 12:58PM

We have never had even a 85 percent employment rate so in general we have always needed a new policy. Why not give employers incentives to force jobsharing to double the number of jobs available? That means all the currently unemployed will have to cut their paychecks and take some time off to do some serious research before spouting off uninformed verbage here while at the same time reflecting on what is happening to the USA and the loss of true democracy secondary to recent developments and policies.

Alan Brooks| 8.26.11 @ 8:11AM

Arbeit Macht Frei

old white guy| 8.26.11 @ 10:07AM

i kind of thought that as well.

well said| 8.27.11 @ 1:07PM

Very well put thank you for putting it as it is in the most short sweet way possible. Unfortunatelyit will be lost due to the lack of intellectual ability of the writers here. They probably don't even know what you are talking about and they have already proven their lack of curiosity in researching any topic.

Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 12:47AM

Abeit macht frei my ass. There is NOTHING similar to the Nazis in having able bodied people taking welfare checks go out and build the Mexican American wall for us as work in return for check. It will add to their sense of self worth, as well. That's what the CCC was all about, for example.

DaveD| 8.26.11 @ 3:12PM

In the early 70's, Richard Nixon proposed just such a thing - it was called Workfare, as opposed to Welfare. At the time I worked for a consulting company who had a contract to assist in automation of nursing home payments for the state welfare department. I've never forgotten one meeting where the subject of Workfare came up.

The Assistant Director of the State Department of Welfare said, "What would that [Workfare] say about the dignity of the recipient?" There followed general agreement that Workfare would harm the recipient's self-respect from the Welfare crowd.

Meanwhile I had all I could do to sit still in my chair and wait it out. Inside I was screaming, " What about the dignity of the people who get a hand out for nothing?"

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 9:09AM

Not to mention that the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to make someone work for a living.

uniforms?| 8.27.11 @ 1:02PM

You forgot to mention they should also be required to wear matching uniforms so the state can show everyone how great the program is and how productive the policy is. A big whistle can blow so everyone can hear it and know the state is working for the benefit of the people. Workers can carry small propaganda cards to hand out to individuals walking by spouting the benefits to society.

Darin| 8.26.11 @ 7:07AM

When these lunkheads run their numbers, do they ever consider opportunity cost? You know, that Accounting 101 concept that covers how money used for A is not available for B, thus the opportunity presented by B cannot be pursued.

In this, the opportunity cost is the lost income from the taxpayer (who pays for the hand-out known as food stamps). If I have to pay $1,000 in taxes for food stamps, that's $1,000 I will not have available to do something I want to do. Further, taking the $1,000 I worked hard to earn and giving it to some lazy slug really ticks me off. Therefore, since the government is already going to steal from me, I'm less inclined to give to ANY charities. Thus, the opportunity cost is a double whammy. Not only am I denied the choice of spending what I have earned, I'm less likely to give even more of what I earn.

Harry the Horrible| 8.26.11 @ 10:37AM

And don't forget - if you pay $1000 in taxes for food stamps, only about $300 (at most) will reach the recipient. The rest sticks to the fingers of empire-building bureaucrats in DC.

Chris Ruetenik| 8.26.11 @ 5:05PM

yep. I agree with you. This is all borrowed money anyway, right ? . So here we now have to pay back a dollar, and then we have 84 cents that was supposedly generated? It sounds to me like the country lost 16 cents on this deal.

VAR?| 8.27.11 @ 1:05PM

Perhaps we are ready for a truly fair tax? Collected at the cash registers of America? That way you will rest assured that all illegals will be paying taxes and anyone else who is running guns, drugs and all those cash only cafes and eating houses.

martin j smith| 8.26.11 @ 8:07AM

When the Conservat5ive Media become honest with themselves then maybe the naswer to the riddle: Why come Obama no mayke more jobee ? Will be answered. ( forgive my sarcasm but this really gets me mad !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ).
Answer: Obammee no went to mayk jobeezzzzzz )
Du U noe y ?

Two reasons: ONE; He wants instability and even civil unrest. TWO: Dependence on GOVERNMENT . If you see this you get Obama.
Obama is not an "incompetent" . His behavior may appear to be that but he is not. He is flipping the bird to the American People and too many are too chicken to call him out on that.

David| 8.26.11 @ 11:25AM

You are correct. His intent is to cause a class war. He atcually believes it will be rich against poor and that he can call in the national guard. Two problems as I see it. One, it won't be between the rich and the poor, it will be between the middle class and the freeloaders. The middle class isn't as concerned with the rich. There aren't that many of them and we know if we (The Tea Party) can take over the governemnt we can change policy and maybe bring some decent paying jobs back to this country. Two, the national guard belongs to the states, not the federal government. If Obama thinks govenors want to put their lives on the line by calling on state guards to kill U.S. citizens then it won't happen. Governnors aren't going to do it.
What we should all want though, is a Constitutional Convention. It's time the states got together and starightened out the federal government. Every 10 or 20 years we as citizens should get to vote on whether or not we want a Constitutional Convention. Maybe have the vote every 8 or 12 years to coincide with presidential elections. Govenors seem to be much more in touch with their citizens than thos in the house, senate or even White House.

Dan Hirsch| 8.26.11 @ 11:34AM

National Guard responds to their individual state governors. Barry can bring them on line only with governors' concurrence. So it'll depend on what state you live in...

You give Barry too much credit when you imply that he is doing this to a plan. I say, the President does not do plans, only "outlines." His house servants only tell him that they have done "plans" but he never asks to look at them, so there really are no 'plans..."

Don't tread on me...

Dave Williams| 8.26.11 @ 1:01PM

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOoooooooo, a Constitutional Convention is a HIDEOUSLY BAD idea!!!! It would be hijacked by leftist morons (forgive the redundancy), and what's left of this once-great country would be shredded in a matter of weeks. Better to make 'em contest every inch of ground, and pay dearly at the ballot box.

Dan Hirsch| 8.26.11 @ 1:41PM

David;

Dave is 110% correct. Stop all thought, talk, consideration about Constitutional Conventions.

Can you imagine the rioting that would occur outside that hall!

Every anarchist, socialist, communist, vegan, atheist, Islamicist, and other malcontent on the planet would converge, riot, and tear down the remnants of our society. This riot would make the London riots, the Paris riots, the Watts riots, heck, the French Revolution look like Christmas morning in Church!

Don't do it in my state!!! Don't do it in my country!!!

Yikes!!!

Don't tread on me...

Dan Hirsch| 8.26.11 @ 1:42PM

And this doesn't even address the rioting that would occur inside the hall!!!!

Ed| 8.26.11 @ 2:06PM

A present-day constitutional convention would be a terrible idea. It would ensure that a government of the Proggies, by the Proggies, and for the Proggies would not perish from this earth.

Wow!| 8.27.11 @ 1:20PM

Where was your voice when evereyone even veterans were voting for him? Where was the press when we found out he was haning out with Reverand Wright for 20 years and his buddies were bombers????? Stupid Americans watching TV controlled by the enemy

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.26.11 @ 8:25AM

The system is being gamed by people who know how to make it work.

It isn't extremist to want to cut off benefits for those who have been unemployed two years.

There is an end to just about everything and there should be lifetime benefits limits. Once you receive those, good luck.

Jeamar37| 8.26.11 @ 3:15PM

An excellent idea. But both yours and the author's are too commonsense. The volunteer business would undoubtedly need another bureaucracy especially if the "volunteer" needed training, close supervision,etc. It turns the charitable organizations function from charity to job training with all its complication. Several yrs ago a judge in Az. ordered an animal abuser to do X number of "public service" hours in an animal shelter (as punishment?@). The shelter's response: We don't want that kind of people "working" here!

flaw in reasoning!| 8.27.11 @ 1:23PM

When those bennies run out these people break into your home rape your wife and kill your kids for 50 dollars and a computer. Let them eat cake you say? Flash mobs will.result. We need JOBSHARING, FLAT TAX and NO PRIVATE OR CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. Until we have these our democracy and capitalism will soon end.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.28.11 @ 6:26AM

Let them try. Many citizens are armed and would love to show them 2nd Amendment solutions.

Louis Jenkins| 8.26.11 @ 8:47AM

Excellent idea. Now, who's going to use it?

Denver Todd| 8.26.11 @ 8:56AM

If a non-profit gets free labor from those receiving unemployment, why would it then hire employees it has to pay for, and why would you and I give it money if its labor cost is zero?

Brubaker| 8.26.11 @ 9:17AM

Non-profits do not exist for the purpose of employing their own staffs; they employ staff so that they can accomplish their core mission.

Most non-profits have very few paid employees and depend upon volunteers.

Reducing the labor cost of a non-profit releases additional funds to support the core mission of the non-profit.

While I can't speak for you, I would continue to give money to the non-profits that I support because, well, I support what they do.

Denver Todd| 8.26.11 @ 9:57AM

Actually, I rethought my stance on these things, and here is my new position: Rather than being a grant, unemployment benefits should be a loan. I think with a loan, people would be much more motivated to find work.

CASpike| 8.26.11 @ 11:14AM

At first glance I liked this idea, but as I started to think about it, not. As Student Loans, I fear that many would game the "unemployment loan", possibly increasing participation (in unemployment) and then defaulting on the loan.

idalily| 8.26.11 @ 3:03PM

But there's a KEY difference. You are only likely to need student loans once, so if you default, no downside. You've already got your degree. Unemployment is something you're likely to need more than once. So if you screw the taxpayers over and default, you NEVER get unemployment benefits again. I like it.

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 11:33AM

The "gubmint" does not allow you to default on "gubmint" loans. The only way that you can never repay a student loan, for example, is to never get a job with income that can be managed for you, you never apply for "gubmint" freebies or you die. Declaring a bankruptcy, for example, will get you relief for all debts except the debts that you owe the "gubmint."

Dan Hirsch| 8.26.11 @ 12:06PM

Brubaker;

I question your assertion that most non-profits have very few paid staff and rely mostly on volunteers. Your local Habitat for Humanity, your local church, surely use volunteers. But the major non-profit foundations direct most of their grants to organizations that are engaged in actual work by paid people. The Howard Hughes foundation ($14 billion in assets) funds a lot of medical research, which, hopefully, is done by paid, professional staffers. Any health related non-profit would surely not use volunteers. Wikipedia has an extensive list of nonprofits and I think you'll see that there is a whole lot of salary-paying by NPO's.

Also consider the non-profit business category, Underwriters Laboratories has operations in many countries, all with paid staff and no profit. Newman's Own food products are not manufactured and distributed by volunteers...

I contend that in these latter cases, with Paul Newman deceased what in the world is the objective of Newman's Own, other than employing people?

I say, the government should not make it a habit to support people for doing non-economic work. Nobody is fooled that they are engaged in meaningful labor, unless the market will pay its costs.

I think you may be confusing actual charities with non-profit organizations.

brilliant!| 8.27.11 @ 1:25PM

wow why didn't I think of this? I feel pretty stupid now. Thanks for pointing this out.

Purple Lips| 8.26.11 @ 9:00AM

As the old WPA gangs used to say during the Great Depression, "Pick'em up, and put'em down". A great number of construction projects were done in those years.... and I need some new sidewalks.

Mike D.| 8.26.11 @ 10:08AM

And you had the Civilian Conservation Corp. Put these people to work cleaning parks, campgrounds, doing something.

Nina| 8.26.11 @ 9:27AM

Oh, come on. Obama won't allow this because these lazy unemployed won't want it, just like the mandatory drug testing for your benefits. He wants us hard working people to do his volunteer work for him therefore cowering us under his demands. Won't happen. I can hear the cries already (whaaaa, I don't want to shovel a hole. It's not fair!. Just gimme my money! I aint gonna do nuthin for dat money, it's mine!!)...can't you hear the uproar?

CommonSense| 8.26.11 @ 12:45PM

Right!...and if they had to work they wouldn't vote for him again.

brilliant!| 8.27.11 @ 1:27PM

Why not Mandatory drug tests for all!!!! This country is supporting a huge drug habit and lots of illegal business that is all tax free!

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 11:50AM

I have a job and pay my own way, put two kids through college without public assistance and pay taxes. Since when does what I choose to drink, smoke, snort or inject in the privacy and comfort of my own home become any of your damnded business?

When are you going to realize that drug prohibition laws serve the government and not you? Case in point, you have to have a factory to manufacture beer. A factory that can be regulated and taxed. Pot grows wild in the fence row and can't be regulated or taxed.

People say that if drugs were legal that people would be driving around higher than kites. Like they're not now. There are several people that I know at the factory that are constantly swapping their prescription pain medications around.

Get your head out of the inserted and locked position. When was the last time you ever heard of a guy smoking a joint then beating the holy hell out of his wife and kids? Marijuana does exactly the reverse of what alcohol does to the central nervious system, yet beer is legal and pot isn't. That makes perfect sense in an idiotic public sector sort of a way.

Drug prohibition supports the most perverse symbiotic relationship that I know of. Drug dealers rely on the cops to keep the price of their commodity high. If Wal-Greens sold coke over the country the guy on the street would be out of business. The cops rely on the drug dealers to justify their useless, public sector existances. Legalize the drugs, eliminate the money in the business, downsize the government, eliminate the violence.

You have to have a brain to figure this stuff out?

Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 12:51AM

I have seen plenty of situations where a man smoked marijuana and beat the shit out of his wife. The synthetic stuff is worse. The THC quantity of today's MJ is much worse than the 1970s. If you are growing your own with seeds where you know the potency fairly well, that's one thing.

But 70% of my patients on my inpatient psych unit are positive for THC on drug screens. It was even worse in New Zealand, where MJ was a scourge among the Maoris.

kurgan| 8.29.11 @ 8:38PM

I don't dispute what you say but if this is the case then it's the first case I've heard of violence associated with marijuana.

Charlene| 4.27.12 @ 8:26AM

BRAVO!

DWSWesVirginny| 8.26.11 @ 9:43AM

Why not tie unemployment benefits to "community service"? 1) Because the government hardly knows what community service--I mean real service--is. Government make-work is not the same as real work done for real people who really want it done.; 2) Such programs are merely a disguised form of dependency on the state and I thought we were fighting to eliminiate it? 3) Similar things have been attempted in Chicago and New York and mostly its a sham with no work really done. 4) Even "real" government workers aren't working all that much or on stuff people actually want. (I wish I could post a picture I took a couple of years ago of the huge effort by the City of Alexandria, VA to change a single stop sign--must have been 6 people working on it!); 5) Because, contrary to the article's claim, it will become a bureaucratic mess. When has it not? Studies abound to show, in every other area of government intervention into sociology and economics, how they were either harmful or simply a waste of money. Prime examples are the governments efforts at job training and Head Start. 6) The government has created the unemployment in the first place and it is sublimely ridiculous to turn to it for a solution. It seems to me if the political leadership is so obtuse about the causes of our unemployment they will hardly know how to productively employed the unemployed.

LiveFreeOrDie| 8.26.11 @ 1:13PM

Good comment

Correct!| 8.27.11 @ 1:30PM

Unfortunately the union contracts say first in- last out so we have alot of outdated sleepers at the desks of our government. All young newbees who are recently trained, excited about working are first to get cut!

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 11:53AM

God Bless You! Keep telling the truth.

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 11:53AM

God Bless You! Keep telling the truth.

David W| 8.26.11 @ 9:52AM

When I was laid off and looking for a job, I withdrew from a potential bridge job because I would have ended up making less than I would have on unemployment, and would have had to spend a number of hours actually working (I know, shame on me). However I was looking for a job and was very fortunate to find one after only 5 months. Point is I didn't pursue that temp job because I would have made less.

I also have a friend who was laid off when I was. This person is still collecting unemployment. This person had enough money saved up so he/she is not even looking for a job, partially thanks to receiving extended unemployment.

Is there a perfect solution? Probably not. But to extend unemployment (and welfare) for so long with nothing in return is not good for this country and her people.

David| 8.26.11 @ 11:43AM

You're right, shame on you, but it's not all your fault. We rank last in the industrialized world when it comes to benefita dn job protection. When I say industrialized world I mean Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Our government is all about being pro business and nothing about jobs. We have no policy of training laid off people for the next generation of good paying jobs and the govenment shouldn't neccasarily be the one to pay for the training. In the old day, when a company laid workers off their stock dropped like a hot rock. Investors knoew their was a prolbem, why else would you lay off. Now when a comapny lays off stock goes up because the comapny is preventing a loss, or is it? What it is in these day is greed by corporations that claim they can't compete without the use of cheap foreign labor. Well, as we say down here in Texas, BULLSHIT! The corporations lay off Americans out of greed, oure and simple. When was the last time you saw G.E., Amana, Fridigaire or any other make of househole appliances drop their price? You haven't. They just make more profit (although they hide it in loopholes) and pay their officers larger bonuses. We all know it, and we know it to be true. I truly hope the Tea Party can take over government, then maybe we can make some changes to our laws and bring some jobs back to this country.

SpiralArchitect| 8.26.11 @ 7:57PM

Most states allow for a 'partial' claim. You file earnings that are less than your WBA ( weekly bene amount) and get a percentage of the remainder.

Educate yourself, you would have made more!

Yes, I am an examiner for the state UI office, I do know something about these things. :)

Correct!| 8.27.11 @ 1:32PM

We need a flat tax collected at the register to eliminate all loopholes. We are the ONLY industrialzed country without a daycare program. No one ever mentions this when they spout about welfare mothers!

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 12:00PM

You are full of crap. The reason that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world not to offer "free" healthcare and "free" daycare and "free" whatever else it is that your little heart desires is because the US pays for the national defence of all these other countries.

If the EU were paying for their own continental defense you can bet the farm that they wouldn't have nationalized medicine. Or if they did that that they would have it under the Soviets and they'd all be speaking Russian.

Stefan Stackhouse| 8.26.11 @ 9:54AM

I look around and see plenty of things that need to be done in each community. There is no profit in most of these things, so the incentive isn't there for the private sector to get them done. Yet, society would benefit if someone could do these things. The money that we are just giving away to people could better be used paying them to do these useful things that need to be done. By all means cut Washington totally out of the loop, though. You won't possibly see such a common sense solution to the problem as long as THEY are involved!

Denver Todd| 8.26.11 @ 10:01AM

Who gets to decide what benefits society?

CalMark| 8.26.11 @ 1:54PM

So a Commissar arrives at the door of Mr. Unemployed Accountant one fine morning and says, "The civic gym needs lots of work. The time has come for you to earn your keep, citizen! Being a registered Republican, Mr. Accountant, and regardless of the effects on your job search, you will clean toilets and mop floors, 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. Because it needs to be done."

Don't scoff. That's inevitably how "forced labor" things work.

Drunken Sailor| 8.26.11 @ 2:24PM

Back in the Carter administration both my parents were struggling through college. We were on goverment aid for 2 years (and never again). To get the aid in the state of Illinios my father went down to work on the road crews cleaning and maintaining our rural country roads. He did this twice a week for 4 hours a day and was happy to do it as it gave him his self respect. Then the state decided working for your aid was unconstitutional (by the state constitution) and he started getting the checks for nothing.

Now mind you 8 hours a week isn't much and he was easily able to work it around his class schedules. After they started giving him his checks for free, he changed his class schedules, got a part time job and took longer to graduate.

Later when I got older I asked him why. He said because he didn't like how getting a handout from the goverment made him lose his self respect and doubt his worth. Even though he knew it would take him longer to get his degree and we would struggle a little longer he couldn't live with that or set that example for me and my brother.

That was the start of my becoming a conservative.

Correct!| 8.27.11 @ 1:34PM

it takes on average 12-16 hours a day to fill in all those job applications online as they do not allow cut and paste features! it is easier to work a job than to try and find one online!!!!

fmm| 8.26.11 @ 9:58AM

This statement "every dollar from the food stamps program generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity.…" is meant to mislead and confuse any true economic effect. First, it ignores overhead (governmental administration of food stamps in this case) which is normally about the same or higher than the actual cost of a task, so that the net is a reduction of at least $0.16 for each food stamp dollar spent. From another point of view, if the statement were true, then each dollar left in the private sector must create at least $2.84 in terms of economic activity since the effect of the initial dollar was not taken out of the true wealth creating sector of the economy. One can play these games ad infinitum. The point is to see through the subterfuge.

martin j smith| 8.26.11 @ 10:09AM

Many of you I am sure I would agree with on many issues but on this one there is a fundamental mistake. Its as if there IS a solution to our unemployment problem--or expansion of the private sector--same thing.

OBAMA DOES NOT WANT IT. PERIOD !!!!!!!!!

Lea| 8.26.11 @ 10:24AM

Please!! We have become such an "Entitlement Program" addicted country that no longer has expectations that people will work to improve their lives.
"Food Stamps" (now called SNAP) is out recruiting to get more clients. And the federal Welfare program (TANF) allows clients to stay on aid for years.

CommonSense| 8.26.11 @ 1:12PM

Unless you're white and middle class, then you get no help at all. After all, you're rich...

misinformed!| 8.27.11 @ 1:39PM

UI benefit is maxed out at 1800 month. You are not eligible for any other programs as your income is too high. Not eligible for freebies of any kind includes medical so if you get sick or hurt they rush to to a local hospital treat you and then bill collectors hunt you down like a dog for years after trying to collect the 17000....rents in metro areas are 1300 for studio and 900 for a share room and in most places it is illegal to sleep in your car. In SF it is also illegal to sit or lay on the street. so if you want to get rich create a flotation device that people can sit and sleep on!

POST American| 8.26.11 @ 10:31AM

------------SOME MORE ALTERNATIVES---------

Call out and unflinchingly PROSECUTE our
last 4 CFR front op administrations for their
deeply deliberate, long engineered, systematic
RED China sellout and TREASON OP.

Wayne | 8.26.11 @ 10:34AM

I don't think there are enough non-profits to handle the influx. I can imagine 200 people showing up to volunteer at the thrift center where my wife works.

I got a better idea. Just make being unemployed illegal like China, and put the people in jail then turn it into free labor.

love it| 8.27.11 @ 1:41PM

At least we would have a place to sleep at night

PolishKnight| 8.26.11 @ 11:00AM

Regarding the nanny's unemployment benefits: Those are usually based upon actual wages. So if the wages the author offered the nanny weren't enough to motivate her to get off of unemployment, that implies he wasn't offering a decent wage. Unemployment is usually a minimal amount of money to get by.

So even as we bash Obama for his laughable socialist policies, it's quite clear the free market is not working sufficiently to generate decent paying jobs. Much of the problem is due to some of the right who look the other way at illegal immigration or abused H1B's in order to drive down wages.

As a side observation, the only way for her to lose her unemployment would be if he reported her wages to the IRS.

Regarding making people perform community service while on unemployment: When I was unemployed for 4 months, I viewed looking for work as a full time job. I put in job applications, went to networking events, updated my resume, and went in for training. I didn't just sit at home or go fishing although I will admit I did go fishing on one day because I felt I deserved it after having gone through such a tough time at my previous job.

In any case, I continued to do the same after my unemployment benefits ran out on a previous time. I had a lot of money in savings. One of the problems with the welfare state that didn't apply to me was that I almost always had a nest egg throughout my life while most people don't seem to think that' s necessary. I can't imaging living any other way. People shouldn't have children without at least 20K in the bank. It sounds tough, but imagine what the world would be like if more people lived that way.

YOU got it| 8.27.11 @ 1:45PM

I have been looking for any kind of work. The nanny jobs are specifically asking for SPANISH speaking folks...now you know why. My local cafe if full of people from Mexico and they are making tons of money. I applied for barista jobs during grad school and could not get one they all had those jobs so I had to borrow on student loans. Now I am in debt as well as unemployed thanks to the non-enforcement of our immigration laws.

YOU got it| 8.27.11 @ 1:46PM

Nanny jobs want you to do everything and then they wonder why their husbands run off with the nanny. She is usually better equipped to be a wife and mother! You snooze you lose!

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 12:21PM

So, does thinking that you're the last sane man on the planet mean thet you're insane?

I can fix this unemployment\economic problem here today right now. Consider, that a car built by Chrysler, Ford or GM can be exported to only one country and that's Canada. While Honda and Toyota and Subaru Isuzu and Nissan and Mercedes and BMW can import and sell whatever they can in this country.

I deliberately excluded Volvo and Landrover etc. because they're owned by Ford. Ford owns Fiat.

Ford has the number one selling car in Europe. Cavieat being that the car that Ford sells in Europe has to be built in Europe. Same deal with GM in Asia and South America.

How is it that the French can sell all of the wine that they can make here in the US but American wine producers can't sell wine in France? Same deal with just about every other commodity that you can imagine.

The US doesn't need any trade protection in order to compete in the global marketplace. The US on the other hand does need the opportunity to compete in the global marketplace. If GM were allowed by the Japanese government, a government that the US goernment underwrites with free national defense I might add, to sell cars in Japan there wouldn't even be a Toyota.

You want to fix the economic problem that this country is in, the answer is simple. American manufactured goods need to be available in foreign markets same as foreign manufactured goods are available in American markets. Meet contaner ships at the pier here in America with the same import duties that American goods are met with in the country of origin. Free Trade is only practiced here in America. I think that we ought to export the free tade concept to the rest of the world.

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 12:21PM

So, does thinking that you're the last sane man on the planet mean thet you're insane?

I deliberately excluded Volvo and Landrover etc. because they're owned by Ford. Ford owns Fiat.

Ford has the number one selling car in Europe. Cavieat being that the car that Ford sells in Europe has to be built in Europe. Same deal with GM in Asia and South America.

BHatch| 8.26.11 @ 11:01AM

Too bad Republican politicians won't do anything about it since they believe in government altruism.

martin j smith| 8.26.11 @ 11:20AM

Bhatch--Some Republicans are not Consertive, these are the ones that believe in compassionate Conservatism. But Some Republicans are Tea Party
types and they do believe in Free Market Capitalism.
There is a division in the Republican Party. And let me add one other group. The crony capitalists --Wall Street,Banks,Big Business.

Lois C.| 8.26.11 @ 12:06PM

Welfare burns my back side. Why should I have to support those who choose to not work (except for the handicapped)?

Benefits should be a minimal amount, they are far too generous, and for a limited time. If you have a child while on welfare you will get no more benefits, it's easy to get birth control. Welfare recipients should also be required to work for the city at least 20 hours, how about welfare rubber rooms, or go to school. Those without high school diplomas must take classes toward it, I would even pay for it but NO MORE unlimited welfare benefits!

YOU didnt do your| 8.27.11 @ 1:50PM

HOMEWORK!!!! Average welfare benefit is $400. per month. UI benefit maxed out is 450 week. Most are not getting the MAX. Please do your homework, check rents in your area and try to create a budget to live on with these amounts in your area. Every area has different cost of living yet welfare and UI do not take this into consideration. Got an extra room you want to rent? How much would you charge to have an unemployed stranger in your home 24/7??? Reality testing needed here

kurgan| 8.29.11 @ 8:50PM

You are so incredibly full of $hit.

Why don't you tell the rest of the truth. Sure Unemployment adds up to three to four hundred dollars a week for as long as that lasts. Then you can sign up for school, go to college on the public dime for however long that takes. Become a school teacher or a socialist worker or someone equally useless. All along the way there's asistance with utility bills and food stamps and the like. Rent and/or mortgage assistance and even deferrments in some cases.

The bottom line is that you're lying through your teeth. Actually you're telling lie number two, you're only telling the part of the truth that suits your political position.

Actually if Unemployment benifits are so desperately bad then why are some people on un employment turning down jobs?

CalMark| 8.26.11 @ 12:31PM

There is a lot of ill-will toward the unemployed who are getting government money. Lumping them with welfare queens is harsh and mean-spirited.

The solution is to slash government, taxes, and regulations. People could hold onto a lot more of their money, and life wouldn't be so expensive. The need for government assistance would go away, doubtless to the great relief of most middle-class Americans who might find themselves out of work.

And it's amazing, all these conservatives invoking FDR-era socialism, like the CCC. You like the idea of unemployed accountants and electricians on a chain gang? Move to Cuba.

DJC| 8.26.11 @ 12:39PM

Simple math exercise

Villsack claims a 1.84 multiplier for food stamps; Harry the Horrible claims a 0.3 efficiency factor for money routed through the federal bureaucracy.

Postulate that both claims are accurate, then:

Net effective multiplier for food stamps is:

0.3*1.84 = 0.552

LOLOLOLOL| 8.27.11 @ 1:52PM

Are you kidding??? The Writers here will not understand anything you just said!!!!

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 8.26.11 @ 12:53PM

Foolish. Foolish. Foolish idea. The law of unintended consequences will kick in. Imagine, if you will, an army of “unemployed” “Community Organizers”. All paid for by your tax dollars and all working to achieve Liberal Goals.

The way to fix this problem is to get the government out of the unemployment benefits business. If you want unemployment benefits in case you lose your job then you buy unemployment insurance on the open market. You can figure out how much coverage you need based upon the premiums. Too poor to afford unemployment insurance? Then go without.

The solution to a government caused problem is NEVER more government!

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 8.26.11 @ 12:53PM

Heartless Bastard, I am.

CalMark| 8.26.11 @ 1:47PM

As one Heartless Bastard to another, I love your ideas.

Pat| 8.26.11 @ 4:36PM

Tired Taxpayer (aren’t we all), my solution is a mandatory 4 hours a day of “America’s Unemployed”, a commercial free show which must be broadcast on all networks, all cable outlets. The long term unemployed, currently collecting benefits, would be required to appear on the show and explain, in 15 minutes or less, their individual financial circumstances, their continuing inability to find work. Americans love to hear about the daily lives of other Americans and our intense fascination with the trials and tribulations of total strangers is certainly no passing fad. Consequently, the Unemployment Channel would function like an inoculation against smallpox; eventually we’d become immune to the 15 minute tales of woe, the “I’m really trying but I need help”, the “it’s not my fault” and that all time favorite “it just isn’t fair”.

How soon would viewers weary of the whining, the repetitive excuses – two months, maybe a year? How long before there is a march on Washington to demand cable providers be allowed to reinstate Rattlesnake Roundup, Ice Truckers or the Food Network? And some viewers would sincerely want to help and offer the show’s guest celebrities a real job in the private sector. We could even introduce a follow-up vignette showing the now gainfully employed job holder describing his novel experiences as a tax paying American.

The perennial problem with government mandated, institutionalized charity is that we are never given the opportunity to put a face and a name with these anonymous recipients of our taxes. This prime time show’s fortunate outcome would be a small number of Americans accepting jobs after appearing as guests on the Unemployment Channel and many other American taxpayers becoming immunized to these constant demands of “give me more”.

WOW| 8.27.11 @ 1:54PM

I love this idea unfortunately the insurance companies will never sell it to people that have ever been unemployed (a pre-existing condition) so that eliminates most folks no?

dw| 8.26.11 @ 1:14PM

Now the unemployed are to bare the blame for failed socialist economic policies. There all fat and lazy slugs who have all of a sudden decided to never work again. Trillions are given to obamas unions and banks but it is the unemployed who deserve nothing.

How about we get people in power who can and will create a jobs supply and demand curve that favors legal citizens. (more jobs than people to fill them) Maybe we should seal the borders and enforce jobs for citizens and not jobs for those who invade our country.

The best answer to too much compensation for being unemployed is to get government off the backs of the private sector and unleash proven free market solutions. By far most of the unemployed would rather be involved in gainful employment not government handouts. Let's not forget that people and employers do pay for unemployment insurance but obviously due to incompetent socialist leadership the situation has gone on much too long.
But put the focus of the blame where it belongs...on the politicians, not the victims of their terrible decisions.
It amazes me how easy it is to divert the attention of so many off the real problem by throwing up useless straw dogs. Obama is the problem, not those who are suffering from his failed socialism. Get rid of him and solutions will occur.

Kevin W Compton| 8.26.11 @ 1:24PM

I live in Arizona where unemployment pays a maximum of $203 per week, less taxes and other deductions such as child support or other court mandated garnishments. I was unemployed a few years ago and my actual unemployment added up to about $160/week. With payments that low you'd be a fool to try and live off of that. Even Burger King & McDonald's pay more and a Walmart job pays two or three times that. I ended up taking a job in a grocery store before I'd collected more than 3 or 4 unemployment checks. I was also doing "volunteer" work for my church, fixing cars for people who couldn't afford a garage.

bravo| 8.27.11 @ 1:56PM

Thanks for telling it like it really is. Job sharing is needed and needed now we have never had full employment in this country and it appears we never will so what then my love?

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 4:49PM

Job sharing would probably work well with ditch digging and forking manure but wouldn't work worth squat in a technical field. I specialize as a machine builder, CAD designing, welding and machining fabrication and electronic controls. There are plenty of other folks around that do the job that I do. Problem is they all have jobs and are working overtime. People that have trouble finding employment are the ones that can't or won't relocate, the poorly educated and the lazy.

Kingofthenet| 8.27.11 @ 5:22PM

Well usually in NORMAL states, unemployment pay's you 60% of your previous salary.So either your state is backwards(Hint it is) or you NEVER made good money.

Buck Ofama| 8.26.11 @ 1:36PM

This article conjures images of that loudmouth obnoxious Waters b|tch wearing her stupid looking she-boon hats. No wonder these boons are not taken seriously.

Pat| 8.26.11 @ 1:42PM

If you tune in to that new NBC soap opera “Discontented Housewives of Detroit” you would observe first hand the tragic toll unemployment takes on Americans eager to find work, the sad effect on someone who has been unemployed for two and a half years. Certainly unemployment benefits, food stamps, utility assistance, mortgage assistance, Medicaid – all those government funded benefit programs do keep body and soul together – barely - but what about the loss of dignity, the plummeting self-esteem, the sacrifice of personal pride?........ hold it, wait a second, go to commercial – can you really buy in to this childish drivel, I can’t.

Many of these persistently unemployed will be on the taxpayers’ necks for the majority of their lives. From birth, where the hospital bill is paid by some local welfare agency, to death, after a hospice stay funded by Medicaid, far too many Americans will ride the government handout roller coaster from cradle to grave. Our government can force us to support these so-called “less fortunate” but we can’t force them to accept work and pry their hands off our wallets.

In a geographic area where unskilled or semi-skilled jobs are scarce, can we forcibly move the unemployed to other parts of our country where work is available? No, that’s not legal we’re told; we have to patiently wait and continue paying the bill until local jobs open up – Detroit has an unemployment rate in excess of 30% - so how long do we wait for these job openings? Can we force those with the perennial “bad backs” or “disabilities” to accept work they could physically perform? Again, no, we can’t.

But what private employer would want someone with a persistently casual or indifferent attitude towards work? None, more than likely. So, as with our national drug problem, or our national crime problem, taxpayers are stuck funding supposedly “temporary” problems which will never go away or get better. And that’s our country today, long term endemic problems, no viable solutions, institutionalized pity forcibly funded by responsible citizens who deserve much better from their government. Maybe it’s time we saved our pity for ourselves and indulged in more than a little self-righteous anger toward our so-called “fellow citizens” and their government agency Sugar-Daddys.

jgo| 8.26.11 @ 3:45PM

The problem is not getting unemployed and under-employed Americans to find work; the problem is getting US executives to employ US citizens.

Joel Stewart 2000-04-24: even in a depressed economy, employers who favor aliens have an arsenal of legal means to reject all U.S. workers who apply.

http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200706.html#Best2007

Larry Lebowitz: And our goal is clearly NOT to find a 'qualified' and interested U.S. worker... So certainly we are not going to try to find a place [at which to advertise the job] where the applicants are going to be the most numerous. We're going to try to find a place where, again, we're complying with the law, and hoping, and likely, not to find 'qualified' and interested worker applicants.

Jan Barton: What we mean by if they're interested, if they don't like the salary (because you're offering far less than local market compensation for the job, skills, experience, etc.), if they don't like the work location, they're not interested. Or if they just don't like the job itself, they're not interested. Um, those are ways we can 'disqualify' them and get them out of the market, and focus on the ones who might be more 'qualified'. If it gets to the point where they're, somebody's looking like they're very 'qualified', we ask them to have the manager of that specific position step in and go over the qualifications with them. If necessary schedule an interview, go through the whole process to find a legal basis to disqualify them for this particular position. In most cases that doesn't seem to be a problem... you can eliminate them...

Alex Casterdale?: That... is another incentive... 30 days of recruiting, 30 days of waiting... to get the thing final... The longer you leave it out there waiting, the more you are exposed to people possibly seeing something from the paper 6 weeks ago and saying, 'Wait a minute, I qualify'.

bravo| 8.27.11 @ 1:57PM

and if you already have higher education you are not eligible for any training programs

Oldefarte| 8.26.11 @ 4:44PM

Speaking of unemployment:
'....A Republican, in a wheelchair, entered a restaurant one afternoon and asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. The Republican looked across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus sitting over there?"The waitress nodded "yes," so the Republican requested that she give Jesus a cup of coffee, on him.The next patron to come in was a Libertarian, with a hunched back. He shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a cup of hot tea. He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, "Is that Jesus, over there?"The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give Jesus a cup of hot tea, "My treat."The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat on crutches.He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered, "Hey there honey! How's about gettin' me a cold mug of Miller Light?" He too looked across the restaurant and asked, "Isn't that God's boy over there?The waitress nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold beer. "On my bill," he said loudly.As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed." The Republican felt the strength come back into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door.Jesus passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said, "For your kindness, you are healed." The Libertarian felt his back straightening up and he raised his hands, praised the Lord, and did a series of back flips out the door.Then, Jesus walked towards the Democrat, just smiling.The Democrat jumped up and yelled, "Don't touch me ... I'm collecting disability."......'

add on to last sentence| 8.27.11 @ 1:59PM

"at 600.00-800.00 per month tax free and that is more than I can earn working at McDonalds!"

Oldefarte| 8.28.11 @ 3:42PM

Obviously you do not have the pride of working for a [financial] living, and /or simply do not GIVE AN EXCREMENT. Thank goodness the taxpayers of this nation do not agree with your sentiments regarding same!!!!!!!

The Big E| 8.26.11 @ 4:44PM

I'm sure ACORN, or whatever its calling itself these days, would be THRILLED to get all the volunteer help they could get from those who have to volunteer to get unemployment benefits.

I'm sorry, but this is really a bonehead scheme. I understand perfectly well that people need to work to have self-respect. And those who want that self-respect and find themselves unemployed do not need to be forced to "volunteer" to get it. They'll FIND something worthwhile to do because that's the sort of people they are. The ones who are prone to milk the system, those who won't start seriously looking for work until their benefits are about to run out, they're NOT going to do anything worthwhile even if forced to do so because they don't care - that's the kind of people THEY are.

Also, the government paying people to do volunteer work for churches? You really think that somehow, the ACLU's gonna miss that one?

Furthermore, if such a mandate is created, then there will also have to be somebody to oversee and "approve" the unemployment recipients "community service" to make sure they're "earning" their money. Just who do you think those people are going to be? Do you really think they're going to be inclined to approve community service on an even-handed non-political basis? Or do you think the liberal "activist" organizations might be assigned somewhat more help than those who are not as "socially aware?" In fact, technically, won't Barack Obama's re-election campaign be a non-profit organization?

No. There is only one cure for unemployment and that is more jobs. We won't get that with this administration, but in the end, that is the only answer.

won't get| 8.27.11 @ 2:02PM

any policy on any issue passed until after the next presidential election as the Republicans have made it their agenda to keep snowbama a one term pres so even if you are a republican you gotta hate that everyone in Washinton is sort of "unemployed" and collecting a "free paycheck" as well.... no?

Oldefarte| 8.26.11 @ 5:01PM

PS: The greatest act of destruction of this country has come about from government welfare, since it results in laziness of the recipient. An extreme irony exists between our government's payment of welfare and its liberal immigration policy. Illegal immigrants enter our southern border simply to work the crop fields etc for minimum wages [so as to send to their Mexican relatives for financial support]. Correspondingly, our domestic welfare recipients are unwilling to take such jobs, because the pay from same is less than the welfare that they receive from the government. If welfare was eliminated [except for the truly/elderly needy], the able-bodied recipients would of necessity be forced into accepting the crop-field jobs etc in order to financially be able to pay for their own food, shelter, clothing etc. Additionally, governments necessarily [like private businesses] have to hire laborers for wages in order to be able to supply citizen needed services, but if welfare was non-existent, a workfare [instead of welfare] payment of government benefits for this government would save governments $millions in salary expenses. Again, welfare should be eliminated or seriously reduced in terms available!!!

NOT LESS THAN| 8.27.11 @ 2:04PM

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE MAKING MORE THAN THOSE ON WELFARE AND UI

Oldefarte| 8.28.11 @ 3:47PM

No/wrong, because if you were correct, then those on welfare would perform the work that illegals do. Since the government gives them money tax-free without a work-attached requirement, the recipients of same are disencentivised [or simply too lazy] to possibly have the pride of working for their financial living in providing for their own financial needs!!!!

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 5:00PM

Bull$hit.

Dan Mckay| 8.26.11 @ 6:39PM

The word " gumption " comes to mind as I read this

C Bowen | 8.26.11 @ 7:48PM

"those receiving these checks to volunteer at a non-profit for 20 hours a week."

Umm, does this guy work for Americorps because the example wouldn't be volunteering as defined in English.

How about this; get rid of unemployment "insurance" as if that can be insured against. Encourage saving for a rainy day; encourage a clause in a work contract that says 'if we let you go after 1 year, we will give a check for x; after 5 years y."

PCP Smoker| 8.26.11 @ 8:28PM

Two options: rice fields and re-education camps. The must do everything for the motherland.

RICE FIELDS| 8.27.11 @ 2:05PM

YUP

Solo| 8.26.11 @ 9:35PM

I remember my father telling me about the depression years when the state would put men to work in exchange for food vouchers.

He described seeing men ten across with push brooms sweeping the roads clean. Or...cleaning ditches, etc....

LOL! Fat chance of that happening now. Those are all Union jobs now and they're making 6 figures per year plus benefits!

We're screwed!
And the left has been working us towards that all along.

Bruce Godfrey, Attorney at Law | 8.27.11 @ 2:01AM

I am an unemployment insurance appeals litigation attorney in Maryland representing workers/claimants.

While I am a committed pro-worker, pro-union, pro-labor liberal and would accordingly rarely find myself in agreement with most of the articles, this article is exactly on the money. I might suggest a few variations along the same theme:

1) requiring not a twice-a-week job search but 20 hours a week spent on job searches or job training. This isn't the Fred Flintstone era and workers should be able to spend the day at the public library/workforce center searching for and applying for jobs. There's no standing in line or waiting for a three transfer bus route just to apply any more for most jobs; you can apply online.

2) They should rename the whole program "Jobseekers' Support" or "Reemployment Bridge Funds" or the like. The idea should be to fund worker assistance to become workers again.

what?| 8.27.11 @ 12:53PM

Let's see how big a room and how many computers would be required to hold that many work seekers?
Did you ever think that disabled workers are being discriminated against by REQUIRING online applications be typed in FOR EACH JOB? My last check on the stats of Repetitive Motion Syndrome is 250 thousand workers are getting it each year. How are these folks supposed to apply for jobs online when you cannot cut and paste into those forms? Hello...reality check for even an attorney..unbelievable!

Warren H | 8.27.11 @ 9:52AM

They have gotten to the point they don't know what to do or even say about it. They honestly believed this would all work and they are dumbstruck that it hasn't

John II| 8.27.11 @ 11:43AM

" . . . we must wonder if our well-intentioned social programs are backfiring."

It might help to clarify the issue if the critics of these programs would stop begging the question with the term "well-intentioned." That word seems to be the conservative equivalent of the Left's term "unexpected" whenever liberals allude vaguely to this or that serious trouble caused by their policies.

I almost wrote "asinine policies," but that would beg the question in pretty much the same way, for we are not dealing here strictly with asininity.

Who today can seriously believe that the programs are "well-intentioned"? Whatever the original motivations in the dim past, the baleful consequences of the policies have been thoroughly exposed by honest social scientists as well as philosophers and reflective literary types, but the Left has discovered the huge political advantages of fostering a culture of degeneracy and dependency--and the Left itself is now composed entirely of degenerates. They WANT as much of the nation as possible to be made up of useless dependent sponges whom they can count on perpetually for votes. They cultivate the mob, because all they care about is power.

Which is to say, their intentions, even if intermittently unconscious, are intrinsically wicked.

And now back to "John Steinbeck's East of Eden," a 1981 miniseries that rather clumsily explores the mysterious human inclination to moral degradation, indirectly revealing the mindset of the Left. The acting is so-so, often unpersuasive, but there are many good lines.

Editor?| 8.27.11 @ 12:01PM

I love this idea and got many jobs over the years using this technique. I have been doing volunteer work for over 30, years while at the same time working a full time job, serving as head of household (single parent) and also obtained a doctoral degree. I made 110k on my last job and am currently living on 21k a year (UI). I am a proud American with a solid work ethic humiliated by my current situation. I am too ashamed to post my real name here. I have been working since age 13. I have been applying for 16 jobs a week for over a year with not even a return email. This is the first time in my life that I am unable to obtain work and/or volunteer anywhere. The unemployment rules are that one must be available for work. Volunteer work (required reporting as seen on the weekly UI form) will cause the benefit to be cut by the number of hours one is not available to work for money. Get it? If I were your boss you would be in big trouble for publishing without doing the following homework: interview a few unemployed folks and ask to see the UI form; interview a few Gov employees working at the EDD to know more about what the actual rules are for doing any kind of work paid or unpaid; and provide readers with ways/contacts to help push your idea. Perhaps I should apply for a job as an editor at your organization?

Editor?| 8.27.11 @ 12:07PM

Addendum to my last post

I have over the last year applied to the following types of positions:
peace corps, secretary, admin asst, nanny, live-in caregiver, hotel clerk, inside sales, outside sales, waitress, and numerous others not noted here as they might reveal my identity and profession

dw| 8.27.11 @ 1:22PM

This so called author is the same type that has actively or passively supported the elitist politicians and corporatist in the decades old practice of ignoring the invasion of our country by illegal aliens in order to flood the job market so that the wage scale can be kept artificially depressed.

It is both the wealthy republicans and democrats conspiricy and really is the only answer as to why for over 50 years nothing has been done to stop it. Even with the threat of terrorist coming over the border with any number of types of weapons of mass destruction there is still no action to seal the border. And why is that?.....because it is still more important to the elite to keep wages depressed. Even with an economy that does not have enough jobs for it's citizens, it is still more important to let illegals into this country to take more than their share of what jobs there are.
Promise the pedestrians anything just so long as the return their attention to grazing.
Meanwhile we just keep on being manipulated as if we are sheep being led to the slaughter.

YES| 8.27.11 @ 2:07PM

I AGREE WITH DW....PS... EVERYONE ....GO TO MAPLIGHT.ORG AND POLITIFACT.ORG AND GET THE CORRECT INFO NOW BEFORE RUNNING YER MOUTH!

ranh| 8.27.11 @ 2:42PM

If you CHOOSE to do so and then expect the taxpayers to support you and yours, then the taxpayers are reasonable to limit their liability at the hands of your reproductive organs.
http://www.topbrandsbags.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com

mike| 8.27.11 @ 2:43PM

Umm, does this guy work for Americorps because the example wouldn't be volunteering as defined in English.
http://www.wholesalesunglassesbrands.com
http://www.summer-products.com

Kingofthenet| 8.27.11 @ 5:15PM

Unemployment INSURANCE isn't Welfare, Companies and Workers pay into the system. Maybe you were paying your 'Nanny' LESS than what she made in unemployment? Don't be so cheap!

John II| 8.27.11 @ 8:34PM

Excuse me. Unemployment INSURANCE is a state-mandated TAX. You don't pay into the corrupt ponzi scheme, you don't work. Don't be so stupid.

And now back to another episode of "The Three Stooges," a happier world in which stupidity is deliberate.

D Roamer | 8.28.11 @ 12:24AM

These that keep unemployment are very "picky" about a job offered. The law should be , if physically able, you take the job , or the checks stop. I like that idea of working at least 20 hours at the unemployment rate, doing casual labor , such as cleaning parks, latrines, guard parks, report graffiti and remove it.

Augusta| 8.28.11 @ 8:37AM

Community Service should be mandatory for all able-bodied recipients of welfare monies, not necessarily people who have a work history but are temporarily out of work. Looking for a job is often a full time occupation itself, and to spend a chunk of that time cleaning graffiti isn't altogether sensible or fair. People with a history of employment and faithful tax paying should be given every courtesy, not be relegated to community service when a reasonable time limit on unemployment benefits has always been sufficient motivation; endless extensions of unemployment benefits can often turn the once diligent worker / job seeker into a member of the dependency class. Our top priority must be to stop encouraging cradle to grave indigence by enabling poor choices; reforms implementing mandatory drug testing, community service, along with a strict policy of zero increases in benefits for additional pregnancies, would serve to substantially reduce welfare abuse and dependence.

kurgan| 8.28.11 @ 8:45AM

Another "Fake" discussion. We have twelve to twenty million illegal immigrants, er... "Undocumented Workers" or whatever else it is that they're being called in the country at present soaking up public services and the like. Run these damned freeloaders out of the country, according to the law, I might add, then reduce or eliminate the benifits or entitlements being paid to the able-bodied unemployed. The end.

Now, how hard was that?

But then on the other hand, with a three tiered, what I call the "Just Us" system that exists in this dying society, only some of the laws are enforced. Depends on how much money that you have in order to purchase access to the system. If O. J. Simpson were a janitor instead of a multi-millionaire Heisman trophy winning athlete and broadcast media personality he'd be in jail on death row and nobody would care.

On that same basic vein, how come that the cops that tried to frame Simpson aren't in jail?

The only thing worse than criminals with guns is criminals with guns and badges.

OregonBuzz| 8.28.11 @ 11:15AM

What an idea!! Perform work to get paid. I've never heard of such a thing.

DaveS| 8.28.11 @ 5:36PM

If three people sat together, and one pulled a dollar out of his pocket and gave it to another, and then the other then proceeded to give it to the third who, in a final turn, gave it back to the originator, the Obama administration would claim that there was three dollars of economic activity when, in fact, there was either zero or one dollar of economic activity.

robnsue| 8.30.11 @ 2:02PM

Briliant idea. But I would adjust the community service requirement so that it increased over time-the longer a person was receiving unemployment benefits the greather the number of community service hours required to remain eligible-until a person was working the equivelent of a full time 40 hour work week.

Jon Andersen| 12.28.11 @ 10:27PM

One big hole here - 20 hours a week are lost not looking for a permanent job. Working for non-profits doesn't fix that. All the so called benefits you are proposing provides a poor calculus for solving the unemployment problem.
Retraining perhaps but not busy work.
Very poor thinking but what can you expect from an overpaid suit.