Welfare to Work [[FOR REAL)

**Danny** · September-19-13, 10:22 PM

There is a proposal in Lansing to get folks on welfare back to work doing community service in order to keep their benefits. Is this plan would work them to lower the poverty rate in Michigan [[including Detroit)? Is it a republican plot to get the poor back to some kind of 'PICKING A BALE A COTTON' economic slavery?

Any thoughts?

**Wesley Mouch** · September-20-13, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Danny

There is a proposal in Lansing to get folks on welfare back to work doing community service in order to keep their benefits. Is this plan would work them to lower the poverty rate in Michigan [[including Detroit)? Is it a republican plot to get the poor back to some kind of 'PICKING A BALE A COTTON' economic slavery?

Any thoughts?

Question first, please.

Can you explain how community service is at all like economic slavery?

**sumas** · September-20-13, 03:06 AM

Personally, I think it's stupid. Why make a person who does not give a shit donate time, if there is no caring, the work has no value.

My husband and I have scaled back big time on volunteer work, we care so much but health considerations are a factor. It's serious, we care for community and feel we owe something back. I guess we are entitlement folk now as we live on my husbands SSI. We do ok.

I think I would be pissed if someone said do community service, mandatory.

We sit on the board of our block club, our street association. active in Detroit Eviction Defense, founding members of a local Historical 501c3 society, Villages of Detroit, Creekside CDC, Warren Conner CDC, economic outreach through our church, JEBA and that's only naming a few.

Not embarrassed to say that we have also been the beneficiary of public and private programs. Most recent, I had a colonoscopy, [[sp) I have no health care and this procedure was done through DRs Who Care and grant monies from St John Health Care System.

I get, I give. It's just not something you can force on people. You feel it or you don't.

**Zacha341** · September-20-13, 03:29 AM

D. going forth don't believe this type of thing is to be required by the repubs only. Recall the welfare reform under Clinton - a dem. While we usually associate the repubs for taking away entitlements in the future we're gonna see drastic 'change' under dems. The partisan aspect is mostly inspired to keep voting segment loyal... even that will not be expedient onward.

Now how do you really force someone to comply to community service with a 'smile' [[true motivation) after years of generational welfare that required little engagement or reciprocity? Also, I can see some abuse from employers who have issues with managing and treating their 'paid' staff. More paperwork and bureaucracy to come with this particular reform.

Originally Posted by Danny

There is a proposal in Lansing to get folks on welfare back to work doing community service in order to keep their benefits. Is this plan would work them to lower the poverty rate in Michigan [[including Detroit)? Is it a republican plot to get the poor back to some kind of 'PICKING A BALE A COTTON' economic slavery?

Any thoughts?

**313WX** · September-20-13, 07:26 AM

I'm certainly in favor of a program like that, but it should be optional and in addition to welfare. It should target the unemployed people who don't qualify for welfare [[in lieu of unemployment benefits), or who's welfare limit has been reached [[similar to the WPA).

As typical, Michigan gets it close but just misses the mark.

**Lowell** · September-20-13, 07:40 AM

Sooo.... does this mean Mike Ilitch will have to pick up trash on expressways if his new hockey arena gets public funding?

**getmoore** · September-20-13, 07:43 AM

I think its a great idea. Too many people living here with entitlement issues. I think everyone should earn what they receive.For some it may be the first step toward getting a job. I just wonder how they'll handle childcare?

**ghettopalmetto** · September-20-13, 07:45 AM

This is forced indentured servitude, plain and simple. The GOP, from it's high moral perch, gets to pass judgment on who is "deserving". Then force the underserving "lazy" bastards into the system of cheap and free labor they've been recreating since the days of St. Ronald of Simi Valley. They're not going to be happy until we're all toiling away on their plantations.

Several Southern states, including Georgia and I believe South Carolina, have tried to muster similar ideas, tying "volunteer" hours to unemployment benefits. The problem is, all of the time spent "volunteering" is not being spent brushing up the resume, looking for a job, furthering education, developing skills, conducting interviews, etc. It's a vicious cycle, and these GOP bastards know it.

Then they'll go an tell you how they dislike "big government". What a crock.

**getmoore** · September-20-13, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Sooo.... does this mean Mike Ilitch will have to pick up trash on expressways if his new hockey arena gets public funding?

Ha! Good one!

**canuck** · September-20-13, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Sooo.... does this mean Mike Ilitch will have to pick up trash on expressways if his new hockey arena gets public funding?

No, worse than that Lowell, they will have him plant a gold-plated shovel in some soft packed earth on day one.

**bailey** · September-20-13, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Several Southern states, including Georgia and I believe South Carolina, have tried to muster similar ideas, tying "volunteer" hours to unemployment benefits. The problem is, all of the time spent "volunteering" is not being spent brushing up the resume, looking for a job, furthering education, developing skills, conducting interviews, etc. It's a vicious cycle, and these GOP bastards know it.

While I agree in theory, I've watched up close with some family and friends exhibit what is a very very common behavior. No one gets really serious about getting a job until the clock almost runs out. Its not just hard right wingers saying this, IIRC its borne out in studies. Suddenly people start getting jobs right as the checks are about to stop.

As to the work requirement for benefits.... if work needs to be done, how about just hiring them to do the freaking work?

I mean how about just cutting out the middle man?

Then they could revise the formula so that working at a minimum wage temp job gets you on a sliding scale for benefits instead of cut off completely.

Of course none of this actually addresses the problems of getting the terminally unemployed a job.

**Johnnny5** · September-20-13, 08:18 AM

I have not read the latest proposal, but I'm 100% in support of some type of mandatory community service or job training for those wishing to collect welfare or unemployment benefits for an extended period of time. While the majority of people collecting these benefits both need and deserve them there is a sizable percentage of people abusing these benefits. Requiring a small amount of effort to keep them would go a long way in reducing the number of people that are illegally working under the table, but still collecting and those that just prefer to live off a handout instead of putting in the effort.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-20-13, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

While the majority of people collecting these benefits both need and deserve them there is a sizable percentage of people abusing these benefits.

What constitutes a "sizable" percentage? 1 percent? 2 percent?

You're going to sell the entire safety-net-needing populace into slavery because you have a grudge against a couple bad apples?

**trotwood** · September-20-13, 08:58 AM

I'm a bit confused by this latest proposal. What of those who are disabled[[physically or mentally)who can't medically work yet receive some sort of assistance? Are those people forced to do 'community service' in order to continue eating?

**canuck** · September-20-13, 09:09 AM

I think that governement agencies tied to welfare should favor breaking isolation first. Back to work programs are needed, but for a certain percentage of folks, basic skills in home economics, like buying fresh foods and cooking in groups to encourage better habits are what they should be shooting for.

If you put groups of people togteher in community halls, have them prepare food for their families, check out Eastern Market for how-to's on what to buy, this not only brings skills out, but breaks the isolation.

Humans are funny animals in that they will imitate what they perceive to be a superior influence. You can substitute a party monster neighbor with a confident well-spoken instructor in home ecs. I think it is not a bad thing to bring let's say a young single mother out of isolation. Plenty of people in Detroit grow their own vegetables in community gardens, let's just think of extending this favorable incentive by giving instruction in return for money. Not a bad deal.

**DetroitPlanner** · September-20-13, 09:18 AM

It won't work until they provide adequate public transportation for the poor to get to where they need to volunteer. Transit is the TO in Welfare to Work.

**Johnnny5** · September-20-13, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

What constitutes a "sizable" percentage? 1 percent? 2 percent?

You're going to sell the entire safety-net-needing populace into slavery because you have a grudge against a couple bad apples?

Sorry, but the slavery comparison is pathetic and borderline offensive. . I'm not sure that "grudge" is a good term to use, but I sure as heck am upset with people who abuse the system at the expense of those of us that actually need it and those of us paying for it. Whether it's the party store owners scam paying 50 cents on the dollar for EBT benefits, the guy working a business for cash and still collecting unemployment or the lotto winner still using her EBT card. I think they are all scumbags! And seriously if you think it's only 1-2% of the recipients that are abusing these benefits you are living in a dream world. And those are just the people committing actual fraud. There's also the inherent lack of motivation that comes along with receiving a check without any effort. People become accustomed to that lifestyle and the longer they live it, the more dependent they become. Anything that could help break that cycle, but still offers benefits to those that truly need them is a win/win in my book.

**mkhopper** · September-20-13, 09:59 AM

I think it will depend on just what type of community service will be required.

As far as working for welfare goes, I'm all for it. There are far too many able-bodied people who would just rather sit around doing nothing while continuing to receive free money month after month.

I'm not saying that these folks should go out and volunteer at a soup kitchen or anything, but if they're in a house, how about just getting out and cleaning up their block? Pick up trash, sweep the street, anything. Just do something to earn that free handout.

Obviously those who are disabled in some way who truly need the help would be exempt from the program.

**professorscott** · September-20-13, 10:02 AM

One of the problems nobody has mentioned here is that if you are receiving any kind of government assistance, you are heavily economically disincentivized from trying to find work.

It would be different if there were sufficient good-paying jobs, but there aren't. I read a great study, can't remember where, that the average person who is not working and is receiving government assistance [[unemployment, food stamps, whatever), if they do take any work, the benefits they lose amount to 95% of the net pay for the job they have. So now you have to leave the house, get to work somehow [[which undoubtedly more than eats up the remaining 5%), and at the end of the day you aren't any better off at all.

There's an easy solution to this, but I suspect it's a political nonstarter. As people transition back into the work force, scale back their benefits proportionally, depending on their pay and hours, so that they are actually better off working than not working. Of course this means some working people would still be receiving some amount of assistance, so like I said, it has no legs politically. But I can't think of any nonpolitical reason that it wouldn't work.

If it was possible to go out and find a full time $25 per hour job with benefits, this problem would go away on its own... but it's not possible for most people, and it's not going to be possible any time soon.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-20-13, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by professorscott

...It would be different if there were sufficient good-paying jobs, but there aren't. ...

There's no lack of work needing to be done -- just a lack of jobs created by the economy. The work is there. During the depression, the government did a fine job of creating work [[WPA, CCC for example.)

**TKshreve** · September-20-13, 10:10 AM

As to the work requirement for benefits.... if work needs to be done, how about just hiring them to do the freaking work?

I mean how about just cutting out the middle man?

Then they could revise the formula so that working at a minimum wage temp job gets you on a sliding scale for benefits instead of cut off completely.

Of course none of this actually addresses the problems of getting the terminally unemployed a job.

Spot on. Funny, that in a city strewn in trash and graffiti, with so much work that needs to be done - holding in its womb a high population of unemployed/underemployed people who are looking for something of substance to allow them upward mobility and a shot at responsibility - that nobody can figure the equation out.

It seems like a slam dunk.

ghettopalmetto
It's a vicious cycle, and these GOP bastards know it.

I don't see a lot of ideas here from the detractors who, through their silence, are implying that the system we have in place now has moved the needle. It's this cycle that is broken.

Probably one of the more level headed ideas to come from the right wing think tank I've seen of late.

Why not attach performance feedback to this work? It would create a performance based market for potential employers, and perhaps add motivation to the system [[or better yet _ the individuals themselves)

**Wesley Mouch** · September-20-13, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by TKshreve

......Why not attach performance feedback to this work? It would create a performance based market for potential employers, and perhaps add motivation to the system [[or better yet _ the individuals themselves)

Oh who was it that simply proposed that everyone in the country should be given, say, $12,000. A tax-free gift. Negative income tax.

If you just give some money away, you can remove all the bureaucracy and waste involved and really help people.

Now remove all claw-backs. So if you get a job for $10.00 an hour, and work 2,080 hours -- you get another $20,080. Total income now $32,080. And every dollar you earn you keep. That's incentive.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-20-13, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by professorscott

One of the problems nobody has mentioned here is that if you are receiving any kind of government assistance, you are heavily economically disincentivized from trying to find work.

It would be different if there were sufficient good-paying jobs, but there aren't. I read a great study, can't remember where, that the average person who is not working and is receiving government assistance [[unemployment, food stamps, whatever), if they do take any work, the benefits they lose amount to 95% of the net pay for the job they have. So now you have to leave the house, get to work somehow [[which undoubtedly more than eats up the remaining 5%), and at the end of the day you aren't any better off at all.

There's an easy solution to this, but I suspect it's a political nonstarter. As people transition back into the work force, scale back their benefits proportionally, depending on their pay and hours, so that they are actually better off working than not working. Of course this means some working people would still be receiving some amount of assistance, so like I said, it has no legs politically. But I can't think of any nonpolitical reason that it wouldn't work.

If it was possible to go out and find a full time $25 per hour job with benefits, this problem would go away on its own... but it's not possible for most people, and it's not going to be possible any time soon.

This entire thread is patronizing and self-righteous. Who the hell are any of you to judge welfare recipients? Some people run into bad luck, you know?

What kind of great "disincentive to work" are we talking about? The whole couple hundred bucks a month that welfare provides? According to CBPP, TANF benefits for a three-person household in Michigan amounted to $492 a month in 2011. Yeah, I think I'll just sit on my ass so I can collect a whole FIVE Benjamins a month--What a great life! Even the $350-a-week where unemployment tends to top out is barely above the poverty line. Yeah, I can see why everyone is so up-in-arms about those lazy, no goodniks living high off the hog.

Maybe solutions for the working poor could be found if everyone would stop spending all their time being so God damned judgmental of others.

And for those who haven't had their coffee yet: forced, unpaid "volunteer" work is the DEFINITION of slavery. Wake up, folks. This isn't war on the poor--this is an all-out blitzkrieg on wage earners of every stripe. The leisure class is doing everything they can to stay in power, and if you get smeared under their boots in the process, that's just one less prole in the way.

**professorscott** · September-20-13, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

This entire thread is patronizing and self-righteous. Who the hell are any of you to judge welfare recipients? Some people run into bad luck, you know?

Ghettopalmetto, have a cup of coffee, take a deep breath and reread what I wrote. What part of that do you think is judging anyone at all, except the people who pretend to run the country?

I have run into precisely the sort of bad luck that causes people to have to depend on unearned money for a while; thankfully in my case it was a short while. And I'm lucky, my background and training qualifies me for certain very specific kinds of jobs that not everybody is able to do.

My points are just that, first, there isn't any economic reason to take a low paying job if you aren't any better off doing so, and second, this would be easy to fix if we wanted to bother to fix it.

**dmike76** · September-20-13, 11:41 AM

The way I see it is simply that if you have to start doing some 'volunteer' work for the govt while you're on welfare, then technically you are a government employee since you are getting paid to do actual work instead of getting paid to do nothing, whatever the circumstance is. In its most basic concept, lazy or not, disabled or not, if you are collecting welfare you are getting money for doing nothing. I'm not judging. I think welfare is needed. But it is money for nothing.