NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm thinking about the feasability of replacing the majority of the welfare system with something similer to what they had in the new deal, where the government would pay people enough to get them by in exchange for unskilled labor on things like street repair and city beautification. It seems like this might be a modest compromise between the people who are annoyed at their taxes funding "lazy" poor people, and the people who want to keep the social safety net. Is there any good reason why this wouldn't work, and shouldn't be implemented?

Except for the disabled and overburdoned mothers, no. In fact, those on welfare could be put to great use on urban renewal projects designed to decrease the need for welfare.

I'm thinking about the feasability of replacing the majority of the welfare system with something similer to what they had in the new deal, where the government would pay people enough to get them by in exchange for unskilled labor on things like street repair and city beautification. It seems like this might be a modest compromise between the people who are annoyed at their taxes funding "lazy" poor people, and the people who want to keep the social safety net. Is there any good reason why this wouldn't work, and shouldn't be implemented?
I, personally, think it would be good for a segment of the population. Possible problems might be:

Those on welfare due to disability, women with young children (problems of both strength and child care), elderly on welfare, and finally, finding enough work for them all.

The conservation corp worked some wonders, but the US population is a lot larger now and I'm not sure we really need THAT many trails built. ;)

depends on how much more you want to spend on welfare. forced work requires people to evaluate who can work on what day, what job it should be and how well they are doing it.

i prefer to say "no welfare for people who can work".

one fault with the welfare-to-work programme or whatever it was/is called is that it actually makes some people even more poverty stricken. consider the single mother - in order to get her welfare cheque she must work 8hrs a day, 5 days a week, during those 40+hrs a week that she must be away from home she needs to pay someone to look after her children. on a welfare wage this is not possible but she must go to work or she will get no money. what does she do? she could leave her kids on their own but what if they're too young? she would leave them with a relative, but, oh no, they are working for their welfare too. she could take them with her to work, but then her boss sacks her for letting her kids run riot round the workplace. with no union representative she cannot claim unfair dismissal. she now has no job and so her benefits stop. she can't then afford her rent. she ends up on the street with her kids taken from her. it just doesn't work.

i prefer to say "no welfare for people who can work".
I would agree. Additionally, if the government found a way to funnel private charity into welfare and distribute it more efficiently, this would help lighten the burden of welfare on the nation. It's not a bad idea, at all. I would go further though by saying the government should, as much as possible, encourage parents to create funds for when they are on child leave, and the elderly to economise for the future.

depends on how much more you want to spend on welfare. forced work requires people to evaluate who can work on what day, what job it should be and how well they are doing it.

i prefer to say "no welfare for people who can work".

What about welfare-to-work, for people in situations like my own? So far, it's working quite well (haven't had my job too long, though things are beginning to pick up).

If someone is physically capable to work and does not have to worry about childcare, sure. Why not give those whose skills need updating some job training and a job?

And hey, nearly anyone can push a broom. Give people a living wage to do it.
'Course, for those who are perfectly healthy but bone idle.... kick 'em off.

I would agree. Especially if the government found a way to funnel private charity into welfare and distribute it more efficiently, this would help lighten the burden of welfare on the nation. It's not a bad idea, at all. I would go further though by saying the government should, as much as possible, encourage parents to create funds for when they are on child leave, and the elderly to economise for the future.
Which is just funny as the US spends so little on welfare.

That and it's hard to tell the elderly who are attempting to live off of social security to economise.

If someone is physically capable to work and does not have to worry about childcare, sure. Why not give those whose skills need updating some job training and a job?

And hey, nearly anyone can push a broom. Give people a living wage to do it.
'Course, for those who are perfectly healthy but bone idle.... kick 'em off.

Exactly. I clean houses and offices for $8 an hour, and I do a damn good (not to mention neurotically thorough) job of it. You should see the houses I get to clean... They're massive!

Yes.

Which is just funny as the US spends so little on welfare.
It spends a lot, but delivers very little.

That and it's hard to tell the elderly who are attempting to live off of social security to economise.
What I meant is encourage people in their youth to save up so when they are old, they have cash.

Yes.

This isn't an either-or situation, pal. Some people can't work, such as the disabled and (for lack of a better term) differently-abled.

Alright, so lets go a bit further and exclude those who are clearly unable to work, such as pregnant mothers, the disabled, ect. Assuming we won't be leaving them behind, are there any problems?

It spends a lot, but delivers very little.
Not really, not when compared to other countries (percent wise).

What I meant is encourage people in their youth to save up so when they are old, they have cash.
There's that. We also need to work on the cost of health care as that's what normally wipes out such savings.

It would be better if they weren't on welfare at all.....

But if it is combined with some on-the-job training, I think these people who are taking from the rest of the tax payers should give something back as well.

If someone is physically capable to work and does not have to worry about childcare, sure. Why not give those whose skills need updating some job training and a job?

And hey, nearly anyone can push a broom. Give people a living wage to do it.
'Course, for those who are perfectly healthy but bone idle.... kick 'em off.
Reminds me of an annecdote... from San Francisco I believe.

A homeless man started sweeping a street in a small busniess district. Didn't ask for anything from the businesses.. just didn't like not having something to do.

Eventually, the businesses started seeing a rise in the number of customers and they all got together and decided to start paying the man for his efforts.

Alright, so lets go a bit further and exclude those who are clearly unable to work, such as pregnant mothers, the disabled, ect. Assuming we won't be leaving them behind, are there any problems?
The issue of how much work do we have?

Not really, not when compared to other countries (percent wise).
What is its total welfare spending?

There's that. We also need to work on the cost of health care as that's what normally wipes out such savings.
Indeed. With your welfare system I know you spend more per capita than nations such as the UK, but end up with worse service. If you must have welfare, I suppose it should at least be efficient.

This isn't an either-or situation, pal. Some people can't work, such as the disabled and (for lack of a better term) differently-abled.



hmmmm lets see I work for CATCH inc. in Phila.

I work with the people YOU say shouldnt have to work...


I work with and TRAIN the " differently able " and the non able to do anything but show up and stare....

Hmmmm

They all want to be JUST like everyone else and resent being told they cant work or be usefull by the " abled " morons who have decided they have no worth to society ..


People like you do more harm then good .


Those that are PERMANTLY DISABLED are not ever the question reguarding welfare ...if you had a clue ..you would know that they are handled under SSI and SSD .

Please at least attempt to educate yourself before you go out and harm others with your ignorance .

I'd say give them an option. Not only have people do random unskilled labor, but encourage them to attend technical school or a community college of some sort. Arrange it so that the cost of their schooling is covered by the work that they happen to be doing during the day. After all, the most certain way out of poverty is an education.

The issue of how much work do we have?
For me, the goal of such a program would be to make sure that welfare recipients’ work ethics don’t degrade, and to teach them job skills. We can always make work if we have to.

It would be better if they weren't on welfare at all.....

But if it is combined with some on-the-job training, I think these people who are taking from the rest of the tax payers should give something back as well.
It could be a start...I would like to see more private market solutions encouraged, then supplemented by the government, where necessary. As far as possible, the government should disengage where it is inefficient for it to act.

But if it is combined with some on-the-job training, I think these people who are taking from the rest of the tax payers should give something back as well.

Worked for my mom. When my old man ran out on us, she was an unskilled mother of 2. She did welfare and a 2 year RN program. Made more and paid more then she could have holding multiple minimum wage jobs......

Oh, and just as a side-note: People need something to do in their lives. The reason so many long-term unemployed end up with broken families and lives, despite welfare and all the rest of it, is because they just end up sitting around all day having nothing to do.

Humans aren't emotionally conditioned to do absolutely nothing for months or years on end.

Worked for my mom. When my old man ran out on us, she was an unskilled mother of 2. She did welfare and a 2 year RN program. Made more and paid more then she could have holding multiple minimum wage jobs......



Shhhh dont tell no one they will cut our funding...;)

What is its total welfare spending?
Depends upon how you define welfare. The numbers I found inlcuded both Social Security and medical care. Total cost (state and federal) was $573 billon (est) in 2005. However, medical care is 51% of that.

So it really depends upon if you include medical aid in there or not.

For me, the goal of such a program would be to make sure that welfare recipients’ work ethics don’t degrade, and to teach them job skills. We can always make work if we have to.
Does doing make work keep work ethics up?

I do like the idea, I'm playing devil's advocate as you asked.

Depends upon how you define welfare. The numbers I found inlcuded both Social Security and medical care. Total cost (state and federal) was $573 billon (est) in 2005. However, medical care is 51% of that.

So it really depends upon if you include medical aid in there or not.
I would think it must be included, seeing as how fundamental a component of welfare it is. Essentially, from what I have read, the US's problem is not overly limited spending on welfare, but, quite to the contrary, very inefficient distribution and administration of it.

Does anyone else not get the idea of Welfare to Work? If we're going to make them work to get a government handout, why don't they just work period?

Does doing make work keep work ethics up?

I do like the idea, I'm playing devil's advocate as you asked.
Yes. As Leonstein said, it isn’t healthy for people to sit around for months on end. Keep them working, and when the opportunity for a better job presents itself, I am convinced they will be more likely to take it rather than accepting what they already have.
Does anyone else not get the idea of Welfare to Work? If we're going to make them work to get a government handout, why don't they just work period?
Not everyone has such an easy time gaining employment.

I would think it must be included, seeing as how fundamental a component of welfare it is. Essentially, from what I have read, the US's problem is not overly limited spending on welfare, but, quite to the contrary, very inefficient distribution and administration of it.
Alright then. From those figures, the US spends $1,736.07 per person annually for welfare.

What's the UK doing? (And remember to add in UK's national health care system costs)

Yes. As Leonstein said, it isn’t healthy for people to sit around for months on end. Keep them working, and when the opportunity for a better job presents itself, I am convinced they will be more likely to take it rather than accepting what they already have.
This is indeed true, doing something is better than nothing, but meaningful work is also included within the equation. Just taking apart ballpoint pens to reassemble them at the end of the day does not help with the meaningful part.

This is indeed true, doing something is better than nothing, but meaningful work is also included within the equation. Just taking apart ballpoint pens to reassemble them at the end of the day does not help with the meaningful part.
Luckily there are plenty of things that need doing, especially in inner cities, where most welfare recipients live.

Alright then. From those figures, the US spends $1,736.07 per person annually for welfare.

What's the UK doing? (And remember to add in UK's national health care system costs)
http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=283969 According to this article, the US does indeed spend the most on healthcare in the world. I'm not sure what the UK spends, but it is less.

Does anyone else not get the idea of Welfare to Work? If we're going to make them work to get a government handout, why don't they just work period?
Because the economic opportunity is not available. Because, effectively, no one is hiring them.

I would like to help you undrstand how welfare works but it is not as simple as just giving out cash...and you reaally cant put a " cash " value on training and school and so many other things "welfare " as you call it provides...when I have more time perhaps I can at least tell you what PA. provides...but then you will think I live in a socialist state....and we cant have that now can we ?

I will say there is very little or NO tolerance for those who wont at least try to do better.


is that wrong ?

Luckily there are plenty of things that need doing, especially in inner cities, where most welfare recipients live.
Then we should not have much of a problem.

i think that the government should provid ejobs for the unemployed.then they have no excuse for not working, and if they refuse then they are lazy bums!
the only ones to get benefits should be children, the elderly and the disabled(and of course maternity and paternity leave-whats more important than raising children?)

Does anyone else not get the idea of Welfare to Work? If we're going to make them work to get a government handout, why don't they just work period?

Well, there is this little thing called an unemployment rate. There are always more people looking for work than there are jobs.

In fact, some economists get worried when the unemployment rate drops too far; it indicates a shortage of workers and tends to drive inflation up because real wages go up to compete for the available workers.

You'd want to make sure that your 'Work for Welfare' didn't make it more difficult for employers to hire staff.

http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=283969 According to this article, the US does indeed spend the most on healthcare in the world. I'm not sure what the UK spends, but it is less.
That's total spending, not welfare. The US doesn't have a national health care system ala the UK.

That's total spending, not welfare. The US doesn't have a national health care system ala the UK.
Oh, I see. How does yours work exactly?

Oh, I see. How does yours work exactly?
Er... it doesn't? ;)

It's a hodgepodge of private insurance companies, providers, HMOs, and some government support for elderly/disabled/welfare (kinda). It's a rather large mess which leaves, more often than not, the person holding the bag.

i prefer to say "no welfare for people who can work".

Wouldn't that require this:

requires people to evaluate who can work on what day, what job it should be and how well they are doing it.

Er... it doesn't? ;)

It's a hodgepodge of private insurance companies, providers, HMOs, and some government support for elderly/disabled/welfare (kinda). It's a rather large mess which leaves, more often than not, the person holding the bag.
Wouldn't it make sense then, since you already spend more on it in total than other nations, to simply create a national healthcare system? Apparently France has a very good model running: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/799444.stm.

Wouldn't that require this:

no it would just require the application to be a little more detailed

That's total spending, not welfare. The US doesn't have a national health care system ala the UK.


Yep if your sick you just walk into a clinic or emergency room and get treated for " FREE " .

but we dont call it welfare or a national health care system...because we all have to pay more money for insurance and pills and such we just call it fucked up.

NO ONE ..not a person alive or half dead ,,,illegal ...legal...or martian can get turned away from any emegency room in the US ...unles its full..and then they must be taken to the nearest one with room .

Free clinics..non profits etc...work with others .

I'm thinking about the feasability of replacing the majority of the welfare system with something similer to what they had in the new deal, where the government would pay people enough to get them by in exchange for unskilled labor on things like street repair and city beautification. It seems like this might be a modest compromise between the people who are annoyed at their taxes funding "lazy" poor people, and the people who want to keep the social safety net. Is there any good reason why this wouldn't work, and shouldn't be implemented?

I think welfare for education is far more important.

Provide basic living and education as long as they maintain a specific GPA.

If the government is going to dramatically intervene in the labor market, they should do it through an authentic boost in labor value.

We need to bring back some of FDR's New Deal programs, such as the CCC. Only reason it got shut down was because the military drafted pretty much all the guys who were in it.

Alternatively, we could just draft all of them.

Wouldn't it make sense then, since you already spend more on it in total than other nations, to simply create a national healthcare system? Apparently France has a very good model running: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/799444.stm.
For some reason, that it a really unpopular suggestion in the US. I don't really understand why, given that they could save money and have better outcomes for everyone.

For some reason, that it a really unpopular suggestion in the US. I don't really understand why, given that they could save money and have better outcomes for everyone.
Well, from an economic viewpoint, the fact that you already spend so much more than France on healthcare, yet the latter has the best system in the world, would lead me to suggest you should abolish your current system and opt for something more efficient.

For some reason, that it a really unpopular suggestion in the US. I don't really understand why, given that they could save money and have better outcomes for everyone.

It is because Americans are terrified of giving something to someone who doesn't "deserve" it. Of course what makes someone deserving is arbitrary if defined at all.

It is because Americans are terrified of giving something to someone who doesn't "deserve" it. Of course what makes someone deserving is arbitrary if defined at all.

you must not be paying attention.

It is because Americans are terrified of giving something to someone who doesn't "deserve" it. Of course what makes someone deserving is arbitrary if defined at all.
Even if that is the underlying consideration, in terms of economic efficiency it achieves the reverse results of those intended. I am minarchist, and hence believe the State should rein in its spending as much as feasible, letting the private market provide as much as possible. However, if a government, by emulating France, could end up spending less, then clearly there is some merit in revising its views. I would still go for a more private-market oriented system, so long as it remains efficient.

you must not be paying attention.

Really?

Even if that is the underlying consideration, in terms of economic efficiency it achieves the reverse results of those intended. I am minarchist, and hence believe the State should rein in its spending as much as possible, letting the private market provide as much as possible. In such situations, the government only worsens things.

I agree with you. I am just saying that Americans generally consider themselves very charitable, but are very selfish in their charity. We give all sorts of money away, yet we demand to control who gets it. In the end, we are not fixing any problems with our welfare, often exascerbating them.

Well, from an economic viewpoint, the fact that you already spend so much more than France on healthcare, yet the latter has the best system in the world, would lead me to suggest you should abolish your current system and opt for something more efficient.
Yeah, we would do that, but we're beholden to the corporate monoliths that are insurance companies. That, and after the red scare, we're still afraid of anything appearing "communist".

Yeah, we would do that, but we're beholden to the corporate monoliths that are insurance companies. That, and after the red scare, we're still afraid of anything appearing "communist".
These corporations only wield that much power due to government backing. Were it to be dropped, I doubt they would be able to do much.

And in any case, you already spend more than everyone else on healthcare; if that isn't appearing "communist", I don't know what is. The US needs to recognise this is a matter of economic efficiency, not what it may or may not seem to be.

Yep if your sick you just walk into a clinic or emergency room and get treated for " FREE " .
It's called saving a life. Little thing called basic humanity.

Free clinics..non profits etc...work with others .
You've proven again and again you have no idea what you are talking about, you don't need to add to the evidence.

Wouldn't it make sense then, since you already spend more on it in total than other nations, to simply create a national healthcare system? Apparently France has a very good model running: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/799444.stm.
It would, but that would be socalized medicine and we can't have that. :rolleyes:

Being in Japan now, I fall under their national health care system and I rather enjoy it. I recently came down with a sinus infection and the doctor ordered blood work and a CT scan just to make sure what was wrong was what he thought. I was nervous because the cost of those in the US are quite expensive.

Total cost for me for both scan, work, and medication to treat all of it was $55.

My Japanese fiancee complained that the cost was a lot.

Total cost for me for both scan, work, and medication to treat all of it was $55.

My Japanese fiancee complained that the cost was a lot.
That's next to nothing. :confused: Although Japan has got one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so it's not all too surprising.

That's next to nothing. :confused: Although Japan has got one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so it's not all too surprising.
It pays 70% of everything and they keep costs down, so...

The issue of how much work do we have?

I recognize a problem with this train of thought.
So, there might not be enough work for the recipients to do. Now, for those that do want a job and seek work, there aren't enough jobs available, ....so they have to go on welfare?

My county has had to lay off employees every year for the past several due to lack of funds. The functions these people fullfilled did not cease to be needed. As consequence too much in the county that needs to be done isn't. I am pretty sure there would be PLENTY of work for welfare recipients in these instances. BUT, what then do you say to the people who lost their jobs due to lack of funds only to have welfare recipients move into them? And wouldn't at least some of those that were layed off find themselves on the welfare rolls and thus end up doing a job for which they had been layed off and earning considerably less money doing?

The more persons in a given community/municipality/county/etc. that have jobs that pay them a LIVING wage, and who are thus PAYING TAXES on that income, the better off is that community/municipality/county/etc. economically. There souldn't be lay-offs, there would be less need for welfare.

It's not sound, in the long run, to just coerce people into shit jobs. They have to be jobs where those with ambition can advance, earn better wages and consequently pay more in taxes.

Most definitely yes, unless the person in question is disabled, or temporarily unable to work. Otherwise the recipients have no real impetus to get out there and work. And if they are given a choice between free money with no consequences attached, or a possibly unrewarding job, (welcome to the real world) most people nowadays will go for the free money every time. The work ethic in America seems to be dying a slow death, I'm afraid.

I recognize a problem with this train of thought.
So, there might not be enough work for the recipients to do. Now, for those that do want a job and seek work, there aren't enough jobs available, ....so they have to go on welfare?

My county has had to lay off employees every year for the past several due to lack of funds. The functions these people fullfilled did not cease to be needed. As consequence too much in the county that needs to be done isn't. I am pretty sure there would be PLENTY of work for welfare recipients in these instances. BUT, what then do you say to the people who lost their jobs due to lack of funds only to have welfare recipients move into them? And wouldn't at least some of those that were layed off find themselves on the welfare rolls and thus end up doing a job for which they had been layed off and earning considerably less money doing?

The more persons in a given community/municipality/county/etc. that have jobs that pay them a LIVING wage, and who are thus PAYING TAXES on that income, the better off is that community/municipality/county/etc. economically. There souldn't be lay-offs, there would be less need for welfare.

It's not sound, in the long run, to just coerce people into shit jobs. They have to be jobs where those with ambition can advance, earn better wages and consequently pay more in taxes.
We're assuming that we would be running this with a government that was actually responsible, and wouldn't just use this program as an opportunity to shirk their budget responsibilities. In order to assure this, I think it would have to be built in that it would only apply to the sort of work that was almost completely unskilled, requiring only manpower to do, such as roadside pickup, or patch jobs for potholes, or painting over grafitti, or sweeping sidewalks and streets, or making abandoned buildings livable again, for housing projects. This allows people to first of all keep working, which gives them a sense of dignity and keeps them from sinking into a jobless malaise, and second gives them work experience, which they can present to a potential employer.

Another good point: Moving on to private, skilled labor should be emphasized as the end goal, and welfare jobs should never replace existing jobs.

What is its total welfare spending?


Indeed. With your welfare system I know you spend more per capita than nations such as the UK, but end up with worse service. If you must have welfare, I suppose it should at least be efficient.

The UK is efficiently gettin more on the dole.

If you look at how successful a program is socially speaking Welfare programs almost universally perpetuate a poverty stricken class rather than improving their or their children's future prospects.


I have no problems, ostensibly, with civil service programs for the destitute and parolled criminals. But I don't consider such measures to be solutions to the problems involved.


Now admittedly the data for programs like headstart are not longitudinally substantiated over long periods of time (haven't been around very long), but if you look at crime and poverty rates for families which have their children go through a program like Headstart one tends to notice a significant drop in propensity for criminal activity and I seem to recall a 5 times greater chance at landing a steady job. This kind of outcome just can't be ignored.

So I say instead creating a subsistence program for poor people, I say educate them and give them skills which would be useful in the future. That money is almost certainly better spent, and it will probably let them get a job on their own.



Now I'm not so Naive as to think all problems get solved through education and a little urban reconstruction, but putting poor people into programs which substantially increase the future prospects of their children is a far better long term investment. By getting people out of the welfare system less people will be born into poverty, and thus less children will be raised on welfare. The goal really should be to make the birth rate into poverty negative, so that over time the welfare system can expand to meet the growing number of people who qualify for welfare, instead of getting overwhelmed by an ever increasing number of poverty stricken folk.

NT

I personally agree. Welfare should be reserved for the following:

- those who are physically/ mentally incapable to work
- the unemployed for a period of two months

Quite frankly, if society reagrds equality as a central value, then it seems a tad odd todiscriminate against those who do work to fund the lives of those who don't.

If I gotta work for it, it's not welfare, now is it?

It sounds like such a good idea, but "welfare to work" in my area has been an unmitigated disaster. Particularly for the group most likely to be in the program: single mothers who have a high school education or lower. If these women could find jobs that pay their bills and still give them enough free time to rear their children, they wouldn't be on welfare in the first place.

It sounds like such a good idea, but "welfare to work" in my area has been an unmitigated disaster. Particularly for the group most likely to be in the program: single mothers who have a high school education or lower. If these women could find jobs that pay their bills and still give them enough free time to rear their children, they wouldn't be on welfare in the first place.

Why not, actually have an abortion and do the responsible thing?

I'm thinking about the feasability of replacing the majority of the welfare system with something similer to what they had in the new deal, where the government would pay people enough to get them by in exchange for unskilled labor on things like street repair and city beautification. It seems like this might be a modest compromise between the people who are annoyed at their taxes funding "lazy" poor people, and the people who want to keep the social safety net. Is there any good reason why this wouldn't work, and shouldn't be implemented?

Nope. If they seriously can't find work they should be given benefits for maybe a year, and not allowed to go back on for at least three years. I suppose that they could get benefits for doing council jobs like cutting hedges and tidying streets and stuff; it beats paying them for nothing.

It pays 70% of everything and they keep costs down, so...
Affordable preventative medicine does wonders for keeping costs down...

It won't work. Either you'll have the wages so low that people would make less on it than they do welfare now, or the wages will be higher, and people currently with jobs will apply for the jobs, and to discriminate against the employed wouldn't be acceptable.

I'm thinking about the feasability of replacing the majority of the welfare system with something similer to what they had in the new deal, where the government would pay people enough to get them by in exchange for unskilled labor on things like street repair and city beautification. It seems like this might be a modest compromise between the people who are annoyed at their taxes funding "lazy" poor people, and the people who want to keep the social safety net. Is there any good reason why this wouldn't work, and shouldn't be implemented?

I agree with the general principle that society is better off channeling funds back to the unemployed in the form of some level of employment, as opposed to funding someone to sit at home.

Now, there are obvious exceptions. Single mothers have their hands full. Raising their children is more productive to society than forcing them to work for minimum wage and then having their children grow up in a sub-standard scenario. The same goes with funding people to do work that the private sector or already existing public sector employees are already doing. (i.e. removing fully qualified nursing assistants in return for lower paid 'workfare' assistants.)

Ideally, the government would look at the numbers of available able-bodied workers on the welfare system and then determine a labour dependant public goal. Might as well accomplish something with the same funds right?