Your premise is wrong from the start. Tying government benefits to job training or work requirements is NOT the same thing as the government forcing you to work.
Take it up with the author of the article linked in the OP. He’s the one who describes Governor Ricketts’s efforts to implement “policies that make it more trouble to stay home” as “forcing more citizens to work”.
Given that “forcing” is frequently used colloquially to mean “exerting more pressure to gain compliance” rather than literally physically coercing, I’m not sure that this is a nit that needs picking.
And here I thought AP News was allegedly an objective source of facts, not a place where an author introduces his own take on things.
Objectively, job training as a condition of government benefits is not force. The author should not have written it that way, and the OP shouldn’t have taken it at face value.
As I said, ISTM that the colloquial use of “force” to mean “exert pressure to induce compliance” is sufficiently familiar that the average reader understands what the author is saying.
Do you really want to hijack this thread to prescriptivist nitpicking about allegedly “objective” acceptable usages of the verb “force”?
What’s the alternative? There’s an argument for basic income payments rather than other over-complex benefits, but has anyone ever demonstrated how that can be done at a level higher than basic subsistence, or how you can persuade people who do work and pay taxes that they’re not subsidising mere laziness.
Or is your alternative no government welfare schemes and laissez-faire incentives by destitution?
Iran, of all places, has a kind of Universal Basic Income.
The system has been running for about 10 years, and is still continuing.
One of the biggest criticisms of basic income, a system of giving people modest salaries just for being alive, is that it discourages people from working.
A new report on an ongoing cash-transfer program launched in 2011 in Iran may cast some doubt on the claim.
Published by the economists Djavad Salehi-Isfahani and Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooei, the paper finds no evidence to support the idea that people receiving cash transfers take themselves out of the labor force. Some workers even expanded their hours, the report found.
Iran’s nationwide cash-transfer policy emerged out of heavy cuts to gas and bread subsidies made by then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in late 2010. The monthly transfer amounted to 29% of median household income
I think this is hyperbolic. I like teaching: I sincerely believe I’m doing good in the world. It’s intellectually challenging. If I had no financial need to work, I’d still teach (though I might work less, or work differentlyll). I get a lot more satisfaction out of working, for example, than I do out of any of the other bullshit in my life (like, say, cleaning my house).
There are huge problems with work culture and yes, labor is often exploited. But that doesn’t mean every opportunity to earn a wage is inherently exploitative. I mean, am I exploitative because I pay a man to mow my lawn?
Whereas a less antagonistic reading could be “encourage” or “incentivize”, to achieve a “desired goal”. ISTM that many use the most negative lens too often.
If our disability/unemployment regime isn’t funded by taxed labor, then I don’t really care if people sit around and watch TV all day. Say a state like AK has excess mineral wealth, or CA finds a workable way to siphon off tech billionaires… fine, pay people to do nothing for as long as they need to.
It doesn’t bother me, in fact that’s what I’d prefer. Most people will be unfulfilled by idleness, and they need that to help them figure out the best thing for them. The people who really prefer to be completely idle, I don’t think there’s much to be gained by bullying them into the workforce.
However, a magical piggy bank isn’t an option for most states. If the regime of disability/unemployment benefits is funded by the taxed labor of able-bodied people, then the state has a right and obligation to take reasonable measures to help move people from the “recipient” column to the “contributor” column. But I do mean reasonable measures… encouraging and empowering someone to find dignified labor, not forcing people into low-skill, low-pay jobs as punishment for being on the dole.
I don’t know; what are the terms of employment, exactly?
I’m pretty sure nothing I wrote would indicate I believe that every employment situation is de facto exploitative. But employment as it stands in our culture is an exploitative institution. Unions arose after employment was already a thing, not the other way around. And we’ve seen, first hand here in America, the end result of the exploitation. To my knowledge, we’ve never seen the end result on the opposite side, where it is a truly collaborative effort and people are rewarded commensurably for their efforts.
Great post; thanks.
Plenty of employees are exploited by their employers (and, probably, some employers are exploited by their employees), and I’m not sure it’s possible to entirely eliminate that. The same could be said about lots of things: marriage, parenthood, government, commerce, etc.
But that just means it’s exploitable, not that it’s exploitative per se.
I assume you mean the US government, since, pretty obviously, other governments can and do force people to work all the time. China springs to mind.
IMHO, no…the government shouldn’t force people to work. That said, there has to be a way to make people accountable wrt collecting unemployment. If you honestly want to work but can’t find work, I’m all for giving people a safety belt, including training if necessary. If someone really doesn’t want to work, then that’s fine…but I don’t think society should be actively on the hook to do more than ensure a very basic standard of living (i.e. no one should starve in the US, and at least basic healthcare and needs should be met).
That’s a really tough question. I don’t know where the line should be drawn wrt states forcing someone to work verse letting people choose to not work but still expect to be supported by the state. That there is currently a line is pretty obvious, but where it should be? I don’t know. Myself, my own line is kind of what I said…no one should starve in the US. Basic needs should be met, including some level of health care (including mental health), shelter, clothes, etc. Where the bar goes from there is something I don’t know.
But forcing people, literally to work a la China’s forced (a.k.a. slave) labor or other countries of that ilk? No, I don’t think that should be a model we want to follow.
Putting aside all the ethical and philosophical issues, this is just absurd economic illiteracy. If absolutely everyone who wants a job has one, that’s terrible for the economy. It means that rapidly growing businesses can’t hire new workers (except by hiring them away from other jobs, which then means their former employer doesn’t have enough workers).
The demand for labor fluctuates over time, and if there isn’t always some pool of people who aren’t working but who are, at least potentially, available for work, the economy can’t adjust to those fluctuations. Unemployed people therefore provide a valuable economic service and should be provided with a living wage accordingly.
This idea of using government to interfere with the economy for political reasons (in this case, in order to reduce the unemployment rate below what what the economy naturally wants it to be) is the sort of thing Republicans are supposed to be against, but consistency isn’t one of their strong suits.
It’s just political posturing. In the mind of the Republican base, there’s never any legitimate reason for anyone to be unemployed, and people who have the gall to expect any sort of unemployment benefits deserve to be shamed and made to jump through a bunch of stupid hoops. (I’m assuming if this free government-provided “career counseling” was actually of any benefit, they wouldn’t have to bribe people into taking advantage of it).
This seems like a weird framing of it, since the government is the source of unemployment in the first place. In the absence of a government, there would be more need to work, not less.
I agree with @D_Anconia that the whole premise here is nonsense.
What forces work is the basic structure of physical reality. We are all born naturally short housing, food, medicine, etc. We need to get those somehow, either by working for them or by convincing others to provide them via family or cultural bonds, or by the state. A reduction in the state’s willingness to provide them doesn’t constitute force.
Exactly. ISTM that a decade or so ago it was more common to see people in these sorts of arguments referencing the concept of NAIRU, or Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment.
If the government is dependent on keeping a certain percentage of potential workers unemployed in order to successfully manage the economy, it shouldn’t then turn around and scold or punish those workers for being unemployed.
I agree. As I said, in our culture, employment is an exploitative institution. It doesn’t need to be, but it is.
Thank you both and especially for that link; this is the first I’ve heard the notion that the unemployed are necessary. It seems like a really comprehensive view of things.