Are There No Workhouses?
Published December 30, 2004
Another pitfall we would want to avoid is making this part of a new, huge government bureaucracy. The solution is to privatize the entire system. While some money would come from federal and local government in the form of start-up grants and a per participant subsidy (much lower than current welfare costs per person), the system would largely be funded by the proceeds of working participants. The operators would be able to hire out their participants either on-site or transported by bus to other locations to do all sorts of jobs which are currently being outsourced or filled by illegal immigrant labor. These are jobs which we have trouble finding adult citizen workers to do, so why not fill them with program participants rather than sending them overseas or using illegals? This would both help our economy and dry up the demand for illegal workers. Wages might be fairly low, depending on the work, but expenses per participant would also be low. If take home pay averaged $48 per participant per day, one third of that would go into a savings fund for the worker and two thirds would go to pay their expenses. Government subsidies would match what each worker earned for the system. This would be less than half the amount currently paid by government for each welfare recipient, and the total money for expenses would be more than enough to cover costs plus reasonable profit. Workers would end up doing things like assembly work, telemarketing, telephone support and even farm, construction and demolition labor. Why send this work overseas when they could be done here?
Lest you fear that this would turn into a huge civil rights problem, the basic principle would be that entry into the system and exit from the system would be entirely voluntary. If you want to remain unemployed you can, up until the point you are picked up for vagrancy, at which point you could only be put into the system involuntarily after a trial. No criminal record would be created but you would be sentenced to at least 6 months of 'work rehabilitiation'. Once in the system, if you get a job you can get out immediately and take your saved earnings with you. Possible abuses and exploitation could be monitored fairly easily by regular inspections and a state-sponsored grievance process.
This system would also save enormous amounts of money for the taxpayer. Currently it costs us between $17,000 and $25,000 for every person living entirely on welfare, including children. A system like this could cut that cost by half or more and direct the money into the private sector while also making the participants productive members of society. Regimented, communal living and dining can cut expenses per person substantially, with the leftover money being used to pay for facilities and educational resources - easily farmed out to local community colleges which would be eager to participate. Being able to hire workers out as a group would open up employment opportunities in many areas by saving potential employers the difficulty of groing through the time and expense of worker recruitment.
Dave Nalle has been a magazine editor, freelance writer, capitol hill staffer, game designer and taught college history for many years. He is Vice Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, working to promote liberty in the GOP. He designs fonts for a living and lives with his family just outside Austin. You can find his writings on politics and culture at Republic of Dave, on conspiracy theories at IdiotWars and on design and fonts at The Scriptorium.
- Are There No Workhouses?
- Published: December 30, 2004
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Dave Nalle
- Dave Nalle's BC Writer page
- Dave Nalle's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Relevant in August and even more relevant today when it's a year old and still just as valid for this holiday season as it was for the last.
I actually went to a performance of Oliver today at a local theater and it reminded me of this article during the scene in the foundling home and with the street arabs working for Fagin.
The problems of poverty were so much greater in Dickens England than they were today, yet they managed to find solutions which required minimal government intrusion and were potentially humane - had they been managed less corruptly.
It may seem backwards, but perhaps we could learn something from that past culture.
Dave
There's also the issue that most people simply wouldn't co-operate with such a scheme, especially in such an excessively individualised country as the USA. I doubt that would even work in Europe, Dave, where we still generally believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
And I agree with the rights of the individual being paramount in a free society, but the workhouse concept can work within that context, if as I suggest in the article, participation is on an at will basis. You would always have the option to leave the system, receive no public assistance and sink or swim on your own.
Dave
until yer busted for "vagrancy" under your plan, eh Mr Nalle?
as long as Profit is involved for corporate structure you will have abuses....check the history of work programs in our prison system...many instances of abuse...not quite on the Dickensian scale, but still there
there are some possibilities in this Concept, i just cannot see it working as long as Corporate culture is allowed to be in charge...since Profit is their only motivation rather than the welfare of those Involved...far too easy for a "company store" type scam where these poor folks can never get themselves out of Debt to the "system" and essentially become indentured servants to "the Company"
does anyone else but me see the Irony of the same person writing this piece AND the Santa Claus piece at the same time?
could just be me
Excelsior!
until yer busted for "vagrancy" under your plan, eh Mr Nalle?
At which point you'd be given three hots and a cot, medical care and a roof over your head for six months 'recovery' which would include drying out and detoxing, after which you'd be free to try again.
as long as Profit is involved for corporate structure you will have abuses....check the history of work programs in our prison system...many instances of abuse...not quite on the Dickensian scale, but still there
I'm certainly no fan of private prison management, which has a dismal record, but private charities have a much better record, and they'd be in the lead role here.
there are some possibilities in this Concept, i just cannot see it working as long as Corporate culture is allowed to be in charge...since Profit is their only motivation rather than the welfare of those Involved...far too easy for a "company store" type scam where these poor folks can never get themselves out of Debt to the "system" and essentially become indentured servants to "the Company"
This is only because you think that businesses are inherently evil, when that's really not the case.
does anyone else but me see the Irony of the same person writing this piece AND the Santa Claus piece at the same time?
You think Santa would not endorse a humane system to provide support for the most needy in society?
Dave
WHEN I WAS BROUGHT HERE EVEERBODY TREATED ME THE WRONG WAY I DON'T MEAN MY MOM I KNOW SHE LOVES ME DARLY BUT WHAT I'PRONOUNCE HUMBUG I NEED E.M TO MEET THERE MATCH
My Dickens must be off. If Ebenezer grew up in the workhouse, then presumably it must have been that Twist fellow who wasn't keen on Christmas.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/23757)
Hey, Gonzo Marx is right, this article is more relevant today than ever before. A real, humane solution to poverty and homelessness!
FOG