[TimJRobinson]

The main reason most countries don't force those on welfare to work is that some of the current recipients will say "screw this I'm not working for peanuts" and turn to theft, selling drugs or prostitution. If they were allowed to just be they would entertain themselves at home. So you have to be willing to accept this increased crime tradeoff for this to work.

[yummyfajitas]

So poor people are a bunch of stationary bandits and we pay them money in tribute to prevent them from harming us? What horrible people you make them out to be.

(Note: I have no problem with people who sell drugs or sex and think both should be legal. I'm referring specifically to theft here.)

I'm not sure why we need to accept this increased crime tradeoff. Why can't we (here "we" refers to folks who are willing to work for money rather than steal) just wall ourselves off from them?

[TimJRobinson]

Most aren't, but some are, and as there is no way to separate the good from the bad you have to take this into account.

I'm just pointing out the main flaw in this plan and the reason it (as far as I know) has never been implemented. You can argue against a strawman all you like but it's not going to solve any problems.

[yummyfajitas]

Why is there no way to separate the good from the bad? Just have a strict "one strike and you're out" policy.

It's certainly a fallacy to say that a plan is impossible because no one has done it before; everything has a first time. It's irrelevant in this case, however. FDR implemented it, it was called the Civilian Conservation Corp and it was awesome - we got a national park system out of the deal. India does it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rural_Employment_Guar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

South Africa and Argentina have similar programs but I don't know as much about them.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_534.pdf

http://www.epwp.gov.za/

[dragonwriter]

> FDR implemented it, it was called the Civilian Conservation Corp and it was awesome

Its an awesome solution to a particular kind of transitory unemployment (and, at the scale it had at its height, perfectly sensible when there is a large, national, temporary economic dislocation) where you expect that the kind of work that people were doing before will be in demand again.

Its less good as a way of dealing with long-term structural changes in the economy -- either in the proportion of people employable at living wages in the marketplace or the jobs demanded. Particularly the latter, since locking people into public make-work jobs with mostly or entirely in-kind, survival-necessity payment provides little opportunity for adjustment to labor market changes.