Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

45
55
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:100
Arguments:100
Total Votes:101
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (41)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (47)

Debate Creator

jolie(9805) pic



How to reduce the unemployment numbers.

 

Currently, a portion of our taxes goes towards funding welfare.  Those people do not work (they just collect free money) and that brings the unemployment numbers up.  However, if our individual share of welfare funding went into our own individual trust and we gave welfare recipients a bank account number that identified it as belonging to a welfare recipient, then individuals could hire welfare recipients and pay them from the funds in their trust.  Once those funds run out, you can't hire any more welfare recipients.  Any money in the trust that is not spend by the end of the year, goes to the welfare recipients as free money.  This would get welfare recipients to perform actual services/work (bringing unemployment down) and get paid for doing said jobs.  They would become contributing members of society and not a drain on society.  We could still have minimum wage and maybe have specific wage assignments for certain jobs.  Those who are physically unable to perform any work, could still get welfare.

True.

Side Score: 45
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 55
2 points

This is so genius, I don't even know how they haven't thought of this sooner.

Side: True.
2 points

Which businesses get the benefit of unpaid workers? The reason why this hasn't been thought up before is because the idea that working for every single penny you spend even if you are having a tough time in life is heartless.

Side: True.
1 point

Heartless? Really? Do you want to pay some of my bills?

This is for individuals to hire people to pull weeds, clean house, etc. The workers get paid from the trust, directly into their bank account. I've seen a lot of homeless people who would benefit from the self pride that comes from doing an honest day's work (earning your keep).

Side: True.

Anyone capable of working should have to do so in order to receive any public assistance. We would not want them to take away jobs from people gainfully employed, so give them work no one else seems willing to do. I for one would like someone to pick up litter around our main thoroughfares.

Side: True.
1 point

Not a bad idea, but if we got rid of all the illegal aliens, we'd have full employment again.

Side: True.
MKIced(2510) Disputed
2 points

They're undocumented immigrants, not "illegal aliens"; they're still human beings and deserve a modicum of respect, especially since they're the ones who do all the jobs we're too good for, like housekeeping and landscaping. How about instead of rounding them up like animals, we make it easy for them to naturalize?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Diogenes(102) Disputed
1 point

They are illegal alliens. They entered the country illegally. You might want to read up on some history and find out what happens to countries without secure borders. That's our eventual fate, unless we address the problem.

Side: True.
flewk(1192) Clarified
1 point

Actually, the migrant workers make the greatest contribution to society. Yard work or house work is just luxuries of the upper echelon. Agriculture is a core infrastructure that affects everyone.

Side: True.

Those people do not work (they just collect free money

You might want to check out the 2012 Census, because that statement of yours is factually wrong (when made referring to the group as a whole).

However, if our individual share of welfare funding went into our own individual trust and we gave welfare recipients a bank account number that identified it as belonging to a welfare recipient

So those who need it most would have the smallest share? It seems like this idea would create a lot of backlogged money from those who won't need it, while failing to provide sufficient funds for those who do.

then individuals could hire welfare recipients and pay them from the funds in their trust.

And what of those who receive welfare AND work? And why are they working for money that they already contributed, which would then be taxed again?

This would get welfare recipients to perform actual services/work (bringing unemployment down) and get paid for doing said jobs.

Again, and what of welfare recipients who DO perform actual services and work?

They would be become contributing members of society and not a drain on society.

Are those who work while receiving welfare "a drain on society"?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

I was specifically targeting those who do not work but physically can work. Those who work and get welfare to supplement their income would not have their status changed.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
GenericName(3430) Clarified
2 points

Out of curiosity, do you have any figures on how many people physically can work but don't and accept welfare?

Side: True.
flewk(1192) Clarified
1 point

The portion that are physically able to work and do not are a very small portion of the total welfare recipients. They are abusing disability programs that exist to serve people with severe disabilities.

It is very difficult to identify these individuals as the distinction between severe disability (unable to work), partial disability (limited ability to work), and minor disability (able to work) are subjective. There is still no objective standard for pain, only a subjective scale that relies entirely upon the individual interpretation.

There is no reason to implement another source of bureaucratic waste just for these individuals; at least not until better methods are discovered for distinguishing them.

Side: True.
2 points

The past in the USA one could drive around and find spot labor to work doing such task as cleaning horse stalls, raking leaves, push mowing, baling straw, etc. Today these same type of people aren't holding signs saying,

"Will work for food." Instead they are holding signs that read,

"Will work for prevailing wage, 2 weeks paid vacation, insurance and a 401k."

The problem isn't because there is a lack of work, just the unwillingness to do any work.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Economic terminology is different from the common conception. Unemployment only includes those who are a part of the workforce, which rules out anyone not actively seeking employment. By implementing your plan you would likely drive unemployment up by creating more people seeking employment without proportionately increasing the number of jobs.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Are you saying that we will then get a more "accurate" picture of the "real" state of our economy?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Jace(5164) Clarified
1 point

No; that is not remotely close to the point I was making. You suggested that your plan would reduce unemployment numbers, and I merely observed that why this would not be the case due to the way those numbers are calculated. It is hardly my fault that you constrained your reasoning to a broken method of economic assessment.

Side: True.