In any society there are people who fall on hard times. Very often these hard times are a consequence of circumstance working against the individual. It would be nice if everyone always had enough money saved up to deal with any catastrophe that might befall them, but that would rarely be practical, and is often quite impossible. It would also be nice if every person had the profound courage and ability that some show to rise above the bonds of poverty, but sadly we are not all so adept, and the truth is that it is far easier to make money if you already have it.
There are two major approaches that contemporary economies or governments take to dealing with poverty. The first is to turn to a number of contemporary socialist programs. The second is to ignore the problem for the sake of capitalist zealotry, because reinvesting in individuals doesn't really work, or because it hurts the economy more to turn to socialism and therefore the society is better off sticking with capitalism. There is a third approach that may be able to help in resolving the problems of poverty while avoiding many of the criticisms levied against contemporary socialist approaches.
I am not an expert in the field of economics. With that said, what follows are some of the most prevalent criticisms of the contemporary solutions to poverty. I am not choosing sides with the criticisms or with the solutions, I am merely pointing out that there are serious concerns related to these solutions that should not be ignored. An awareness of these concerns will inform what I see as a different (though not new) solution to many of the problems of poverty, one that hopefully does not suffer from many of the concerns that contemporary solutions do.
Welfare is the act of handing out money to those suffering from poverty. One reason to support welfare is out of sympathy, giving out money may ease the suffering of those that are poor. Another reason to support welfare is that providing those funds may allow poor individuals to economically rehabilitate themselves. If it is easier to make money if you already have it, then it makes sense that giving a person money provides them the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty much more easily, and more reliably.
The criticisms of welfare are that it doesn't work, it is easily abused, and it costs too much. Welfare is criticized for being ineffective because it does not encourage productivity. If you are handed money every month then why work for it? A capitalist society values hard work and welfare does nothing to encourage hard work. Welfare is easily abused because lazy people can still benefit from it. This is not to say that all poor people are lazy, but those that are can take advantage of a system that is supposed to provide opportunity and use it as a way of perpetuating an economically infeasible lifestyle. In general one of the major concerns with welfare is that it has a great potential of merely perpetuating lifestyle, rather than changing it. Finally welfare is criticized for its costs because those costs usually come from higher taxes which have an overall negative impact on society. Even if we do have sympathy for the downtrodden, the cost to the overall economy could mean that more people are driven into hard times. Does the benefit gained from giving money to the poor outweigh the risk of creating more poverty and hurting the economy and society in general?
Poverty is hard. That is definitely and understatement, but anything besides the experience itself would be an understatement. However, if these criticisms are valid, then handing out money may not be the best way to relieve the suffering of the impoverished.
Unemployment is the act of handing out money to those that have lost their jobs. The idea here is that loss of job is quite common, and individuals should not be punished when this common misfortune befalls them. As a result they are financially supported, either by the government or their previous employer and usually for a limited period of time, until they can find a new job.
The criticisms of unemployment are that it hurts the effectiveness of companies and makes it harder to find jobs. If companies have to pay employees even after they fire them, then the cost of firing an employee is greater. That greater cost means that companies are less willing to fire employees. As a result companies are encouraged to keep employees that may not be the best for the job because the cost of firing them is greater than the cost of continuing to get mediocre work from the employee. This means that companies will tend to see more mediocre work being done. However, this also means that companies will be more particular about who they hire. Would you take a risk on someone if you knew it would be difficult to get rid of them? This means that unemployed people have a harder time finding a job because they really have to impress an employer in order for that employer to hire them. This also means that employees are less willing to leave a company even if they don't think it's the right fit. Overall finding a job is harder and companies and employees tend to have a poorer fit. Jobs are either hard to get but secure or easy to get but less secure. The latter leads to greater fluidity which is overall better for everyone.
There is still a concern that individuals may not have enough money saved up between jobs, and some individuals may not be able to find a job at all, but if these criticisms are valid then it doesn't look like unemployment is a particularly effective solution.
Minimum wage is when the government institutes a rate of pay that no employee can legally be paid less than. The idea here is that there is a minimum standard of living that every human deserves. What is the point of even paying someone an amount such that they cannot live by that minimum standard?
The criticism of minimum wage is that it increases unemployment and drives companies out of business. What if the productivity a company gets from its workers does not bring in enough revenue to pay the minimum wage? That company will have to fire some or many of its employees at best and will often go out of business trying to pay the wages that are higher than it can afford. In either case there are less jobs. Sure the people who have those jobs are getting paid more, but they are also more replaceable due to the larger pool of unemployed workers. The replaceability of these workers puts greater power in the hands of the employer. The only way for that greater power to be counteracted is with unions or more government restrictions and involvement. Furthermore, who is to say what the minimum wage should be? There is no question that it is cheaper to live in some regions than other, there is an enormous difference between a small Midwest town and New York City. Furthermore some people may not be as ambitious or needy as others and may have a less financially costly lifestyle. To support a minimum wage is basically to say that the existence of low paying jobs is worse then greater unemployment, greater power in the hands of employers, and a centralized authoritarian government that may not be able to deal with the subtleties of the varieties of job markets and cultural environments.
The fact that some individuals are paid extremely low wages while their employers are getting rich is still a serious concern, but it is questionable whether a minimum wage solves the problem or whether it just creates more problems of its own.
What if the government put out the “now hiring” sign and never took it away? The military is always looking for new recruits, but not everyone wants the kind of military training or military occupation that they would get, and certainly not everyone qualifies to join. Rather why not have a wider variety of jobs available with less commitment and open for just about anyone that can be remotely productive? With crumbling infrastructure, ugly city streets, poor education, and an overabundance of crime there is plenty to be done. If more people want jobs than the government has work for then perhaps the government could think ahead a little and build infrastructure for the future rather than barely maintaining what we already have. The New Deal, a program of mass government employment at the end of the Great Depression, was responsible for producing a fair amount of the infrastructure that helped our country become the economic powerhouse it is today. A continuous program of mass government employment could keep a country at the top of the list regarding infrastructure and many other very important things for the society and the economy of a nation.
While almost anyone should be offered a job, that does not mean that every person should keep their job regardless of performance. If an individual refuses to do the work without citing a fair reason why they cannot or should not be asked to, or without offering to perform some other useful and needed job, then that individual should not be paid, and should not receive any of the benefits. If they can or can reasonably argue that they should be performing some other usefully or needed job, then they should certainly be transferred. As examples of these exception I mean that a person with a bad back that was mistakenly given the job of construction should not be punished for the administrative error of giving them that responsibility. Likewise a person very skilled in construction that was mistakenly given the task of beautification could reasonably ask to be transferred for construction service. The important thing is that an effective and flexible means of assigning labor should be in place and totalitarianism should not be accepted.
When instituting such a program, the government should make jobs available for all kinds of individuals. Whatever a persons limitations may be, as long as they can do something they should be offered a job.
Individuals that are physically strong, or at least healthy, can be offered roles assisting infrastructure construction and maintenance. If they are already experienced they can job be given a role as part of the team. If they are not experienced then they can be placed in an apprentice type role, where they do labor that requires less knowledge and are trained in one new skill at a time and also learn by watching and doing.
Beautification includes cleaning the streets, planting trees and other plants, painting, and possibly even public works of art. Beautification is generally less physically demanding and can often require less skill then other tasks. Beautification makes a place more pleasant to live in and in the case of impoverished neighborhoods it can make the citizens feel happier and wanted. I think many people would have their motivation and sense of belonging to society shaken if not destroyed by having to walk down a dirty, crumbling street every day.
Security jobs could include a sort of town watch mentality. Individuals hired for security roles would not be expected to fill the role of a police officer, though they should be able to make quick contact with the police. Instead people hired to security roles would walk the streets, just creating a presence. They could even talk to people and help people out with small things. This would give people a sense of community, a sense of belonging, rather than a feeling that the law is hanging over them just waiting for them to screw up somehow. This kind of role is not particularly physically demanding, though it does require awareness and certainly benefits from a certain amount of friendliness.
Education is always a pressing need, particularly for the impoverished. Why not hire the impoverished to help ensure that the children have plenty of support in learning and existing in a healthy school and after school environment. Individuals filling this role could be full-time teachers if they have the knowledge and experience. The more full time teachers a school has, the more potential it has to provide a solid education for its students. Individuals filling this role could teach special courses if they have some special skill that they can share with the children. School should encourage more special courses as they open the children's minds to possibilities and make them feel that they are appreciated and wanted in school, not just in another kind of prison. Individuals filling this role could also supply one-on-one help or after school care. Perhaps it would also not be so bad to institute a program where these teachers learn alongside the students, not as a full time kind of education, but as a supplemental program. This could give the students a feeling of being empowered to learn more independently, and it could also help to remedy the possibly poor educational background of the individual fulfilling the role of teacher. This would life students up from the start while simultaneously giving poorly educated adults a second chance.
A different section of this website (jovialbard.com) contains information on a primary education model that was designed to include these kinds of roles as possibilities.
Not everyone that falls on hard times is impoverished. Sometimes well-educated and even wealthy individuals fall on hard times. Sometimes these hard times last long enough to exhaust any savings that individual may have had. At this point these individuals will begin to fall into poverty if they do not find a job. So why shouldn't the government provide jobs for individuals with skill in more intellectual pursuits. The government could even let these individuals pursue their own interest, so long as they are potentially beneficial to society. The government could just give them a place to work and a boss. As long as the boss sees that they are being productive, let them work on the kinds of things they want to work on. Alternately, the government may have specific research and development roles available. Certainly the pay such individuals would get from working in these programs would be less than what they would expect in a corporate job, or even an official full-time job with the government, but it could help to hold them over until they do find a full-time job.
The government could also provide jobs related to community programs or other small miscellaneous tasks. Encouraging and organizing community events and groups is an excellent way to make people feel like they are part of a community. Poverty often makes individuals feel removed from society, and often just making them feel wanted can go a long way toward lifting them out of their poverty. Also, community jobs and small miscellaneous jobs can often be less physically and mentally demanding, making these jobs a great option for individuals that may not be able to perform the more intense jobs.
All individuals employed in this program should either be provided with emergency and preventative healthcare or should be paid enough extra to cover the average costs of such healthcare.
All individuals employed in this program should be given further educational opportunities or should be paid enough extra to afford average community college part time tuition costs.
Many individuals fall on hard times as a result of some addiction or self-destructive habit. All individuals employed in this program should be offered effective rehabilitative services. Individuals should not be left to their own devices regarding rehabilitation services and it should be the governments solemn duty to ensure that every individual in this program is offered rehabilitation services free of change and with an attitude of caring, forgiveness, and strong encouragement.
Housing, nutritious food, and other basic living needs should be offered at low costs to any individual in this program with the understanding that some individuals may not have the skills, habits, social support, or prior wealth to provide such things for themselves. With this comes the responsibility to help these individual through education, rehabilitation, and of coursing giving them a living wage so that they can find a place of their own.
The government should also be willing to take an individuals debt in exchange for employment. The government should accept an individual's debt particularly if it is educational debt or medical debt, more so for debt accrued through rehabilitation or cures. For large personal debts of a different nature bankruptcy may be more appropriate. Basically the government could grant individuals who qualify a low interest loan in exchange for a term of service. Of course individuals may be permitted to leave that service if they find a better paying job, which should be the ultimate objective of the program, though they may be required to rejoin the service if they loose the better paying job before the debt is repaid.
One of the most important things about such a program is the sort of culture it engenders. Of primary importance is that such an establishment not be seen as low-class, second-rate, or in any way as an attempt by the government to assert totalitarian rule over or take advantage of the poor or unfortunate. The atmosphere and image of the program should be one of hope, second-chances, and a helping hand through the hard times. On the other hand the program should not be seen as charity or as an excuse the give out money. The program must appear legitimate and should have an image of hard-work and contributing useful labor to society. Of course this atmosphere must also be carried over to execution and administration. With these kinds of images comes a responsibility to ensure that the work being done is important to society and also to ensure that the individuals doing that work are treated like human beings and not human cattle.
This program provides the benefits of welfare, providing money to those who have fallen on hard times, but is ineffective or as easily abused as welfare. Individuals have to work for the money they get, which means they can't just use that money to propagate an economically infeasible lifestyle. Additionally, being involved in a work program means they are part of a community. By developing the right atmosphere in that community and providing benefits like education and healthcare, the poor can be mentally, physically, and socially lifted up out of their state of poverty.
This program also negates the need for unemployment programs by providing jobs to anyone who needs one. If these encourages companies to reduce unemployment then it also increases the ease with which companies hire, meaning that individuals who run out of savings don't have to spend as much time working in the government work program or living without contributing to society.
By having a government program that will employ anyone for a minimum wage it is no longer essential to legislate a minimum wage for private businesses. If an individual is unhappy with their current wage and the wage the government is willing to pay, which should be a livable wage, is higher then they will go work for the government. They can even take advantage of the benefits the government provides which may help them find an even better job later. On the other hand, If an individual is happy to work for their current wage, or are willing to accept their low wages because they like their job, then so be it.
A work program answers most of the criticisms of the other types of programs. The one criticism it does not resolve is the criticism of cost, and therefore the need for taxes. I would counter that criticism by saying that this program builds infrastructure and rehabilitates individuals and communities. Therefore, such a program represents an investment in the future of the nation. There is still the risk that the government will invest in individuals that will never yield returns for the society as a whole, but altogether that risk seems less than the other social programs.
Unfortunately this program has a criticism of its own, which is that the government is interfering with the economy. Using taxation it is possible for the government to pay employees better wages to do certain jobs than would be economically feasible for a private company. This means that the government effectively drives the private company out of business since that company can't find anyone to hire. As a result the government holds a monopoly over that service. However, the government can avoid this by sicking to non-competitive services like charities or normal government services like education, security, and infrastructure.
For a very pro-socialism society their may be other desirable programs that cannot be replaced by a work program. For example, a universal healthcare program benefits the elderly and other individuals that may be unable to contribute to society, or those that may be unwilling. Ardent capitalism might suggest that in the long run society would benefit more by leaving these individuals to their own devices. The reasoning here is that if the government spends less money on maintaining the sickly or lazy then more wealth will be reinvested in the economy. A strong economy means greater wealth and progress overall, something that future generations will be able to benefit from. A socialist cares more about maintaining the life of those that are living now. So long as the present economy is not done undue harm by the costs needed it is better to ensure the wellbeing of all today then to pursue even greater wealth and progress for tomorrow. To put it another way, the capitalist believes it is always better to reinvest while the socialist is satisfied with the wealth we have and only the prospect of causing actual harm to others, not somewhat limiting their potential, would stop a socialist from making the effort to care for those that can give nothing back. I will not judge whether the needs of the living outweigh the progress that could one day save us from unavoidable disaster or improve the quality of life for all who come later. It is up to each culture or perhaps each individual to decide where their priorities lie, and to apply their votes, actions, and money as they see fit.