[–] ChaoticNeutral 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Imagine the black market in book reports that would crop up.
[–] KosherHiveKicker ago
"War and Peace was muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, muey, ......."
[–] ToFat2Fish 1 point 4 points 5 points (+5|-1) ago
This I've been saying it for years, if you're on welfare because you "can't get a job" than you have to put in 40 hrs of volunteer work some where.
[–] Mr_Wolf 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
There's plenty of places that need volunteers, so it's not like there isn't work that needs doing out there.
Some places even reward volunteer time, with discounts or services. Aside from qualifying for a habitats for humanity house you're required to commit so many hours as volunteer time.
[–] BuckinHipster ago (edited ago)
Thus is fucking retarded because at that point why should anybody get a job, all work should be 40 hour/week volunteer work and the government should just pay all volunteers. Obviously I'm oversimplifying but come on, that's like outsourcing. Volunteer work at that level would make an incentive to hold out for 'free' work and just let quality of the product drop and tell consumers to 'deal with it. See outsourcing and Walmart. See all the 'Mexicans took err jerbs' stuff. See the 30 hour work week that already exists as a loophole to get around government mandates and regulations.
[–] AmaleksHairyAss 2 points 4 points 6 points (+6|-2) ago
Is this to educate them, discourage them, or punish them? The first would be ineffective and the other two would be evil.
[–] the_spectre 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago
It's evil to require ne'er-do-wells to work for money?
You have a pretty low standard for evil.
[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
No, it's evil to create make-work full stop.
[–] The_Great_Fapsbie 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Your assuming they are "ne'er do wells", they might just be someone down on their luck. Making them do a book report is simply busy work and doesn't contribute to actually finding a job.
Making them serve 40 hours community service as has been suggested earlier in the thread makes them work, but once again doesn't solve their lack of a job and hinders their job search.
I'd rather they be required to report to a job placement service. If after a set period of time they can't secure a job they should be required to work for a temp agency at least part time.
Instead of mercilessly flogging the unemployed let's help them get a job.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
If the person is eligible for welfare the decision has already been made they need it. Adding extra hurdles will then not prevent fraud but only keep the needy from the assistance. If you want to keep welfare from being offered at all I disagree but I won't call your desire evil. This is different.
[–] Devildetails 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Are we gonna provide them literacy services if they can't?
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] Devildetails ago (edited ago)
Right but he's proposing denying the illiterate assistance. Am I the only one who sees the problem there?
[–] sumguy 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Haha! I'd do it. Of course I'm a voracious reader regardless. :)