Re: workfare

[Ray E. Harrell]

I just watched a racist piece this morning at the
American Theater Alliance about Indian killers of
"White Children."The crowd wept as the
pregnant Mother escaped the savages and swam
the raging torrent to find her husband.

But then there is this post which seems to say
that the benevolent loving pioneer's descendants
have screwed it up.  Or have they?

Maybe it just goes to show you how  Western spiritual
practices "work."As Red Jacket a Seneca chief said
after being told by a minister about the superiority of
his book over RJ's way of his ancestors, "I am impressed
by both your book and your words.  Now we will take a
little time and see about your actions, what kind of neighbors
and friends you turn out to be."The preacher left without
even shaking his hand.

The more things change the more they stay.


REH from the NYCity res. just watching.

Melanie Milanich wrote:

> Actually for the $520 monthly "workfare" in Ontario a person is expected to work
> 17 hours per week--supposedly using the rest of the time to apply for more
> permanent work.  But even before it was implemented the recipient had to provide
> a list of places, with names of personel directors, that (s)he applied to.  I
> think 10 were required per week.
> Which one would think is a fulltime "job"
>Today the CBC interviewed a grandmother who has legal custody of her five
> grandchildren. She was forced to obtain workfare. She leaves home early and does
> not get back until after they have left school, and two of the children have
> serious problems with school and the law but she is now not able to attend to
> their problems.
>   I have one "workfare",  person renting a room in my house.  He is in
> training courses.
> But since I charge him $300 a month for rent, transit fare is $88 per month, and
> he has a phone for $29 per month--his $520 does not stretch for food, clothes,
> personal care,
> let alone books, newspapers, postage stamps, vitamins, entertainment or
> socializing
> (he washes his clothes with bars of soap in my bathtub and hangs them in his
> window
> and I won't tell you what he uses for toilet paper) and his religion requires
> him to give 10 percent of income to the mosque.
>There was a program on the radio this morning about the increase in evictions
> since the province enacted the "Tenants Protection Act" allowing landhoards to
> evict tenants and convert to condominiums and charge more.   With the increase
> in evictions are increasing numbers of single mothers in homeless shelters and
> living on the streets.  They represent the  group with the largest increase in
> numbers of homeless.  And to top it off, the newly appointed federal Minister of
> Homelessness has announced that she has finished her "research" and will shortly
> present to cabinet her information.  She is quoted in the newspapers to the
> effect that she doesn't know if they will do anything about it, but she will
> give them the information that she gathered!
> john courtneidge wrote:
>
> > Dear Friends
> >
> > I snip and then comment.
> > --
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss)
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: Re: workfare
> > >Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 3:00 pm
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >Victor Milne calculated:
> > >> If a workfare participant works 8
> > >> hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare
> > >> benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour.
> > >
> > >Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher.  Considering that the
> > >workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing
> > >work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to
> > >maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think
> > >this wage isn't too bad...
> > >
> > >Chris
> >
> > 
> > One intriguing aspect of wages under capitalism is that the people who do
> > the crap jobs get the crap money.
> >
> > Given that, as income (and wealth) inequality grows, ill-health also grows
> > (Richard Wilkinson's book) then we *have* to work out how to close the
> > present, obscene factors of income inequality.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > j
> >
> > 

Re: workfare

[Ray E. Harrell]

As far as I'm concerned Cook got what he deserved.
So why not learn how to balance books instead of destroy
in order to consume?

Learn the meaning of the wheel of balance instead of
nailing yourself to it.

REH


Christoph Reuss wrote:

> > It all sounds to me like a bunch of Easter Islanders arguing over the
> > value of a statue while the wood diminishes.  (REH)

Chris answers:

>
>
> All right, Captain Cook, so what do you suggest ?
>
> Chris

Re: workfare

[Melanie Milanich]

Actually for the $520 monthly "workfare" in Ontario a person is expected to work
17 hours per week--supposedly using the rest of the time to apply for more
permanent work.  But even before it was implemented the recipient had to provide
a list of places, with names of personel directors, that (s)he applied to.  I
think 10 were required per week.
Which one would think is a fulltime "job"
   Today the CBC interviewed a grandmother who has legal custody of her five
grandchildren. She was forced to obtain workfare. She leaves home early and does
not get back until after they have left school, and two of the children have
serious problems with school and the law but she is now not able to attend to
their problems.
  I have one "workfare",  person renting a room in my house.  He is in
training courses.
But since I charge him $300 a month for rent, transit fare is $88 per month, and
he has a phone for $29 per month--his $520 does not stretch for food, clothes,
personal care,
let alone books, newspapers, postage stamps, vitamins, entertainment or
socializing
(he washes his clothes with bars of soap in my bathtub and hangs them in his
window
and I won't tell you what he uses for toilet paper) and his religion requires
him to give 10 percent of income to the mosque.
   There was a program on the radio this morning about the increase in evictions
since the province enacted the "Tenants Protection Act" allowing landhoards to
evict tenants and convert to condominiums and charge more.   With the increase
in evictions are increasing numbers of single mothers in homeless shelters and
living on the streets.  They represent the  group with the largest increase in
numbers of homeless.  And to top it off, the newly appointed federal Minister of
Homelessness has announced that she has finished her "research" and will shortly
present to cabinet her information.  She is quoted in the newspapers to the
effect that she doesn't know if they will do anything about it, but she will
give them the information that she gathered!
john courtneidge wrote:


> Dear Friends
>
> I snip and then comment.
> --
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss)
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: workfare
> >Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 3:00 pm
> >
>
> >
> >Victor Milne calculated:
> >> If a workfare participant works 8
> >> hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare
> >> benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour.
> >
> >Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher.  Considering that the
> >workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing
> >work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to
> >maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think
> >this wage isn't too bad...
> >
> >Chris
>
> 
> One intriguing aspect of wages under capitalism is that the people who do
> the crap jobs get the crap money.
>
> Given that, as income (and wealth) inequality grows, ill-health also grows
> (Richard Wilkinson's book) then we *have* to work out how to close the
> present, obscene factors of income inequality.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> j
>
> 

Re: workfare

[Franklin Wayne Poley]

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Ray E. Harrell wrote:

> It all sounds to me like a bunch of Easter Islanders arguing over the
> value of a statue while the wood diminishes.
> 
> REH
> 
> Christoph Reuss wrote:
> 
> > Franklin Wayne Poley asked:
> > > Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much
> > > choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting
> > > pre-employment, education or employment?
> >
> > No, but I think this applies to all countries...  Basically, they can
> > select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take
> > their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account.
> >
> > > (2) What is the GDP contribution
> > > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer
> > > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare).
> >
> > I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%. 

Well, being slightly smarter than the Easter Bunny I figure that the GDP
contribution of those on welfare doing homemaker/childcare work in their
own homes is far, far greater than 0.1%.
FWP.


 But as we all know,
> > the GDP is an inappropriate metric for these kinds of work, which are of
> > little economical value but of significant social and environmental value.
> > (Also, these activities must not compete with commercial services.)  This is
> > a good opportunity (esp. for NGOs) to get things done that couldn't be done
> > with 'regular' jobs, e.g. guarded bike parkings, free bike rentals, recycling
> > of various stuff, restoring old buildings, cleaning up the environment, etc.
> > One new service that my program introduced is a free E-bicycle courier for
> > shoppers, so mothers and the elderly can go shopping without a car and
> > without carrying heavy loads.
> >
> > Victor Milne calculated:
> > > If a workfare participant works 8
> > > hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare
> > > benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour.
> >
> > Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher.  Considering that the
> > workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing
> > work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to
> > maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think
> > this wage isn't too bad...
> >
> > Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 

[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED];http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex;
http://www.alternatives.com/fc

Re: workfare

[john courtneidge]

Dear Friends

I snip and then comment.
--
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: workfare
>Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 3:00 pm
>

>
>Victor Milne calculated:
>> If a workfare participant works 8
>> hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare
>> benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour.
>
>Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher.  Considering that the
>workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing
>work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to
>maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think
>this wage isn't too bad...
>
>Chris


One intriguing aspect of wages under capitalism is that the people who do
the crap jobs get the crap money.

Given that, as income (and wealth) inequality grows, ill-health also grows
(Richard Wilkinson's book) then we *have* to work out how to close the
present, obscene factors of income inequality.

Any ideas?

j

Re: workfare

[Ray E. Harrell]

It all sounds to me like a bunch of Easter Islanders arguing over the
value of a statue while the wood diminishes.

REH

Christoph Reuss wrote:

> Franklin Wayne Poley asked:
> > Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much
> > choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting
> > pre-employment, education or employment?
>
> No, but I think this applies to all countries...  Basically, they can
> select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take
> their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account.
>
> > (2) What is the GDP contribution
> > of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer
> > work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare).
>
> I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%.  But as we all know,
> the GDP is an inappropriate metric for these kinds of work, which are of
> little economical value but of significant social and environmental value.
> (Also, these activities must not compete with commercial services.)  This is
> a good opportunity (esp. for NGOs) to get things done that couldn't be done
> with 'regular' jobs, e.g. guarded bike parkings, free bike rentals, recycling
> of various stuff, restoring old buildings, cleaning up the environment, etc.
> One new service that my program introduced is a free E-bicycle courier for
> shoppers, so mothers and the elderly can go shopping without a car and
> without carrying heavy loads.
>
> Victor Milne calculated:
> > If a workfare participant works 8
> > hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare
> > benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour.
>
> Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher.  Considering that the
> workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing
> work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to
> maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think
> this wage isn't too bad...
>
> Chris

Re: workfare

[Bob Ewing]

Christoph Reuss wrote:

> Franklin Wayne Poley asked:
> > Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much
> > choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting
> > pre-employment, education or employment?
>
> No, but I think this applies to all countries...  Basically, they can
> select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take
> their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account.

Greetings I think that the assumption that the case worker will take or even know
the client's abilities etc., is a dangerous one, at least here in Ontario and
from what I've seen locally.

Bob Ewing

Re: workfare

[john courtneidge]

Dear Friends

I snip:

>
>But people still seemed to love the notion of it. 
>

Perhaps since so many hate their own work and wish the curse on others?

Might we discuss this?

j

**

BTW Victor - i recieved your e-message in an odd format, as a sort-of
picture that I couldn't highlight from ??

Thanks, tho' for sending it !

*

--
>From: "Victor Milne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: workfare
>Date: Sun, Sep 26, 1999, 1:50 pm
>

>
>
>One fact can't be ignored: Workfare's a failure 
>
>  ``Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.'' 
>  - The Education of Henry Adams
>  by Henry Brooks Adams, 1907 
>--
> 
>
>
>
> ABOUT A YEAR before the last Ontario election, communications aides in the 
>Harris government attended a weekend seminar to identify their core 
>constituency and to fine-tune their messaging. 
>
>At it, they were told that far and away the single most popular government 
>initiative to that point had been workfare. And when you think of it, 
>that's astonishing. 
>
>How many among us have ever actually witnessed a workfare crew or project 
>in action? How many of us have seen or experienced the results of such 
>labours? Probably very few. 
>
>But people still seemed to love the notion of it. 
>
>By then, the Conservative government was absolutely certain of what a 
>backroomer told me it had learned during the 1995 campaign that brought it 
>to office - that playing the welfare card was like shooting fish in a 
>barrel, that the Premier simply couldn't be tough enough on 
>social-assistance recipients to suit his supporters. 
>
>How intriguing then to hear news yesterday that the government is now in 
>receipt of a consultant's report that says Ontario's highly popular, but 
>faltering, workfare program requires substantial spending (most especially 
>on child care) if it's to produce real, as well as political, success. 
>
>>From the outset, the facts made this plain. But the facts were, in the 
>words of Henry Adams, conveniently ignored. For as Michael Kinsley wrote in 
>The New Yorker a week before Mike Harris was first elected, ``the passion 
>behind Draconian welfare reform exceeds any rational assessment of what it 
>is likely to achieve.'' 
>
>There could be only three purposes for workfare. One, to cut costs; two, to 
>create work for those needing it; three, to capitalize on its puritanical 
>appeal by punishing welfare recipients and appeasing angry taxpayers. 
>
>>From the start, we knew workfare was bad economics. The cheapest way to 
>provide social assistance is by mailing a cheque. A serious work 
>requirement - one that wasn't just, as Kinsley put it, ``a euphemism for 
>cutting people off'' - would cost more, not less, than existing systems, 
>chiefly in child care and administration. 
>
>We know that workfare has largely failed at creating work. We can safely 
>conclude this because the government has been able to trot out only 
>anecdotal evidence of success, the odd personal testimonial by individual 
>clients and no statistics that support more extensive claims. 
>
>We know this as well because of the Premier's pleadings lately for 
>municipalities to help with his workfare program and his recent desperate 
>threats to turn social-assistance recipients into farmhands. 
>
>What he's apparently discovered is what most other jurisdictions who've 
>tried workfare found earlier: that it is riddled with inefficiencies and 
>contradictions, that at best it might lift people out of welfare but not 
>poverty, and most particularly that, done right, it costs. 
>
>For all that, there's no denying that workfare succeeded on the third 
>score, the punitive aspect. Otherwise, how is it that a program so largely 
>invisible and inconsequential to the general public, so obviously 
>disappointing in results to its most ardent proponents, could remain so 
>exceedingly popular? 
>
>As old Henry Adams also said, ``knowledge of human nature is the beginning 
>and end of political education.'' And beyond doubt the Harris government 
>understood something of human nature. 
>
>What it played to with workfare is what the New York Times Magazine last 
>year called ``the new American consensus'' - ``government of, by and for 
>the comfortable.'' 
>
>In other words, it didn't much matter that the program didn't work - only 
>that it produced benefits to the comfortable and/or made them feel better. 
>
>In this, though, it might be prudent to again consult Adams, who said that 
>``simplicity is the most deceitful mistress that ever betrayed man.'' 
>
>The simplicity of workfare, as retailed by the Harris government, was a 
>deceit. This latest report will merely add to the body of evidence that 
>it's a complicated and costly business. 
>
>It will be interesting to see if the government is serious enough about 
>making workfare work t

Re: workfare

[Christoph Reuss]

Franklin Wayne Poley asked:
> Two questions: (1) In Switzerland do workfare recipients have as much
> choice in their workfare situations as other people have in selecting
> pre-employment, education or employment?

No, but I think this applies to all countries...  Basically, they can
select the work together with their advisor, who of course will take
their individual abilities, preferences and possibilities into account.


> (2) What is the GDP contribution
> of those welfare recipients before and after workfare? (ie the volunteer
> work done before workfare may exceed the forced work done after workfare).

I would estimate their GDP contribution is below 0.1%.  But as we all know,
the GDP is an inappropriate metric for these kinds of work, which are of
little economical value but of significant social and environmental value.
(Also, these activities must not compete with commercial services.)  This is
a good opportunity (esp. for NGOs) to get things done that couldn't be done
with 'regular' jobs, e.g. guarded bike parkings, free bike rentals, recycling
of various stuff, restoring old buildings, cleaning up the environment, etc.
One new service that my program introduced is a free E-bicycle courier for
shoppers, so mothers and the elderly can go shopping without a car and
without carrying heavy loads.


Victor Milne calculated:
> If a workfare participant works 8
> hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare
> benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour.

Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher.  Considering that the
workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing
work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to
maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think
this wage isn't too bad...

Chris

Welcome to America, II

[WesBurt]

To: Diana G. Collier, my hosts and friends on several mail lists

This note has been delayed a few days to see if anyone else would reply to my 
99-09-23 e-mail "Welcome to America" addressed to Valdas Anelauskas, Author 
of "Discovering America As It Is."  There was no other reply.  

In that e-mail, which I composed in the comment box of the delightful 
Anelauskas home page at UR , copies were sent to 
Ms. Collier and Mr. Reuss only to thank them for bringing Mr. Anelauskas' 
work and web sites to my attention.  

Otherwise, nothing in that particular e-mail had anything to do with Diana G. 
Collier, Clarity Press, or the difficulty of lifting the sales revenue of a 
human rights publishing house above its break-even point.

Below, please find the full text of Ms. Collier's riposte to my e-mail, which 
she dearly wanted to deliver to everyone on my copy list.  Some people 
deserve to get what they ask for.  So be it.

As a guest on several mail list and three web sites, I am fully aware that I 
continue as a guest on these public facilities entirely at the pleasure and 
interest of the owners.  My pact with the list owners is more direct than my 
recently mentioned pact with the Devil, where list members are trying to 
steer the public debate away from the systemic defect of omission in U.S. 
public policy.  My pact with the owners extends also to private addresses on 
my copy list.  Their addresses remain on my copy list entirely at their 
pleasure and for their interest.

I regret that all of us have missed an opportunity to learn what an 
accomplished international author, Valdas Anelauskas, might have said about 
the technical requirements for an stable and efficient free market in the 
United States.  Oh well, we can make do with the wishful thinking and pious 
exhortations of Bernard Lietaer, our Protestant ministers, Michel 
Chossudovsky, our elected representatives, Hazel Henderson, Steve Kurtz, and 
David Korten.

Sincerely,

WesBurt


1
XXX
Subj:Re: Welcome to America
Date:   99-09-23 19:55:10 EDT
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diana G. Collier)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  99-09-23 20:12:30 EDT  (17 min)

Ref. to WesBurt comment to Valdas Anelauskas, author of Discovering America 
As It Is, I snip:

---
n  Since you are being well paid to paint the
>depressing picture of the U.S.,
---

Clarity Press, Inc. is a human rights publisher, and you cannot imagine how 
difficult it is to survive, publishing the materials on some of the world's 
most oppressed peoples, as we do. A visit to our site 
http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity should convince any viewer of our 
commitment and integrity.

As Editorial Director, I am outraged that you should make the above 
accusation, particularly since you do not and cannot have any basis for it 
whatsoever in fact. Mr. Anelauskas has not been paid a cent to date;  if his 
book should find a readership, then he will start to receive a standard 
author's royalty.  There have been no subsidies whatsoever towards this 
publication from any source -- nor, in fact, were any possible sources even 
approached. Clarity has in the past received small grants to be devoted 
towards title production (all were less than production cost) from donors 
which are well-known nongovernmental human rights-oriented donors, 
acknowledged on our site; none were of remotely sufficient value to 
conceivably be said to have impaired our long standing as a completely 
independent nonsectarian publisher of quality titles on human rights issues. 
Other than the above-mentioned token grants, Clarity receives no money from 
any source whatsoever. It survives -- with difficulty -- through the sale of 
its titles.

It is highly irresponsible, and indeed libelous, of you to make such an 
accusation.

Those who visit the website of Clarity Press can clearly see that its list 
of publications manifest a long, difficult labor of commitment and integrity 
over a period of many years, where the reward is in the task and the ideas 
promoted, and hardly in the financial returns.
I note with some irony that one of your website URLs is called free speech, 
but when it is exercised at some personal cost, you simply can't believe 
that there wasn't some big money behind it somewhere.  It is a viewpoint 
which is no doubt taken for granted in your circles.

That you share much thinking with any on the ATTAC list is doubtful to me. I 
have been viewing your contributions as more in the line of some form of 
sabotage in relation to the sincere and committed people on it -- many of 
whom you have likely succeeded in turning off from the list.  I only regret 
that you have likely succeeded in passing on this slander to persons to whom 
I am unable to offer this riposte.

Diana G. Collier

Re: (Humor) Kansas State Board bans teaching of Economics

[Christoph Reuss]

> If G-d created the world ca. 5,500 years ago,
> that wouldn't hurt anybody.  Capitalism
> has victims in the ~ > 10**9 range.

What *did* hurt somebody were the religious wars, with victims in the
10**9 range too...  The Kansas State Board should ban all kinds of
religion courses, including Economics (the religion of money)...

Chris