Should long-term job-seekers in receipt of government benefits be made to do voluntary work so that they give something back to the community?
Should the state persuade those people who have been jobless since a long time and have been receiving unemployment grants, to do some free services?
If yes
These people would help the state save some money otherwise invested in hiring paid workforce. This way, these individuals would be doing something productive for society.
This would also enable the government to convince tax-payers that their hard-earned money is not being squandered to help unproductive people.
Idle mind is the devil’s workshop: This could also help the jobless themselves: they would stay away from depressing thoughts, or participating in illegal activities to overcome boredom.
*********These people could also strike a job in alternative fields when they work in those fields as volunteers.
NO
This could make them feel dejected and alienated, as they are not jobless because of their fault, but have been trying to get jobs. Working in those occupations may hurt their sentiments and take a toll on their self-esteem.
Others could also follow these precedents and may leave their jobs to work in voluntary services and earn unemployment benefits. This would be disastrous for the society and the economy
Several countries extend long term grants to the jobless, but should the latter be engaged in community services to reciprocate for the social support, it is a matter that needs to be delved deeper into before arriving at a plausible conclusion.
To begin with, involving the recipients of long-term unemployment benefits in unpaid services would enable them to pay back something to the society in the form of savings made in monetary terms. These individuals would replace the paid labor in various spheres and expertise; consequently, governments would be spared of paying salaries and other benefits. For instance, a similar policy has been implemented in various provinces of Australia, has created a win-win situation for both, the benefactors and beneficiaries as local regimes can use the funds saved for such endeavors to support the unemployed.
Similarly, this could prove to be extremely favorable for those without a job: they could use their spare time to do something productive, instead of going astray and embracing illegal activities, or suffering mental affliction, like depression. Additionally, they could also foster skills, and network, in alternative trades, which could land them an employment.
Nevertheless, there is a darker side to this arrangement despite it remaining uncommon, for it might have a knock-on effect by virtue of some following the precedents of their jobless counterparts, and embracing such settings. This could reduce the number of people engaged in active economic endeavors that generate value. However, these fears lack substance since few want to remain jobless: surviving on subsistence money is not a voluntary choice.
In hindsight, although those with a job, and getting the state support, engaging in unpaid work is an individual prerogative, this scheme can prove to be exceedingly rewarding for the affected individuals and the society.
Introduction 1
The great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with the issue whether the jobless beneficiaries of government grants since long should engage in community services as a means to reciprocate for the social support, with some supporting this proposal, and others rejecting it. I feel this should be an individual prerogative and not a forced decision.
Introduction 2
Engaging the jobless beneficiaries of government grants since long in community services is a proposal that even though that seems to be the best way to reciprocate for social support, I feel this should be an individual prerogative and not a forced decision.
Introduction 3
