Thread: A question from Canada

Because most of those unemployed either don't want to work, or already have families to support, making leaving the country for extended periods of time impossible.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Because most of those unemployed either don't want to work, or already have families to support, making leaving the country for extended periods of time impossible.

As for those who don't want to work, I'm sure many of them would quickly change their minds when their social assistance worker says with a kind smile:

'I understand how tough it is to be unemployed, but I have some good news for you. If you'd like to join the Peace Corps, it will provide you with education in a trade or profession, and then provide you with plenty of work experience in your field. If you're interested, our driver can take you there right away, where you will be provided with room, board, and all other essentials during your training and work period.'

Now if he's seriously that destitute and is is that desperate for food and clothing and shelter, I can guarantee he'll accept the offer without a second thought. If not, give him a few days. Once he starts to starve and winter's approaching and the park bench isn't so comfortable anymore, I'm sure he'll come around to his senses.

As for people with families to support, I don't see why the Peace Corps could not adopt local projects too? As for the issue of volunteerism, which thus implies no salary or an allowance at most, could the Peace Corps not provide family quarters on its property for those who do have families, along with food and shelter for the whole family? It could even have a library in the Dormitory building where the children could study in quiet. In fact, the librarian himself could be trained by the Peace corps to then provide this service. And of course both the wife and husband would have to serve in the Peace Corps, where they would receive education in a trade or profession and gain job experience in serving their communities.

For those who can work abroad, certainly they may be called upon to do so. As for those who can't, then they could work on local projects.

Would such a structure not work?

Also, could a Peace corps not serve as a useful compromise between the right and the left? After all, the left wants the government to be compassionate, while the rights wants government to use its money wisely. A Peace Corps would help the poor while also putting them to good use. A poor yet academically inclined man who somehow slipped through the cracks could receive education in exchange for work. So for example, such a recipient could receive university education for five years and then work on a volunteer basis in exchange for basic food, shelter, and a basic allowance for five years. If he's a medical doctor, for example, that's pretty cheap labor in exchange for that education. Same for the one who studies law. To practice law for five years in exchange for food, shelter and a basic allowance for five years, you can't beat that. These persons could serve the poor who can't otherwise afford medical care or a lawyer, for example, yet the state would have to pay little for them owing to such contracts.

For those who are less academically inclined, perhaps a different kind of contract could be offered, such as 1 year of education in a trade or profession, perhaps vocational training, in exchange for 1 year of volunteer work, or 2 for 2, etc., according to his academic inclinations.

This could provide the government with cheap labor for infrastructure construction, etc. while developing the nations skills to fill the skilled jobs needed after the recession. It would be a nice compromise between compassion and wise use of tax resources, which I'd think both the right and the left could agree on.

Is that a lot different than what happens in the military?

A young person can join and get a university education and then is required to server for a period of time depending on his or her enlistment contract.

For example pilot wings in the Canadian Armed Forces was at one time 7 years to pay back. ( Not sure how that applied when the person also got a university education.) A basic university education was on a one for one basis.

Trade training is basically free, just complete the enlistment period. It however takes longer to get to full trade status in the military than in civilian life due to longer work periods between educational periods. (In Canada trade training is generally 5 years with varying amounts of school time interspersed in the process.)

You have to be interested in something that the military needs but a modern military has a wide range of needs so there should be something for almost everyone. Add into that that the military offers training in leadership and opportunities to use your training in a wide variety of locations and it’s hard to beat this deal.

The military route is a great way for someone economically disadvantaged to get ahead in life. This is especially true for the US military model with very generous training and after service training benefits (GI bill) available. While it only applies to people meeting a certain physical fitness standard most young people can get there. It has not solved the youth unemployment problem and I suspect that there are more spots available than applicants.

IMHO the reason that these opportunities are not taken up and considered highly sought after is that people simply do not want to pay the price of military service for the education and start in life.

Joining the Peace Corps means leaving your home and family for two years. Many people aren't in a position to be able to do that - they have mortgage payments to make or children to raise. The Peace Corps has also become much more stringent on the qualifications of those who they accept. Merely being able to fog a mirror isn't sufficient - you have to bring a skill set that is needed and useful. So, the Peace Corps really isn't designed or able to reduce the unemployment rate by any significant amount.

Originally Posted by RDK

Is that a lot different than what happens in the military?

Similar, but different in some ways as I'll explain below.


[/quote]You have to be interested in something that the military needs but a modern military has a wide range of needs so there should be something for almost everyone. Add into that that the military offers training in leadership and opportunities to use your training in a wide variety of locations and it’s hard to beat this deal.[/quote]

The way I see it is that the military is not the most efficient means of providing an education that is readily transferable to the private sector. After all, putting on your resume that you know how to fire a rifle, throw a grenade, fire a Carl G anti-tank rocket, etc. is not likely to get you many jobs in the private sector. So essentially many of the skills you gain in the military are intended for a military career. Obviously from an economic standpoint, especially from a tax standpoint, the idea would be to provide training that could then land the person a job in the private sector eventually so as to reduce the burden on government expenditures. A military career puts pressure on government expenditures for the duration of that person's working life if he chooses to remain in the military.

Now I understand that many jobs in the military are transferable to the private sector, such as medic, etc. What I'm saying though is that not all of them are. Add to that that a person on hard times with strong religious convictions might want to serve his community but feel very uncomfortable in joining the military. That clearly puts him at a philosophical disadvantage over those who are willing to take up such an opportunity, which of course is just one more example of a possibly highly intelligent person from a poor family fallen on hard times falling through the cracks yet again. A Peace Corp would allow a person of such religious convictions to still have the same opportunity as any other to participate in the community.

Another point to make has to do with entry requirements. The military is generally not intended as a job-creator for the unemployed, but rather as a branch of the government intended to provide a specific service, namely defense. I realize the US Peace Corp in its current form likewise is not intended for the purpose of job creation,but I don't see why a modified form thereof could not work for this purposes. Unlike the military where a person must necessarily be physically all in one piece so to speak, in such a peace Corp, even a person who is wheelchair bound or blind could possibly be trained for a service that is within his reach and that could be of benefit to the community.

Also, clearly if we intended to create an organization intended on helping the unemployed find work, obviously we would not want it to be an organization that some of the unemployed would feel uncomfortable joining on philosophical grounds. Imagine for example an unemployed man who is desperate for help, but owing to some religious conviction refuses to join the military. Though he may be intelligent and quite capable of being of great service to the community if he could get a good education, he might choose instead to satisfy himself with the odd part-time laboring job wherever he could find it just because of convictions. Clearly any such organization cannot present applicants with such an obstacle, which means it would need to be a completely a-political and non-controversial organization that could be acceptable to all humanitarian philosophies.

[/quote]The military route is a great way for someone economically disadvantaged to get ahead in life. This is especially true for the US military model with very generous training and after service training benefits (GI bill) available. While it only applies to people meeting a certain physical fitness standard most young people can get there. It has not solved the youth unemployment problem and I suspect that there are more spots available than applicants.[/quote]

I think I've covered most of this paragraph above.

IMHO the reason that these opportunities are not taken up and considered highly sought after is that people simply do not want to pay the price of military service for the education and start in life.

I agree... and disagree. I think you're right that in some cases it has to do with the person being just not willing to serve his community out of laziness. But I also know that for some others it has to do with deep convictions, no matter how hard pressed they are. This is not meant to offend those in the military, but simply looking at the fact that there are some, regardless of our own beliefs, who see the military as anathema to their deepest religious convictions. If such a person falls through the cracks, his refusal to join the military may have absolutely nothing to do with a lack of desire to serve the community, but rather have simply to do with certain convictions of his. Does the country want to risk wasting such minds as an economic resource because they have different convictions?

I believe that a reformed Peace Corp could possibly solve that problem.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Joining the Peace Corps means leaving your home and family for two years. Many people aren't in a position to be able to do that - they have mortgage payments to make or children to raise. The Peace Corps has also become much more stringent on the qualifications of those who they accept. Merely being able to fog a mirror isn't sufficient - you have to bring a skill set that is needed and useful. So, the Peace Corps really isn't designed or able to reduce the unemployment rate by any significant amount.

But why does the Peace Corp's current structure have to be set in stone. Would it not be possible to create a new Peace Corp, perhaps based on a military model? This way, a person with no skill set and unemployed, instead of being forced to take a government hand out, could actually be given the option to serve if he wants to. As mentioned above, the military does not allow this option for those of certain convictions.This way, such a person could join the Peace Corps with the same benefits as in the military minus the salary for his years of service of course. But those of such strong convictions would likely choose the peace Corps over the military anyway. As for skills, I agree the current Peace Corps requires certain skills as a prerequisite. The new Corps as I'd envision it would not. Instead, it could offer the education in exchange for free service.

Also, I don't see why a restructured Peace Corps could not serve at home as well as abroad.

As for those with mortgage payments, the fact that the new Peace Corps could provide family quarters for members would mean that at worst, they would have the option of selling their home and moving into the family quarters if necessary. It might not be an ideal scenario, but at least it provides for the necessities of life and an education, putting the family on a firmer footing later when they reconsider buying a home. It's not ideal, but it's certainly a system that would guarantee that they would not end up on the streets. What would be the problem with that?

Originally Posted by Machjo

.....

The way I see it is that the military is not the most efficient means of providing an education that is readily transferable to the private sector. After all, putting on your resume that you know how to fire a rifle, throw a grenade, fire a Carl G anti-tank rocket, etc. is not likely to get you many jobs in the private sector. So essentially many of the skills you gain in the military are intended for a military career. Obviously from an economic standpoint, especially from a tax standpoint, the idea would be to provide training that could then land the person a job in the private sector eventually so as to reduce the burden on government expenditures. A military career puts pressure on government expenditures for the duration of that person's working life if he chooses to remain in the military.

Now I understand that many jobs in the military are transferable to the private sector, .....

Another point to make has to do with entry requirements. The military is generally not intended as a job-creator for the unemployed, but rather as a branch of the government intended to provide a specific service, namely defense. I realize the US Peace Corp in its current form likewise is not intended for the purpose of job creation,but I don't see why a modified form thereof could not work for this purposes. Unlike the military where a person must necessarily be physically all in one piece so to speak, in such a peace Corp, even a person who is wheelchair bound or blind could possibly be trained for a service that is within his reach and that could be of benefit to the community.
.......

.

You have a slightly imperfect view of what a modern military is and does. Only about 1 in 10 people in uniform are what is called “pointy enders”. That is the pointy end of the spear. While everyone gets some weapons training and familiarisation that is not a bad thing in itself.

Military people get training in a wide variety of skills and often get to work with some of the leading technology out there. This is technology that will only get to the civilian world about the time that they do so they can be well placed for jobs there. They get experience working with budgets, leadership and many other skills that transfer readily to the private sector.

In the US especially past military service appears to be highly valued by private sector employers for many reasons, it proves patriotism, it can make immature young people grow up quickly, it shows dedication and many other skills and attributes desired in the private sector.

I did acknowledge that the military was limited to those who could pass a physical fitness test but also pointed out that that test was fairly easy for almost any young person to achieve with appropriate training and conditioning.

Please explain who that is worse job training than the Peace Corps where they go live in remote places and teach local people how to dig latrines?

My real question is if there are spots open in this model why would a model that was very similar (trading education and training for service) be any more successful through a revamped Peace Corps than the existing Peace Corps or the military system is currently?

Originally Posted by Machjo

....Since the US has a Peace Corp already, I'm wondering why it hasn't solved the US' unemployment problem, seeing that joining the Peace corp would at least provide food, clothing, and shelter plus work experience which could be useful after the recession.

Clearly, if the presence of a US Peace Corp has not solved the unemployment in the US, there must be some obstacle to its serving that purpose. Does it have a recruitment quota? Do recruits need to meet certain high standards to join? Is it just not well advertised and so many unemployed just never think of it? How exactly does it work? And assuming the US government intended for it to solve the US' unemployment problem, what kind of modifications would you recommend be made to it to fulfil such a mandate, or should it?

I figure that since you have had decades of experience of a Peace Corp, you might have some ideas on the merits and demerits of such an organization. For example, would you recommend that other countries adopt some kind of Peace Corp of their own? Why? Why not?

Bewildering.

You seem to think the Peace Corps has a much, much larger place in American life than it does.

And it certainly was not created to address unemployment. It was established at the height of the postwar boom at the beginning of the JFK administration.

Why on earth would anyone outside the US want Americans to work in various nations, especially under the flag of the US government?

Considering the flood of anti-American hysteria and vitriol that is so trendy today, it makes no sense whatever.

Originally Posted by RDK

You have a slightly imperfect view of what a modern military is and does. Only about 1 in 10 people in uniform are what is called “pointy enders”. That is the pointy end of the spear. While everyone gets some weapons training and familiarisation that is not a bad thing in itself.

Military people get training in a wide variety of skills and often get to work with some of the leading technology out there. This is technology that will only get to the civilian world about the time that they do so they can be well placed for jobs there. They get experience working with budgets, leadership and many other skills that transfer readily to the private sector.

Just read the part you cut out and it addressed that. I was pointing out though that it's less likely to be relevant than civilian work of some kind, since at least some military skills are just not transferable to the private sector as you acknowledge yourself in reference to the 'poiny enders'. Sure certain taught habits are transferable, but it doesn't change the fact that something more civilian like a Peace Corps of some kind is likely to be even more transferable skill-wise. Add to that that as a means of providing employment, the military is too specialized. Certain minimum standards are required to join the military and rightfuly so. Those standards are there for safety reasons and ought to remain in place for the military to be an effective organization. From that standpoint, some kind of Peace Corps could be more flexible inthis regard in terms of serving also to provide employment in times of unemployment.

I did acknowledge that the military was limited to those who could pass a physical fitness test but also pointed out that that test was fairly easy for almost any young person to achieve with appropriate training and conditioning.

It still doesn't change the fact that a wheelchair-bound person might not be as useful in the military than in some kind of Peace Corps, where he could serve in various administrative or other capacities, including accounting, at least certain kinds of management and administrative tasks, computer programming writing, etc. Since in the military he must also be combat ready regardless of his trade, he wouldn't stand a chance. So again, a Peace Corps of some kind would still be more inclusive.

Please explain who that is worse job training than the Peace Corps where they go live in remote places and teach local people how to dig latrines?

That's why I'd referred to a modified form of the US Peace Corps for Canada and not a carbon copy. I had the idea of extending its operations to domestic work too. Essentially any work the public service could do, this modified Peace Corps could do too, but at lower cost since the volunteers would not get a salary. This could include anything from road construction to administrative work, civilian search and rescue, etc. Certain military or police components could be included, but it would be absolutely imperative that they do not compromise the peaceful nature of the organization. For example, it could train police officers too, but only on condition that no member of the Peace Corps is ever forced to bear arms except at his choosing. So if a person wants to serve but not be a police officer, of course he'd be given other work, with police work being reserved for those who request it only. Or those who's jobs could benefit from martial arts training could be offered such training, but again strictly of their choosing, with no one ever being forced to become a police officer or to learn a martial art (recognizing of course that certian jobs might have to be reserved for those who do receive police or other such training, for their and others' safety).

The government could even rely on the Peace Corps for new recruits into the public sector. This would have the advantage of ensuring the the government would not need to pay salaries for the first few years of a recruit's career, not to metion that since he would have gotten education in exchange for this free work, the government would also have access to a larger pool of qualified experts in various fields.

My real question is if there are spots open in this model why would a model that was very similar (trading education and training for service) be any more successful through a revamped Peace Corps than the existing Peace Corps or the military system is currently?

For the military, for one thing, standards must be higher for all recruits owing to the military and combat nature of the job. In the revised Peace Corps suggested here, this would not be the case. Sure standards would need to be met for specific trades and professions in the Peace Corps, but not for all trades and professions, so even a wheelchair-bound worker, for example, could join and get an education in a field he could work in. Also, the military requires a particular phylosophy that some might reject on religious or other grounds regardless of how healthy and fit they might be. An organization of the form I'm proposing here would need to avoid any possible controversial phylosophy, which would include for example forcing a person to learn any martial skill or weapons training against his will or to participate in any kind of aggressive operation against others. In the same vein, of course it would also stay clear of abortions and any other controversial matter and stick to more universally acceptable projects. Of course the military would exist in parallel, but it would not be intended to provide any kind of employment for the unemployed simply because it's not highly equipped to do so.

As for the current Peace Corpts, you generally need to be highly qualified before you join. The proposal above would accept any unemployed person who's willing to work and better himself and give him the chance to serve his community and provide education as needed to achieve this goal. It could even include dug rehabilitation and training in some trade in exchange for service to the community. The military could never do that and should not do that either. Even the current US Peace Corps in its current form could never do that either.