Residents Required to Go to Work/Attend School

[mjr]

A DEMOCRAT in Massachusetts came up with this...so it must be a good idea. Right?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...TQ0?li=BBnb7Kz

Not so much telling people how to live...but giving them a choice. It's also "you want something, you gotta do something".

Read for yourselves. You decide what it is.

Flaming begins in 3, 2, 1...

[Gravekeeper]

A DEMOCRAT in Massachusetts came up with this...so it must be a good idea. Right?

Flaming begins in 3, 2, 1...

If you're going to start a thread like a combative asshole you're going to be treated like one. We could have legitimately discussed this topic but you sabotaged it before it even got started. Don't blame everyone else because you wanted to pick a fight.

[Rageaholic]

It depends. Is he giving them work or saying they have to get a job? (I just skimmed through the article) The former can be managed, but the latter is not always under ones control. However, flawed as it may be, it is at least giving them a chance.

Residents of public housing often have little incentive to work at minimum-wage jobs because their rent is calculated as a percentage of their income. When they work, they pay more rent and they additionally have to pay for childcare and transportation. Sometimes, they end up in a worse financial situation than before they started working, have less time with their families, and are stuck at grueling jobs with little opportunity for advancement. As part of A Better Life, though, residents’ rents don’t increase when their incomes go up. Instead, the housing authority puts any increased earnings into an escrow account that the family can use in the future.

Sounds a lot better than the alternative.

[Kheldarson]

It depends. Is he giving them work or saying they have to get a job? (I just skimmed through the article) The former can be managed, but the latter is not always under ones control. However, flawed as it may be, it is at least giving them a chance.

They're providing counseling and serving as a job agency. So what do you see yourself doing? Desk work? We can set you up an internship to get you experience. School? What were your grades like? Maybe let's help you get into a two year program before you tackle the four year...

[mjr]

It depends. Is he giving them work or saying they have to get a job?

I think, if I'm not mistaken, he's providing them assistance in doing so. I think the main thing he's looking for is effort.

[mjr]

We could have legitimately discussed this topic but you sabotaged it before it even got started. Don't blame everyone else because you wanted to pick a fight.

Hey, two others have legitimately begun to discuss this topic.

Just saying.

[mjr]

They're providing counseling and serving as a job agency. So what do you see yourself doing? Desk work? We can set you up an internship to get you experience. School? What were your grades like? Maybe let's help you get into a two year program before you tackle the four year...

I think it goes beyond that. But you're right in the broad sense. The counseling is also life couseling (i.e. the woman whose relationship they helped her with), and financial, as well.

And the author does note that some people mentioned in the article "don't want to" do the program. Others do, and they do it well.

He seems to have done a pretty good job with it so far.

[Gravekeeper]

Hey, two others have legitimately begun to discuss this topic.

Just saying.

Yes, by pointedly ignoring half your post. Which is their prerogative but I daresay it does the site a disservice to not call out this shit. I come to this site to get away from that sort of partisan trolling crap.

[SkullKing]

I agree with Gravekeeper. When discussing politics it is natural that sometimes arguments heat up, but to start the thread agressively is counterprodutive to a good dicussion

[mjr]

I come to this site to get away from that sort of partisan trolling crap.

Then discuss the topic.

[s_stabeler]

the specific program skirts the edge, quite frankly, but it's OK. Why do i say that? because it sounds to me like if you ignore some of the life counselling, then you can also get evicted. THAT is bordering on telling people how they have to live their life, which is NOT acceptable.

I'm also wondering how flexible the program is to circumstances- for instance, someone on benefits because they have a kid who needs a full-time carer. If said person was required to attend classes- or get a job then that might well cause issues for the person needing a carer.

[Gravekeeper]

Then discuss the topic.

I am. This is part of your topic.

[TheHuckster]

it sounds to me like if you ignore some of the life counselling, then you can also get evicted. THAT is bordering on telling people how they have to live their life, which is NOT acceptable.

That depends on what kind of life counseling they're talking about. If it's counseling about how to become a worthwhile participant of society rather than a mooch on society, I'd say it's a worthwhile lesson.

Yes, there are circumstances to consider in each individual's issue. I'm not saying a single parent with a G.E.D. who can't afford daycare is a mooch, but if one's attitude is "how much can I get from a program with the least amount of effort?" then that's a lifestyle I'd wish counseling would correct.

[s_stabeler]

and again, the issue sin't that the counselling if offered- it's that, from what I read, if you ignore the recommendations of the life counsellor, you get evicted. THAT is kind of a dangerous precedent to set, since it's the government interfering in your lifestyle where you (more-or-less) are the only person affected. (people on benefits don't lose their rights, after all) (I say where you are the only person affected since otherwise, an argument could be made that honor killings were covered, when they aren't)

In short, while the life counselling may well be fine, if the precedent that living in government-funded housing was set, it opens the door for far more abusive programs- off the top of my head, what if one of the recommendations was that the person had to attend Church- and become a practising Christian? Or, and this might be more realistic, require you to join a particular political party? It's the precedent that receiving government assistance can be conditional on following specific recommendations for how you behave that is dangerous.

I'm also dubious about relationship counselling s part of it- though there, I'm more worried about two possibilities: 1. homosexual people being more-or-less forced to split up and find heterosexual partners. (even if both find beards and the relationship merely continues in secret, it's inappropriate that they should have to)
2. someone in a failed relationship being more-or-less forced to stay with their partner not to be thrown out on the street
3. someone in an abusive relationship being forced to stay- either due to being discouraged from leaving by the counselling, or through an explicit demand of the counsellor- to avoid being thrown out.

again, I'm not saying this does happen- though I DO find it curious that someone reluctant to go through the program then becomes an enthusiastic cheerleader for it afterwards. (It might be simply a good program. but if so, why would it need to be enforced with threats? I'd want it double-checked the program didn't either include brainwashing, or that speaking out in support of the program wasn't another requirement to continue to receive help)

It's why I say the program skirts the line, but if probably fine. It needs fairly close scrutiny, but should probably be allowed. (the close scrutiny is to ensure it doesn't end up breaching people's rights.)

[mjr]

a
it opens the door for far more abusive programs-

I'd have to go back and re-read the article, but I do believe someone complained about some of the rules in place, and the number of cameras being used. For example, you're not supposed to smoke anything (i.e. cigs, vape, marijuana) in your residence. The place also does periodic inspections, I think, of residences (again, I'd have to go back and read to make sure I read that correctly).

The guy who started the program, though, said that those policies have actually helped in that area.

I'm also dubious about relationship counselling s part of it- though there, I'm more worried about two possibilities: 1. homosexual people being more-or-less forced to split up and find heterosexual partners. (even if both find beards and the relationship merely continues in secret, it's inappropriate that they should have to)
2. someone in a failed relationship being more-or-less forced to stay with their partner not to be thrown out on the street
3. someone in an abusive relationship being forced to stay- either due to being discouraged from leaving by the counselling, or through an explicit demand of the counsellor- to avoid being thrown out.

These are valid points. But I don't think the counselors are dictating what needs to be done. I'm not saying your concerns here won't happen, but it seems like they're simply offering advice. This is taking place in/near Boston, so I don't think #1 above is too much of a concern.

#2, though, I could see them letting the person who is living there already stay, and removing the other person from the grounds.

#3. The counselors may not be able to discourage the abused person to stay in the relationship. I think there are too many legal liabilities with telling someone to stay in an abusive relationship, in this respect.

though I DO find it curious that someone reluctant to go through the program then becomes an enthusiastic cheerleader for it afterwards.

Well, it's like if you're reluctant to try a food for the first time, and then when you do, you like it.

An object at rest as inertia. As does a moving object.