A stimulus plan that worked, the CCC corps

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
In March 1933, within weeks of his inauguration, President Franklin Roosevelt sent legislation to Congress aimed at providing relief for unemployed American workers. He proposed the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to provide jobs in natural resource conservation. Over the next decade, the CCC put more than three million young men to work in the nation’s forests and parks, planting trees, building flood barriers, fighting fires, and maintaining roads and trails, conserving both private and federal land.

After a decade of national prosperity in the Roaring Twenties, Americans faced a national crisis after the Crash of 1929. The Great Depression saw an unemployment rate of more than twenty-five percent in the early 1930s. Inner-city crime rates soared, and the government did not have any specific plans to intervene. At the same time in the Midwest, the nine-year drought that would come to be known as the Dust Bowl was just beginning. Farmers struggled to hold on to their crops and their livestock as more precious topsoil blew away in windstorms every day.

The CCC was President Roosevelt’s answer to the environmental and economic challenges facing the country. Enlisting 250,000 workers in just two months, the CCC was an ambitious undertaking that brought several government agencies together in the effort. The Department of Labor recruited men from the ages of 18 to 25; the War Department clothed and trained them for two weeks, and the Department of Agriculture designed and managed the specific work assignments.

With projects in every U.S. state and territory, “Roosevelt’s Tree Army” lived in camps under quasi-military discipline, and received a wage of $30 per month, $25 of which they were required to send home to their families. Typically, boys rose early for breakfast in the canteen before heading off for eight hours of manual labor. Lunch was often brought out to the work site. In the evenings ninety percent of enrollees took advantage of classes offered in subjects from literature to welding — courses which, over nine years, taught 40,000 illiterate men to read and write.

After planting 3 billion trees in nine years of service, the CCC dissolved in July of 1942. As the economy began to improve in the late 1930s, young men found higher-paying jobs at home, and the number of CCC camps across the country dwindled. President Roosevelt’s attempt at turning it into a permanent agency failed. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor and subsequent U.S. involvement in World War II, the CCC’s funding and assets were diverted as the nation’s focus shifted toward the war effort. The legacy of the CCC continues to live on in the hundreds of campgrounds, hiking trails and swimming holes still enjoyed by Americans today.

video at link below
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/ccc/

Maybe instead of just handing out unemployment checks to those that are able and fit we could put those people to work repairing the failing infrastructure while they collect their checks and are free to leave when the private or public sector has jobs available for them.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
It wouldn't work. The unions would complain and everyone would be getting union wages while dillying around doing nothing.
 

theevilsharpie

Platinum Member
Nov 2, 2009
2,322
14
81
video at link below
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/ccc/

Maybe instead of just handing out unemployment checks to those that are able and fit we could put those people to work repairing the failing infrastructure while they collect their checks and are free to leave when the private or public sector has jobs available for them.

That's not a bad idea. Although I wouldn't throw out unemployment insurance entirely, programs like the CCC would be more effective than just continuously extending unemployment benefits to ridiculous levels.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
We have that potential right now. Get people who can work who collect medicaid to fill in the potholes and general repair that our infrastructure sorely needs.

Good luck in making it happen.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
I think that would be a good idea. It would go a long way to not only provide a stable job for those who cannot find jobs right now, but the opportunity to learn a trade and improve our park infrastructure. This is more of the type of direct stimulus the rest of society needs.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
They worked on Federal projects and unions had nothing to say about it.

Unions would complain, they'd want to hire union workers only and Obama, being the union wise and beautiful woman sucker that he is, will bend down and dish it.

One of the arguments for stimulus is that governments will hire cheaper labor and get backlogged projects done for cheap. It hasn't happened solely because of unions.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
have a look at the projects and the conditions that the guys worked under and lived under b4 u go too far with this... layed off service industry people ain't doing that...

the world has changed...

they should just eliminate income tax for a year and let people spend their money... it's bottom up time... the market will then decide what needs to stay and what needs to go...

oh, except for people making over 250k a year...
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Country just doesn't have the testicles to do that now.

But also the motivation isn't there. Right now unemployment is 10% so it's not staggering. Where will you find willing workers? Literally millions are sitting at home this very minute watching tv and eating nachos and tomorrow an unemployment check will show up in the mail. And when it runs out they'll get another one because the government keeps extending it. Basically we have the same thing, then, except in this case instead of planting trees they are planting their ass on the couch.

So exactly how would a program like this work? There is also the fact that many would cry about (and perhaps be right) yet more increase in government spending/size. I'm sure there are plenty of things to do though. Most home owners could use some semi-skilled labor. Many buildings could do with repairs, new paint, walls redone, better insulation, work on roads, etc.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
they should just eliminate income tax for a year and let people spend their money... it's bottom up time... the market will then decide what needs to stay and what needs to go...
I think the market would decide the US needs to go if it just stopped paying its bills for a year.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Literally millions are sitting at home this very minute watching tv and eating nachos and tomorrow an unemployment check will show up in the mail. And when it runs out they'll get another one because the government keeps extending it.

I think you're a little disillusioned. People want to work. I think a BJs opened in Queens and they were taking job applications. There was a line 10,000 people strong.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
For the love of God, we DO NOT NEED MORE GOVERNMENT JOBS! We need more private sector jobs. We don't need MORE government spending, we need LESS government spending.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I think you're a little disillusioned. People want to work. I think a BJs opened in Queens and they were taking job applications. There was a line 10,000 people strong.
You're delusional if you think everybody (which is what you're implying) out of work is eagerly looking to get back in the market with any job they can get.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
You're delusional if you think everybody (which is what you're implying) out of work is eagerly looking to get back in the market with any job they can get.

Where will you find willing workers?

No where did I mention or imply that all 10% of the unemployed were eagerly seeking work.However, you asked where would we find willing workers. Well, there are plenty of willing workers looking for work, certainly 10,000 people in queens who would line up in the cold of December just to get a retail job.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
We have that potential right now. Get people who can work who collect medicaid to fill in the potholes and general repair that our infrastructure sorely needs.

Good luck in making it happen.

Yeah, because people on medicaid are clearly the best and healthiest candidates to do backbreaking construction labor.

What? :D
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Not that I don't get the impetus to provide medicaid recipients with employment, but they wouldn't be my first choice either. Younger immigrants probably being the best example.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
No where did I mention or imply that all 10% of the unemployed were eagerly seeking work.However, you asked where would we find willing workers. Well, there are plenty of willing workers looking for work, certainly 10,000 people in queens who would line up in the cold of December just to get a retail job.
How do you bridge the gap between standing behind a cashier or talking to people about televisions with ...rose early for breakfast in the canteen before heading off for eight hours of manual labor.?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
You're delusional if you think everybody (which is what you're implying) out of work is eagerly looking to get back in the market with any job they can get.

Do you really expect unemployed people with advanced degrees, professional degrees, and perhaps bachelors degrees with work experience to accept having to work poverty-wage fast-food jobs? Is that a good use of that kind of education capital? (If this is your view, then would you join me in advocating that we close down a good portion of our nation's colleges and universities so that we stop wasting economic resources on unneeded college education?)

Have you considered that many of the unemployed are over age 40 and may no longer be physically cut out to work those types of jobs (bad knees and backs, etc.)? Does it make sense for parents to spend more money on childcare and gasoline than what they could earn at one of these jobs? Would you feel good about working one of these jobs, feeling that you will be destined to be a poverty-wage slave for the rest of your life?

Is this what our nation has transformed into? Is it no longer the land of opportunity and upward mobility but rather the land of dead-end poverty-wage jobs for the college-educated and hopelessness?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Do you really expect unemployed people with advanced degrees, professional degrees, and perhaps bachelors degrees with work experience to accept having to work poverty-wage fast-food jobs? Is that a good use of that kind of education capital? (If this is your view, then would you join me in advocating that we close down a good portion of our nation's colleges and universities so that we stop wasting economic resources on unneeded college education?)

Have you considered that many of the unemployed are over age 40 and may no longer be physically cut out to work those types of jobs (bad knees and backs, etc.)? Does it make sense for parents to spend more money on childcare and gasoline than what they could earn at one of these jobs? Would you feel good about working one of these jobs, feeling that you will be destined to be a poverty-wage slave for the rest of your life?

Is this what our nation has transformed into? Is it no longer the land of opportunity and upward mobility but rather the land of dead-end poverty-wage jobs for the college-educated and hopelessness?
Don't argue with me; I agree with you!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Do you really expect unemployed people with advanced degrees, professional degrees, and perhaps bachelors degrees with work experience to accept having to work poverty-wage fast-food jobs? Is that a good use of that kind of education capital? (If this is your view, then would you join me in advocating that we close down a good portion of our nation's colleges and universities so that we stop wasting economic resources on unneeded college education?)

Have you considered that many of the unemployed are over age 40 and may no longer be physically cut out to work those types of jobs (bad knees and backs, etc.)? Does it make sense for parents to spend more money on childcare and gasoline than what they could earn at one of these jobs? Would you feel good about working one of these jobs, feeling that you will be destined to be a poverty-wage slave for the rest of your life?

Is this what our nation has transformed into? Is it no longer the land of opportunity and upward mobility but rather the land of dead-end poverty-wage jobs for the college-educated and hopelessness?

I expect people who can work to take any job available until such time as they can find a better job. Having obtained a degree should not be a license to mooch off others until something you want turns up. Personally I think the CCC would be a good interim program as there are always unmet needs, although the overall cost would be better. I too have faith that there are a number of good people willing, even desiring, to work for their check.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
I expect people who can work to take any job available until such time as they can find a better job.

Ignoring the issue of the physical toll that a poverty-wage job might take on an older person, one issue is precisely that by working one of those jobs you could render yourself unemployable in your field and thus unable to "find a better job".

What will prospective employers and hiring partners and managers think when they see that their white collar job applicant has reduced himself to flipping burgers? "He must feel pretty worthless about himself if he did that, so why should we hire him for our white collar job? We don't hire losers! Since he worked fast food, it's impossible for him to ever be able to work as a <whatever field his degree is in> again."

That's sad, but I suspect that a great many decision-makers are snooty and see things that way. In the field I trained for (lawyer), if you don't find a job in the field shortly after graduation you will be regarded as a loser and become completely ineligible for consideration for entry-level jobs in the field, regardless of whether or not you can actually perform the job well in reality.

Aside from your wanting to commit suicide or to go on a violent rampage if you have to concretize the notion that you are completely worthelss and a total loser by taking a poverty wage job, I suspect that many college-educated people would rather spend their time looking for work in their field or at least white collar work for those reasons. I certainly agree that white-collar employers shouldn't look down on people who have a work ethic and a sense of responsibility, but sadly our nation has devolved (mentally and ethically) to the point where I think that would happen.
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Also, it isn't really mooching if you have paid into unemployment insurance for a while.

It is a personal thing, some do just sit on their duff. Others use their time off to look for work or improve knowledge in a certain area.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
In the military, there is usually a 3/1 or 4/1 ratio of support per combat person.

The same can apply to the equivalent of a CCC nowdays.

Many of the professionals have skills that if they are too old for grunt work; can be used for support. And there is equipment nowdays that removes much of the need for shovels and pick axes.

It is a matter of matching skills to positions for a given project.
Even a 60 year old can walk along a roadway with a trash stick.