Healing the Divides in America - Farm jobs for city kids

The divides in American society have become so deep that they need healing.

The divide between urban and rural are so bad that these communities no longer have much sense of connection or compassion for each other. Likewise the divide between the various economic classes. These divisions will always be present, but they have grown to a critical state and need to be reduced.

Here's an idea to solve problems for urban and rural communities while also bringing them together: Farm jobs for city kids.

The idea is to solve four problems at once:

1. Provide jobs for young, unskilled workers. The unemployment among young people raised in poverty is desperately high. These kids need jobs, but their job skills are poor. Let's connect them with employers who need unskilled labor and help  them develop some good work habits.
2. Reduce the opportunities for undocumented immigrants. People coming to this country illegally are doing so primarily for work. When the job opportunities dry up, the illegal immigration slows down or even reverses. If the farm labor jobs they take are filled by Americans, fewer people will come.
3. Create human connections between rural communities and the urban youth they fear.
4. Get urban youth away from the negative influences in their communities.

This program would require a lot of federal money, but it would also save a lot of federal money. Think of it as something like the Conservation Corps, but with farm work in the private sector instead of forestry work in the public sector. The government would arrange a job for these kids, then, each day, feed them breakfast, pack them a lunch, bus them to the job site, pick them up, feed them dinner, and provide them with housing. Childcare and healthcare would also be provided. The farms would pay them $12/hour, but the federal government would provide half of that money, so the net cost to the farm owner would be a six dollar hourly wage, which is what they are used to paying. Surely they would rather hire an American.

Some proposed rules and practices:

• Provided housing would be modeled on college dormitories, not Army barracks. Two to four to a room, single sex wings in buildings. Family housing would also be needed.
• A clearly articulated and reinforced sense of purpose
• Close supervision. Workers who violate rules can be ejected from the program.
• No drugs, no drunkenness, no violence, no damage to property
• Regulations on romance?
• The farmers could fire workers who didn't work well
• The workers, not having much in the way of living costs, could save a significant portion of their earnings.
• Any earnings diverted to education fund would be pre-tax, like 401(k)
• Vans that take workers to job site would also take them to local stores, laundromat
• Evening programming to include job skills, life skills, also movies, games

A lot of this reminds me of the experience of being a volunteer on kibbutz.

The challenges are obvious. On one side, maintaining the workers' dignity and liberty. They shouldn't be made to feel like slaves or prisoners. The high rate of pay and savings should help there, but care should be taken. When can they have privacy? Rules need to be minimal with a focus on protecting rights, not curtailing them.

On the other side, a lot of young people living and working together is sure to make for some rowdiness and drama. These kids come from a culture in which criminality is commonplace, but we need to keep criminality out of the program. Nothing would confirm the worst fears that rural people have about these kids than for the kids to act inappropriately.

While the idea of providing these young people with food, housing, healthcare, and an income may sound steep, the federal government might already be doing it through food stamps, Section 8, medicaid, and TANF or SSI. Every job they take, takes a job away from an undocumented immigrant and reduces the costs of immigration enforcement. Moreover, giving these young people good work habits, job skills, and opportunities for education are wise investments in our human capital that will save the government down the road.

The program will need administrators who will run the program, supervise and counsel the workers, arrange the work, and provide the programming. The kitchen staff, childcare workers, and bus drivers will be hired from among the workers.

It would be great if kids came back home to their neighborhoods after twelve weeks in this program with new skills, a new outlook, and about $5,000 in their pockets. That would advertise it better than anything else.

My Political View

I believe that the government, which derives its authority from the governed, serves to perform two functions:

• To protect our rights, and
• To provide public resources

The "protect our rights" part includes government functions such as the criminal justice system, the civil justice system, and the military.

The "provide public resources" part includes roads, public transit, schools, libraries, parks, and public health. It also includes safety net programs, social insurance programs, and public hospitals.

If the police saw their job as "protecting citizen's rights" instead of "enforcing the law", the officers would conduct themselves differently, they would be seen differently by the community, and we would not have the sort of policing issues that are making headlines today.

If the federal government saw the military's role as "protecting citizen's rights" it would surely reduce the frequency of their deployment. It could, of course, be expanded to include protecting all people's rights, but that's something that we should only undertake in concert with our international partners, not something we should pursue on our own.

"Providing public resources" is more commonly the area of disagreement because no matter the resource there will be people who don't derive a direct benefit from it and therefore don't support it. Also, while our rights can, at times, be seen as absolute, it is reasonable to set limits on public spending for parks, libraries, and safety net programs and people will have differing opinions of what those limits should be.

Generally speaking, people agree on this view of the duties of government. There are some on the fringes - anarchists at one end and authoritarians at the other - who disagree, but they lack both the numbers and the pragmatism to be taken seriously.

Where people disagree comes down to the decision about where to draw the line - in both the protection of rights and the provision of resources. First asking if the job qualifies as a government responsibility and second on what resources to dedicate to it. That's essentially the narrow range of difference in American politics: how much should the government take on and how much should the government leave to people to resolve for themselves. Personally, I believe that the government that governs least governs best, and I support a minimal government. Of course, what I perceive as minimal is a lot more government than some people support.

I choose to employ a three part test:

1. It has to serve the common good.
2. It has to be something that people cannot do for themselves.
3. It has to be something that cannot be entrusted to private interests.

All three must be true for the government to take on the job.

For example: National Defense. It serves the common good for us to have a national defense. That way we don't get conquered and occupied by a foreign nation that would not defend our rights. The people cannot do it for themselves. Even if everyone were issued weapons, that would not constitute an effective national defense. And it is not something can be entrusted to private industry - just imagine if our foreign enemy outbid us for their services. So national defense passes the test and is an appropriate task for the government.

There are a number of other government activities which likewise which enjoy broad (though not universal) consensus as appropriate: police, Courts, jails, roads,

People will certainly argue what does or does not serve the common good. The invasion of Iraq? The auto industry bailout? The financial bailout? Whatever it is that the Department of Commerce does?

People will argue about what people can or should do for themselves. Do we need OSHA to set regulations for worker safety or can that be negotiated between employers and employees? Do we need the FDA to regulate the wholesomeness of food and the effectiveness of drugs or will the market resolve problems and remove bad actors?

And, finally, there will be differences over what can or cannot be outsourced - should the government hire doctors for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran's Administration, or simply act as the paying agent? Should the government operate schools or contract with private entities to teach our children? Should the government have workers on staff to fill pot holes or contract that work out to private companies? Should security in The Green Zone be provided by the US Army or by Blackwater?