The Washington times., 1934-12-06


standing. ~
/. Some form $
of relief must Ss$ SS:
be given to all -. -
in real need.
2. Those who are not able
bodied, can't work, and so must
get direct relief.
3. Those who are lazy and not
worth their salt anyhow, may be
diSregarded in this discussion.
They would sponge" on the Gov
ernment for direct relief, and
they would soldier" on work re-
lief, so it makes no difference.
4. If there is any important
work to be done which is worth
the cost, it may we'll be done by
those not otherwise employed.
Work which is really "self-SuStain-
ing" is worth doing. Probably
there is some work of this sort,
though it is important to figure
the true total cost carefully and
honestly before deciding that it
will pay.
Thus we narrow the problem
down to Q) honest and ener-
Eetic people who are temporarily
out of work because they can't
get it, and who are in real need.
There are many such, but not
nearly as many as the total
now con relief.") (2) We con-
slider only work" which is not
clearly profitable or self-sup-
porting. There is no problem
If the work is plainly profit
3ble.)
Now two questions arise: One
Is the effect on the unemployed
person. The other is the effect
on all the rest of us.
l. AS to the effects upon the
unemployed person, the argT'
If you wish to know the correct
time of day or night telephone THE
WASHINGTON TIMES, District 1000.
ments of those who favor giving
work" instead of direct relief,
are that it is less demoralizing, in
that it maintains self-respect and
work habits.
At first glance, this seems valid,
but deeper thought suggests ques'
tions.
When a man is "given' work
doing something which is OF
doubtful value and which he
knows would not ordinarily be
: done, isn't his attitude toward
such work" different?
I grant that he may cling to
: the hope that he is helping a bit,
and this is the strongest argument
for work relief"
But is it not equally possible
that he may also accept direct
, relief in a way that will not de.
moralize him? He can say to him.
self, "The best thing I can do for
: my country is to take as little
from the Treasury as I can and
live as cheaply as possible. Mean
while, I will do my best to find
profitable work" people would
feel this way if the President
would explain it to themD
Is government work given as re
lief not apt to produce bad work
habits? The man is associated
with others who soldier" on the
Job.
He is bound to feel that his pay
does not depend upon what he
does, which is fundamentally de
moralizing.
Space forbids full discussion
but I am inclined to think tina
work relief is more subtly demoral
izing than direct relief.
"And don't forget that work
relief is certain to last much
longer than direct relief and
affect larger number of people.
Thus, even if it's immediate
effects per person were less de-
mOraliZing, its total lOng-run
demoraIizing effect might be
greater.
It lasts longer, because it inter
feres more with business, and i
costs more. It is harder II
stop it.
2. This suggests the effects or
Government and all the rest O.
us.
It costs at least twice as much
more to give relief by making
work than to give il directly.
The Government is led to cal
the work "self-sustaining." L
then figures it can borrow on it
That means increased debt, anc
financial troubles.
It draws the Federal Govern
ment into giving relief which
should be given by local units.
It draws the Government int
business.
It thus increases uncertainty
disrupts, and prolongs the depres
sion. UnqueStionably the quick
. est way out of depression, is tx
., face facts, get economy IN gov
eminent. and clear the way TO
business.
If work relief is to be given
why not do it by compelling pr
vate businesses to take on NOR
workers? If they cannot maxi
work pay, do you honestly thinl
that the politicians at Washing
ton can? .--..-.-.-------.4-s---L