Hello all, I have not been everywhere in America (not even close), but of the places I have been to, the structures and roads left a great deal to be desired. In the city of my college, for example, the roads are of absolutely atrocious quality. So here's a hypothetical proposal, and I'm eager to hear constructive criticism of its fault, or reasons that this would not or could not work: Eliminate welfare almost entirely, but appropriate those funds to employing the unemployed in construction/road work/general infrastructure improvement. Perhaps offer a general course like "Roadwork 101" to get them up to speed on how to do what they need to do, or just an internship or apprenticeship or something of the like. The pay should be minimum wage, but offer a solid 20-40 hours/week. The main drawback will be that this pay will certainly exceed current welfare rates, which would very likely require a tax increase. However, I feel that either party would enjoy the benefits. 1. The hypothetical idea of someone sitting around all day, sucking up tax dollars without contributing, will be eliminated. 2. Those who are unemployed will have an actual job (which may improve life satisfaction, though I'm no psychologist) and will be getting better pay than welfare offers. 3. A whole class of trained workers in infrastructure will be created, that can possibly go into industry for better pay. 4. Infrastructure will be improved at a much quicker rate, which of course benefits everyone in the community. This is just an idea, and I'm not an economist, so I would love to hear why this idea does or does not make sense, and so forth. To me, however, this seems far preferable to the current system, with all contributing completely to society, getting better pay, and improvements on infrastructure to boot. Thanks for reading.