By John Stossel
Published: Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012, 9:00 p.m.
“There are no jobs!” That is what people told me outside a government “jobs center” in New York City.
To check this out, I sent four researchers around the area. They quickly found 40 job openings. Twenty-four were entry-level positions. One restaurant owner told me he would hire 12 people if workers would just apply.
It made me wonder what my government does in buildings called “job centers.” So I asked a college intern, Zoelle Mallenbaum, to find out. Here's what she found:
“First I went to the Manhattan Jobs Center and asked, ‘Can I get help finding a job?' They told me they don't do that. ‘We sign people up for food stamps.' I tried another jobs center. They told me to enroll for unemployment benefits.” So the “jobs” centers help people get handouts. Neither center suggested people try the 40 job openings in the neighborhood.
My intern persisted: “I explained that I didn't want handouts; I wanted a job. I was told to go to WorkForce1, a New York City program. At WorkForce1, the receptionist told me that she couldn't help me since I didn't have a college degree. She directed me to another center in Harlem. In Harlem, I was told that before I could get help, I had to come back for an 8:30 a.m. ‘training session.'”
Our government helps you apply for handouts immediately, but forces you through a maze if you want to work.
“WorkForce1's website says to arrive 30 minutes early, so I did,” Zoelle said. “A security guard told me the building was closed. At 9:15, Workforce1 directed 30 of us into a room where we were told that WorkForce1 directs candidates to jobs and provides a resource room with ‘free' phone, fax and job listings and helps people apply for unemployment insurance and disability handouts. This seemed like the only part of the presentation when people took notes.
“One lady told me that she comes to WorkForce1 because it helps her collect unemployment. One asked another, ‘What do you want to do?' The second laughed, ‘I want to collect!' One told me, ‘I've been coming here 17 months; this place is a waste of time.'
“Finally, I met with an ‘adviser.' She told me I lacked experience. I know this. I asked for any job she thought I was qualified for, and she scheduled an interview at Pret, a food chain that trains employees.
“At Pret, I learned that my ‘interview' was just a weekly open house, publicized on the company's website. Anyone could walk in and apply. Workforce1 offered no advantage. Despite my ‘scheduled interview,' I waited 90 minutes before meeting a manager. He told me that WorkForce1 had ‘wasted my time, as they always do.' He said, ‘They never call, never ask questions.'”
My intern learned a lot from this experience. Here are her conclusions:
• It's easier to get welfare than to work.
• The government would rather sign me up for welfare than help me find work.
• America has taxpayer-funded bureaucracies that encourage people to be dependent. They incentivize people to take “free stuff,” not to take initiative.
Once politicians figured out that welfare creates dependency and hurts poor people, they (logically) assumed that employment services and job training would help. Job training does help — when employers do it. But government does everything badly.
America now has 47 federal jobs programs. They fail. Yet politicians want more. They always want more.
John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Starkey: Steelers know when to say goodbye
- Analysis: Kesler remains on Penguins’ radar as Shero looks bring back ‘Big 3’ formula
- Pirates’ big risk with pitch-heavy draft focus might soon pay off
- With so many needs, Steelers can ill afford to miss in draft
- Ex-Colts executive Polian: Approach free agency with caution
- Obama losing close adviser to end 9 years of service
- Penguins GM Shero’s deadline deals: Addition by subtraction
- IUP students have raucous early St. Patrick’s Day celebration
- Greensburg bishop’s time at helm draws to a close
- Steelers defense doesn’t make the grade in 2013 review
- Exclusive to the Trib: The crisis in Ukraine — America can be deferrential no more