Should we replace/reinstitute draft in the form of social work?

[Martinus]

There is an article in this week's the Economist that got me thinking.

Many countries which used to have draft/compulsory military training had an option for conscience objectors to serve it as social workers instead. This would usually involve working in hospitals or homes for the elderly, caring for the sick and the infirm etc.

Now that many countries abandon draft, this is also being phased out. But as a society we are getting older and we need social workers, and there just isn't enough volunteers. Should we require the young to spend 6-12 months as social carers?

Discuss.

[Viking]

No. Remember the cost to the economy of taking a person out of productive work for a year or two.

[Zoupa]

No. Remember the cost to the economy of taking a person out of productive work for a year or two.

Nobody's productive at 18.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, but drafting them for 2 years only postpones their usefulness even further.

[Ed Anger]

Mandatory "volunteer" social work is for suckers.

[Razgovory]

Mandatory "volunteer" social work is for suckers.

And for pot heads.  We call it "community service".

[Fate]

Pay social workers more if you want more social workers.

[Zanza]

I had to do that. Waste of time.

[HVC]

All that'll do is drive down the need and value of actual social workers with real skills and replace them with people who not only don't want the work but will probably be terrible at it. Do you really want your mom taken care if by some 18 year old idiot who doesn't want to be there?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?

[ulmont]

But as a society we are getting older and we need social workers, and there just isn't enough volunteers. Should we require the young to spend 6-12 months as social carers?

Ponder, after being drafted as a social carer and dealing with those obtaining benefits, how fast those young people will vote to slash social benefits for the rest* of their lives.

* At least until they approach about 5 years of eligibility for same.

[Neil]

Probably not.  The modern consensus seems to be that the nanny state can nanny more and more, but you don't owe the state anything more than taxes.  In fact, the state owes you.

[The Brain]

No we should not.

[Sheilbh]

I think that what we really need is more participation in the workforce by healthy 50-70 year-olds. But that will need a change of attitudes. A lot of people in their 50s jack their career in because they are sick of the stress and have enough cash. How can we lure some of these folk into having second careers that are very useful whilst being less stressful and less well-paid?

This is what's been happening.  Every single employment report is showing that older people are working it's the 16-25s who are getting shafted.  There's not the jobs, the old aren't retiring and they're expected to do numerous free internships - which is fine if you've got somewhere to stay in London but if not you're screwed.

[Admiral Yi]

The entire raison d'etre of the US federal government is to transfer wealth from working age people to retirees.  I don't think we need another form of transfer.