Wpa Pros And Cons

The Works Progress Administration (WPA) was created in 1935 and helped to employ over eight million Americans. Having even a short-term WPA job was beneficial because it created a mindset that encouraged people to seek long-term employment (Semuels). Derek Thompson, author of "A World Without Work," explains that the WPA “hired 40,000 artists and other cultural workers to produce music and theater, murals and paintings, state and regional travel guides, and surveys of state records.” Thompson suggests that a reincarnated WPA is not impossible (Thompson). Having a new WPA will help the almost six million people currently experiencing long-term unemployment by increasing employment, reducing welfare dependency, and decreasing taxes. Today, many

Roosevelt. It consisted of the Federal Arts Project, Federal Writers Project, Federal Theatre Project, and the National Youth Administration. Its purpose was to employ the millions unemployed in the U.S. The $11.4 billion cost was made up through the purchasing power of the 8.5 million people it employed (Encyclopædia Britannica). Their earnings were put back into the economy as they purchased goods and services. The WPA helped develop our country’s infrastructure, building “…more than 650,000 miles of roads; 125,000 public buildings; 75,000 bridges; 8,000 parks; and 800 airports” (Encyclopædia Britannica). It was a very diverse program, employing people of all ages and

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that in Fiscal Year 2015, Safety Net Programs (welfare programs) cost about $326 billion, not including $888 billion for Social Security (“Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?”). With more people going on welfare this number will continue to grow, creating a huge economic burden. Dollar Times calculates that the $11.4 billion that the WPA cost in 1935 would translate to about $205.3 billion today (Brothers). This would lead to huge savings because a new WPA would be an upfront cost rather than an ongoing program expense. While welfare programs cannot be eliminated, a new WPA would provide more economic benefits and be considered more socially acceptable. It would also set a better example for youth who see their parents working rather than living off government handouts. According to Alana Semuels, journalist with the Atlantic and graduate of the London School of Economics, creating a new WPA would help the economy in many ways. One of the main benefits is that it would help employ millions (Semuels). Bringing people out of unemployment would mean they no longer need to be on welfare. Michael Tanner, CATO Institute fellow, explains that people on welfare can sometimes earn more than at many minimum wage jobs (Tanner). Thus, they have no incentive to try to get off welfare, losing their will to work.