Talk:Make-work job

Discussion
"Dog poops"? Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.45.109.2 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Some examples would help... --70.138.183.60 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that these jobs are beneficial because they impart work experience to the employee, and work experience may sometimes have benefits similar to those of technical education. --68.55.112.31 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I added some information based on the news articles about the introduction of make-work jobs in Denmark in 2014, which discussed some of the benefits that the jobs have.2601:9:5E00:223:30D6:1585:D159:78A4 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Make-work" is generally a derogatory term. The "article" is pure right-wing propaganda and should be deleted from Wikipedia.---sn 11 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.21.4 (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is a bit partisan, but this is a real thing and it deserves a half decent article. I changed the initial statment about the costs and benefits to reflect the fact that the a typical cost benefit analysis only counts the direct benefits of the work done, and not the externalities such as reduced crime, greater social equality, and an providing on the job skills to disadvantaged people. If you can find a study that accounts for all of the potential gains of such a job then feel free to stengthen my calim made in my revision, however until then, don't say more than the truth. Additionally, I removed the Milton Friedman's example of digging and filling in ditches, since it is pretty abstract, and certainly NPOV. If you would like to cite an example of such work actually being done, then by all means, get to it. It might also be more productive to provide an example of prisoners doing road clean up, or art majors making puplic murals. There are plenty of real examples which don't demean the labors of people who happen to have very few useful skills. (Lucas(CA) (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Shortly after World War 2, my uncle had a job digging and filling holes here in Dordrecht, The Netherlands. I suspect that it had a purpose, perhaps to make sure there were no left over munitions in the soil of what used to be the town center, which was being turned into a nice central park after the nice lads from the east were so nice as to make room for it. This is just speculation on my part however; he and the rest of my family have only ever mentioned it as digging and filling the same old holes, for a couple of nickles. Too lazy to go find a source, hence this just being on the talk page. --2001:980:A4CB:1:2D66:CCC3:846E:D6F1 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral-ish
Still some formations, or jobs. Are dead end ones. Some jobs such as marketing might cost more than they bring, also it reminds me of "perverse subsidies" (not only for some jobs, or schools, but also to companies. (the word is not formally subsidies, but subsidising basically means "giving money".

Police can be a make-work job too, in my country (don't make me name it please). The level of police is said to be "downfalling" and that basically almost anyone can join them. (7/20 is enough for one to be taken while back then no applicants were taken under 13/20, I add also that the level in "endurance" fell too, in physical fitness....also the cost for a policeman in my country amounts 5 minimal wages. (2.3 of them spent on the policeman and his advantages, and the rest on vehicules (cars or horses at football games), driving, weaponry, ammo, displacement fees......etc.

Sometimes even military can be seen as such by pacifists (not everyone of them is an absolute pacifist, there are many varying degrees), not only them there might be many reasons.

At a time were police is heavily criticised (for a big array of reasons), and gets new equipement, cars, rights, bonusses...

I left my job (marketing after 2 years) because I felt it was useless...and intended it even before taking the job. (Just for "experience on a resumé).

I am not really a right-wing man....but this article is partly partisan but not that much.

____________

Subsidies
Some make-works are even public function, or obsolete ones that one are reticent to change. (Some'd say (well me) that covid highlighted that teachers aren't that useful anymore). Make-work jobs can be maintained by subsidies...

Actually the whole agroalimentary system leads to disease, land waste, soil pollution, overproduction, obesity (well cheaper does not mean that people get richer, because they spend less on food but rather that they buy more for the same).

Some companies sell products under their cost of production because state subsidises a part of the cost of each piece of an item so the margin is not paid by the buyer but the state (in some countries it's forbidden, but not all I guess).

Agriculture has it too. If no subsidies the activity couldn't make any profit at all.

State sponsored formations
Some of them are dead end ones or just bring "experience", or are useful but don't make it for enough to occupy a position. In a certain country (don't make me name it please), unemployed people who are in formations are removed from unemployed people during the time of their formation even if the formation may cost money, bring no job after it (it does not prevent unemployement from skyrocketting anyway) and so to lower numbers given in stats.

Some just take the formation because otherwise it will remove their unemployement rights, but the formation is a dead-end one anyway.

Many of these formations are make-works....or make-studies and often are used for diverting the attention and lowering numbers...but they cost actually a lot, possibly more than just giving plain aids (which possibly could be more efficient). Often it's heard about plans to invest on "X millions in professional formations and reconversions"

China in Ethiopia?
Is this an example? In 2000-2006 it started happening. Roads and bridges appearing. China was trading infrastructure with Ethiopia for workers in human factory farms assembling things. The issue was the roads were not connected to anything, the bridges ran over land / didn't cross rivers etc. So it was like infra-structure put in to fulfil a contract that served no actual purpose and benefitted no one but the people putting it in. Like follies in Europe. Is the China/Ethiopia slave labor for infrastructure scam an example of 'make-work' or am I missing it completely? 121.211.33.244 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge with busywork?
Not sure how to create the template for a merge though. if someone could help do that, that'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker345 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Only in a socialist economy
Why only in a socialist economy? Does nationalisation occur ONLY in a socialist economy? If a job is considered essential is it a make-work job?

If a lack of profit makes a make-work jobs...does it mean that every company that is having no profit is a make-work?

"socialist nationalized economy" Is this to refer to socialism, socialism with nationalisation, communism, far-left socialism? Are all sectors meant to make a profit? Is it because an industry is deficitary that it was meant to be make-work job?

The article refers to Roosvelt...is he a socialist? Are US in 1933 communist? I think this one line I tagged should be rewritten.

--OjuzKiopo (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Danish make-work jobs?
"Several make-work jobs that were created in Denmark in 2014 were gardening, cleaning up of beaches and sidewalks, reading to the elderly or disabled, washing toys at day care, working with local bike programs, and counting cars."

Is gardening a make-work job? Doesn't it either reduce pollution and makes the city better looking? Cleaning sidewalks is not useful? (In many countries sidewalks are full of cigarettes, rubbish, gum rests...the garbagemen are not able to clean enough, actually many cities gave up on cleaning streets fully). Are bike programs bad? In a context of ecology they it is not bad to have bike programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjuzKiopo (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality
Revisions made by 82.3.221.47 are written in an extremely idiosyncratic tone, and seem to arbitrarily shoehorn a political/economic point of view to an otherwise neutral subject, which is improper of a Wikipedia article. The same user has done a number of similar edits in other pages, using variants of the same block of text. Somebody should check the sources and edit/format the text to comply with Wikipedias standards. Kilgore T (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)