And with the steady expansion of social programs and government spending, how do you judge the results of the government trying to correct the situation?

Here is a challenge for you. I want you to judge the outcomes after 10 years of the average individual who enters the military vs. going onto welfare. I’m willing to bet that you’d find higher employment, at higher wages, with a better education, lower crime rate and lower mortality rate for people who enter military service.

I find it ironic also that individuals who use the Internet bash government spending on anything, and resent paying taxes.  The Internet was a government project originally.  The same with GPS, and other things people use, like the highway system.

The military happens to train people, work on character issues, and give individuals who enlist a reason for being.  Individuals in the welfare system are warehoused and treated as a problem, and meant to get them off the streets.  They are handled to address tax payer shame, rather than made productive.  The welfare system doesn't do anything to promote independence.

Each recession is a seismic event where the proportion of men in full-time work suddenly falls. And in each recovery it fails to return to its pre-recession level.

That's kind of my point ...

Social programs provided by the government to help poor people do nothing but re-enforce poverty. They attempt to solve the symptoms (low employability and low income) rather than the problems (low education, poor skills, lack of work experience, "Character" issues, substance abuse, etc.). In many cases the aid the government gives enables a person’s problems to get worse.

That approach is what society develops when it doesn't freel decide to tackle these issues without government involvement.   The government will get involved and force people into a hopeless situation that would even put them at risk of losing benefits if they try to be proactive.  I have seen cases where one program capped the amount of hours people worked, because it would cost them benefits.

The system will drive people to the bottom.  In my case, when my unemployment ran out, I had the option of applying to go on welfare and lose my car (couldn't afford to keep the insurance) and phone and internet (to job hunt), or move back with family, in a verbally abusive household.  I picked the later, eventhough the verbal abuse doesn't help with depression, that I had to deal with.  Of course, my story generated flak by some, to the extent that someone posted on a blog that I should kill myself and not use his tax dollars.  This was in light of like no work being available, not even at Wendy's.   And either I list my college on my resume (a Masters) and my time at IBM, or I end up with a gap.

Corporations would likewise do similar also in regards to trying to provide solutions.  The issue is size more than anything else.

I am leaning towards the belief the American welfare system is as useless as it is, because of both the belief of Liberals that fixing external conditions results in humans acting better, and the belief of conservatives that people are inheritantly lazy, and you need to show toughness to them to motivate people to work (take away benefits and people will be forced to work).  The third path of assisting people to develop living skills, doesn't show up, so the system doesn't do this.  You have a system that warehouses people a few years, and then throws them out.

Speaking on enployment, the Miami Heat laid off their staff to sell season tickets, because they no longer have any season tickets to sell:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/30/1754155/with-heat-season-tickets-sold.html

Yes, a business can do that, but remind me WHY that represents good business?

It makes the company richer by cutting staff and increase the company's  profit margins.  Return on share holders and dvidends, company profits are reduced by cutting labour costs. Even when a company is doing well they will cut staff to boost their profit margins. Companies want to increase their profits every year and they can do that by increasing revenue and reducing costs by cutting staff numbers.  "Efficiency" and "downsizing" is PR spin for cutting jobs.

Most companies are privately owned family businesses who hold the highest stakes in the company. The companies  will do whatever it takes to maximise their bottom line. If you do not like what companies do to workers, join a workers union and get more job security.

Laws need to be put in place that stop out sourcing of jobs and factories being sent overseas. Outsourcing only results in local job losses and more people on welfare in developed nations. Short term vision governments plague both sides of mainstream politics who fail to adequately address education and training programs. 

Skills shortage is used to bring in cheaper foreign workers to do jobs at the lowest cost. Local workers are not even considered because they cost the company more: economic rationalism. 

The percentage of unskilled workers in full time work is decreasing all the time. Every recession more male workers are left high and dry and out of work when they do not meet the required skill level businesses demand. Factories are dominated by unskilled and uneducated male workers. Education at all levels is dominated by females. Males are being left out in the cold.