Unemployment as a Social Problem

This report discusses the issue of unemployment as a social problem and advocates for job creation and addressing unemployment at all costs.

Running head: UNEMPLOYMENT 1
Unemployment
Name:
Institution:

UNEMPLOYMENT 2
Report: Unemployment as a Social Problem
In my opinion, I selected unemployment as a social welfare problem because it is the
most common issue to be addressed in the current epoch as far as advocating policy making is
concerned. In social work, employment and job creation is the most critical to improve social
change in the society. In this case, a letter is necessary to support the issues addressed to the
federal state official. In this report the issue of unemployment is discussed in line with the
support of the letter written to the elected state official. The purpose of this report is to support
the ideas reflected in the letter as illustrated below.
The American social welfare enjoys the social act of 1935which was implemented by
Franklin Roosevelt on employment (Longhurst & McCann, 2016). The act has supported
programs of job security and public assistance. Just to mention, unemployment will reduce the
country’s GDP, hence a reduction in the country economic growth. The office of the federal
official should focus on job creations and address the issue of unemployment at all costs
(Abelson et al., 2017).
Apparently, employment is an instance of universal program in the society since the
citizens are entitled to participate in the program as part of their social rights. The program is
not dependant on the government financial needs. The employment and job creation program
will only constitute to 20% of the federal government spending (Burns, Clifton & Quaglia,
2018). The federal state will benefit from funding accumulated from revenue collected from the
payroll tax, which is equally shared by both the employer and the employee. Any person who is
anticipating receiving the benefits should contribute to the payroll during their working years. As
far as employment is concerned, the payroll taxes should be contributed in a minimum period of

UNEMPLOYMENT 3
10 years (Dunn & Laing, 2017). Consequently, the individual benefit levels are determined by
the cumulative amount of money paid with regard to the retirement age (Fosse & Helgesen,
2017). Therefore, this will improve the standards of living of most Americans.
The federal state should enable the assistance of the young Americans between age 18 to
retirement age to engage in substantial employment. However, in this case, when the individual
turns the age of 65 years, the individuals will be able to access the old age benefits. Just to
mention, the individual who are medically challenged at work must provide the medical proof
that suggests their state of disability during employment (Evans et al., 2015). The medical report
should contain proof which suggests that the disability will derail the individual from any form
of gainful employment.The federal state should formulate strategies that will help the Americans
to eradicate poverty through job creations, which will improve their standards of living.
In conclusion, social security is very important and is a fundamental as far as social
welfare is concerned. Social security has enabled the eradication of poverty in America through
the creation of employment and job creations in some states. In this case, most unemployed
Americans have been raised above the poverty lines and make the world a better place.
Therefore, the federal government should consider the issue of unemployment because it has
impacted positively on the lives of most Americans ranging from the youths to the aged who
have qualifications in various fields but cannot secure a living.

UNEMPLOYMENT 4
References
Abelson, J., Allin, S., Grignon, M., Pasic, D., & Walli-Attaei, M. (2017). Uncomfortable trade-
offs: Canadian policy makers’ perspectives on setting objectives for their health
systems. Health Policy, 121(1), 9-16.
Burns, C., Clifton, J., & Quaglia, L. (2018). Explaining policy change in the EU: financial
reform after the crisis. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(5), 728-746.
Dunn, G., & Laing, M. (2017). Policy-makers perspectives on credibility, relevance and
legitimacy (CRELE). Environmental Science & Policy, 76, 146-152.
Evans, J., McKemmish, S., Daniels, E., & McCarthy, G. (2015). Self-determination and archival
autonomy: advocating activism. Archival Science, 15(4), 337-368.
Fosse, E., & Helgesen, M. (2017). Advocating for health promotion policy in Norway: the role
of the county municipalities. Societies, 7(2), 5.
Gibson, C. (2015). Negotiating regional creative economies: academics as expert intermediaries
advocating progressive alternatives. Regional Studies, 49(3), 476-479.
Longhurst, A., & McCann, E. (2016). Political struggles on a frontier of harm reduction drug
policy: geographies of constrained policy mobility. Space and Polity, 20(1), 109-123.
Watkins, K., Rosenberger, R., Asad, M., Appleton, C., & Le Dantec, C. A. (2016). Advocating
through data: Community visibilities in crowdsourced cycling data. In Bicycle Justice
and Urban Transformation (pp. 70-85). Routledge.

UNEMPLOYMENT 5