There are a lot of ways that we can address the problem of poverty, and workfare is a legitimate component of a multi-faceted approach, but I think we need to u

There are a lot of ways that we can address the problem of poverty, and workfare is a legitimate component of a multi-faceted approach, but I think we need to use it very cautiously. If the government has meaningful projects that it wants to accomplish regardless, then giving those jobs (and the training needed to do them) to the unemployed is by all means a good idea. The problem is that the line between workfare and make-work is blurry. If you pay people $16000/year to build the Hoover Dam, that's awesome. But if you pay people more than the job is worth to society, or pay people any amount to do jobs they will view as stupid or pointless, that's counterproductive. The government must ensure that the projects they undertake generate societal value on their own, considering the employment created only as a side-benefit. Furthermore, when you require that people work in order to receive benefits, you are effectively saying that whatever else they would rather be doing with their time is worth less than whatever you are having them do, and whatever you are paying them to do it. Not only is that depressing, the thing they might rather be doing could be something very valuable to society. This is the main argument in favor of universal basic income. The is no requirement that people work, nor is there a requirement that they be unemployed, or anything else in a laundry list of arbitrary requirements. Everyone gets the same amount of money no matter what and no perverse incentives are created.