: 1) Structural change has led the permanent exclusion of a section of the population from employment, this is going to have a bad effect since employment isnt just a source of income but a source of social networks, social and community level integration.
Employment never has been '100%' except during the days when a mans life was just an animal struggle for survival. Perhaps this would lend perspective, rather than make it look like an 'angry lefty student' diatribe against the last 200 years - it would be wrong to see you as that.
Look at how other people were exlcuded - by caste in India, by color of skin etc. consuider that the exclusion is majority driven - that races, castes and the unemployed only remain excluded due to the sanction of the great many (in, respectively; being racist, believing in caste systems, in personal economic choices (ie not trading with nor contributing toward 'the poor')
: 2) The real, that is pragmatic social policy I'm not engaging in one dimensional thought here, choice is High expenditure on the creation Mass Employment and low social expenditure or Low expenditure on Mass Unemployment and high social expenditure. I know which one I'd prefer considering the physiological and psychological consequences of permanent/intergeneration unemployment for the individual and society, however at present the might of transglobal companies/the privately owned command economy makes the later the only possible option or at least the only option weaklings like Blair and Clinton will consider.
Consider the historical evidence of what happens when countries offer generous welfare schemes, and think of why countries like Holland, germany, britain and Sweden are having to reduce welfare now - with the support of their majorities.
: 3)What is required then is community based organisation so the work can be organised by and for the unemployed so that they do not suffer the stigma of unemployment and the consequences of permanent exclusion from the conventional source of social interation, skills acquirement etc.
Consider how this might be done, and whether or not the already employed majority would like this, would want the goods made by them and so forth.
: If anyone can give me references or wishes to debate this it'd be a fantastic help because I can reference posts from this site and absolutely nothing has been written in this area. Participation is usually considered a political rather than welfare issue so you can imagine the difficulties.
You could print the finished item here if you liked....