What would a modern day noblesse oblige look like?

"Noblesse oblige" is generally used to imply that with wealth, power, and prestige come responsibilities. ^] In American English especially, the term is sometimes applied more broadly to suggest a general obligation for the more fortunate to help the less fortunate.

We could look at unemployment from  the point of view of noblesse oblige or more simply from the angle of what does it mean to be a citizen in a society. There is something in the idea of being a citizen that could resonate with the idea of the common good, the commonwealth.

I was thinking about what the 1% could do in a country like Spain where the unemployment among young people is around 38%. It seems to me that the extraordinarily wealthy could find some work for the unemployed and if they each hired 10 young people at a half way decent wage for even a month, the economy would start to smarten up.

It is probably a dumb idea. But it seems to me that borrowing more and more money, increasing debt without any output, letting the constructive energy go wasted is also a dumb idea.

When the economy tanked in Oregon leaving some towns, especially those involved in fishing and lumber, to die, I wrote a letter to President Obama. I said that there were lots of people looking for work. They were not used to high wages, but everyone was suffering from the lack of jobs. The state is significantly deforested. Why not hire as many people who want to work and replant the hills and mountains? It seemed like a better idea than having everyone go homeless, shops and professions shut down, depression setting in..all that kind of stuff. And the trees would grow and profits and jobs would be assured down the road.

Months later I got a letter back. It said that there were a lot of nice ideas out there. Washington bailed out the financial sector by printing money and raising the debt. The towns died. The hills are still bare. Sometimes I think we really are happier screwing things up than solving problems.

I am a simple thinker. I think we have made things very complicated in the modern world.  Giving work to someone is a lot better for everyone, in my humble opinion than giving charity. I give both, but I know work is better. The US is a country that had a tradition of "can do" attitudes.

My dear friend, Carol Gardner, used to tell me about her mother's actions during the depression. The family lived in the well-healed Oak Park, Illinois. During the worst days a steady stream of men would come to the kitchen door of the house looking for food. But they always asked whether there was work, not for a sandwich. They were going to be fed, no matter what, but Mrs. Hemingway kept a bunch of rakes, brooms, shovels by the door. She would act so happy that someone showed up to help her. She thanked them and fed them and gave then a bit of money. Carol said no sidewalks had ever been so well cared for. She gave them a lot more than lunch. She gave them their dignity.

I know the stock market is going strong at this moment. I also know that I have never seen so many homeless, hopeless people as I see on the streets of Portland, Oregon right at this time of recovery. Something is deeply out of whack here. There have to be some simple solutions.

When Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, he had recently been in Detroit, MI at a rally where he spoke of the many, many, homeless, jobless people. He also spoke of the many, many, empty homes and apartments. Was it possible that the homeless could occupy the empty houses? Very revolutionary. Very simple. Grounds for murder? Or a simple, logical solution?