• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Businesses struggling to find workers

Alceste

Vagabond
I didn't go that far. I just think that it should be carefully targeted. Michigan spent many millions re-training workers for jobs that were disappearing.
I actually favor training, especially favor it for the disadvantaged who lack basic work skills & familiarity with workplace conduct.

In practice, training requirements that are a condition of unemployment benefits or welfare lump everyone together, skilled and unskilled. So you get middle managers with decades of experience attending classes on how to write a resume, just to get their cheque. That ties them up pointlessly when they could be looking for work suited to their skills and experience. It's also a blow to the dignity of everyone in attendance except for the tiny minority that are actually in need of this type of training. The atmosphere is very hostile and tense.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In practice, training requirements that are a condition of unemployment benefits or welfare lump everyone together, skilled and unskilled. So you get middle managers with decades of experience attending classes on how to write a resume, just to get their cheque. That ties them up pointlessly when they could be looking for work suited to their skills and experience. It's also a blow to the dignity of everyone in attendance except for the tiny minority that are actually in need of this type of training. The atmosphere is very hostile and tense.

Clearly, a one-size-fits-all program is counter-productive.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Clearly, a one-size-fits-all program is counter-productive.

Yes, while customizing a retraining or skill-building program based on the experience of each individual recipient of benefits would be an expensive administrative nightmare. That's why governments who implement forced training or labour programs tend to go with the one-size-fits-all option. The point of doing anything is to appease right wing voters who believe (based on their gut feelings) "something must be done" to get the unemployed off their lazy bums while at the same time slashing the cost of social security. Something tells me if training programs raised the overall cost of social security and provided real, measurable benefit and wellbeing to the unemployed, it would not appease these folks - they want the unemployed to suffer needless indignities and deprivations because they believe it will spur them on to great achievements.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, while customizing a retraining or skill-building program based on the experience of each individual recipient of benefits would be an expensive administrative nightmare.

I believe that it's more expensive to not customize the training program to the individual, since otherwise,
much of the money is wasted, & the time of the trainee is wasted. Government always has excuses why
they can't do a good & cost-effective job, & they don't care about our money, effort or time. If they can't
do it themselves, then outsourcing is appropriate. Similarly, private sector housing is cheaper & better
than public housing, once you add forgone costs into public housing, eg, property taxes, management fees.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
I believe that it's more expensive to not customize the training program to the individual, since otherwise,
much of the money is wasted, & the time of the trainee is wasted. Government always has excuses why
they can't do a good & cost-effective job, & they don't care about our money, effort or time. If they can't
do it themselves, then outsourcing is appropriate. Similarly, private sector housing is cheaper & better
than public housing, once you add forgone costs into public housing, eg, property taxes, management fees.

I'm not up for another lengthy debate about why central, democratically accountable, transparent organizations (AKA the government) are more efficent and effective than the private sector for the basic necessities that ensure our quality of life (schools, police forces, fire departments, armies, libraries, health care, infrastructure, water, energy) - I've done it before and my experience is that free market fundamentalists are often no more amenable to reason and evidence than creationists.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not up for another lengthy debate about why central, democratically accountable, transparent organizations (AKA the government) are more efficent and effective than the private sector for the basic necessities that ensure our quality of life (schools, police forces, fire departments, armies, libraries, health care, infrastructure, water, energy)

I don't blame you for not wanting to support that view.

- I've done it before and my experience is that free market fundamentalists are often no more amenable to reason and evidence than creationists.

The faith-based pseudo-economics of the Obama & Bush administrations ain't exactly evidence based.....unless you consider evidence of their
failure as discrediting. Let's give capitalism & free markets a try for a change......real change, lest we all be left with nothing but spare change.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I don't blame you for not wanting to support that view.

:p It's just such common knowledge outside a small circle of fanatics mostly concentrated in the US it's not worth debating. I'm not an American. I only have to worry about the idiot conservatives running my country, who are still liberal enough to make Obama look like Ayn bleeding Rand.

The faith-based pseudo-economics of the Obama & Bush administrations ain't exactly evidence based.....unless you consider evidence of their
failure as discrediting. Let's give capitalism & free markets a try for a change......real change, lest we all be left with nothing but spare change.

Oh please. What have Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama been up to all those years besides deregulating the market and giving capitalism a try? They failed. Miserably. And yet many other countries with much stronger tax-funded social safety nets and meaningful regulation on industry are doing much better than the US. Hmmmmmmm. Isn't that strange.
 
Last edited:

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
If you are unable to find work at a minimum wage job because no minimum wage job will hire your over qualified self?

Just seems to me that there would be a ton of details that needs be worked out.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the idea, just wondering about all the details..



and it helps to read and understand the WHOLE post before replying...:eek:
I had this problem in the mid-80's; no one wanted to hire me for 1/3 to 1/2 less than what I had been making, because "you will quit as soon as another job opens up in your field". Like they wouldn't as well, if they could! In the meantime though, I went from a drafting job to painting apartments at a flat rate per apartment.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Here's a novel idea - move where the jobs are.

Unemployment rates are pretty low in many parts of the country. Here in Texas, we are SCRAMBLING for skilled labor and experienced workers in all income ranges.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Here's a novel idea - move where the jobs are.

Unemployment rates are pretty low in many parts of the country. Here in Texas, we are SCRAMBLING for skilled labor and experienced workers in all income ranges.
It might be helpful to be a bit more precise; for example, there will soon be a glut of skilled workers in Sealy, when BAE Systems stops producing vehicles for the military. Here in Houston, things aren't bad, but my 22 year old daughter is taking nanny jobs because no one will offer her a full-time position; the most she could find was 25 hrs/wk at $8/hr. She can make $10/hr and 40-50 hours a week doing in-home child care for two kids.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Here's a novel idea - move where the jobs are.

Unemployment rates are pretty low in many parts of the country. Here in Texas, we are SCRAMBLING for skilled labor and experienced workers in all income ranges.
Cool.
Now as soon as I can get the money to move....
 

justbehappy

Active Member
Seems to me that employer have seriously upped the requirements.
At least around here.
Used to be that companies would train you for OTR Driving, now they want at minimum two years experience.

These are probably employers that can actually find people though. Employers looking for workers are more likely to lower their requirements - which is really good.
 

justbehappy

Active Member
It doesn't take much common sense to realize the reason they are struggling to find workers is because no one wants to work their ******, dangerous, low-paying jobs.

If you need to feed your family, you sure as heck will. Not everyone can have a great job - some people HAVE to do the jobs other people don't want to do or else they'd never get done
 

justbehappy

Active Member
I'm sorry, are you saying that being forced by the government to work at McDonalds for minimum wage = keeping your self respect?

Or sit on your butt and let people who do work pay for you? People lose jobs. It happens. It's rough. And I understand not wanting to go from a $30 an hour job to minimum wage, but if it's $30 to $20 you better take it. If not, it's just selfishness because you're putting your burden on taxpayers. Leave the unemployment benefits for the people who TRULY need it and won't be able to eat in the time they're looking for a new job - not the people who used to make $70,000 a year and definitely have enough saved up to be just fine while they look for another job. And these people saying they can't find a job after a year or two years?! It's just absolutely ridiculous.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Or sit on your butt and let people who do work pay for you? People lose jobs. It happens. It's rough. And I understand not wanting to go from a $30 an hour job to minimum wage, but if it's $30 to $20 you better take it. If not, it's just selfishness because you're putting your burden on taxpayers. Leave the unemployment benefits for the people who TRULY need it and won't be able to eat in the time they're looking for a new job - not the people who used to make $70,000 a year and definitely have enough saved up to be just fine while they look for another job. And these people saying they can't find a job after a year or two years?! It's just absolutely ridiculous.

To a conservative, it's your fault until you make about 10 million a year. After that, it's everyone else's fault.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
To a conservative, it's your fault until you make about 10 million a year. After that, it's everyone else's fault.

Likewise, if your fiscal mismanagement renders your own family homeless, you're lazy socialist scum who never should have had a place to live to begin with. If your fiscal mismanagement renders a hundred thousand other people's families homeless, you're a hard-working hero of capitalism and should probably take over social security from the government.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
:p It's just such common knowledge outside a small circle of fanatics mostly concentrated in the US it's not worth debating. I'm not an American.

If it's such common knowledge that lending institutions create money out of thin air, then let's see a source, eg, Federal website, Wikipedia. ......or is such knowledge only available on youtube cartoons? If you're not an American, a lender, a borrower or a government official, then how is it that your expertise on monetary policy is superior than those of us who live & work here in the business?

It's not that I know everything, & I'm regularly wrong about things. But I see no basis for your belief that banks can electronically print the money they lend.

Oh please. What have Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama been up to all those years besides deregulating the market and giving capitalism a try? They failed. Miserably. And yet many other countries with much stronger tax-funded social safety nets and meaningful regulation on industry are doing much better than the US. Hmmmmmmm. Isn't that strange.
If you check the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), you'll find that the volume of regulation increased every single year during each of those presidential terms (except for one during Clinton's).
 
Last edited:

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
If you check the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), you'll find that the volume of regulation increased every single year during each of those presidential terms (except for one during Clinton's).

It's not the quantity of regulations that matters most, it's the quality.
 
Top