Alceste
Vagabond
From what I understand, the US is in really bad shape right now as far as employment is concerned. Why not move to Canada?
-
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
- Thread starter justbehappy
- Start date
From what I understand, the US is in really bad shape right now as far as employment is concerned. Why not move to Canada?
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
From what I understand, the US is in really bad shape right now as far as employment is concerned. Why not move to Canada?
Too cold during the winter. But other than that, I hear that Canada is an awesome place to live. :yes:
Alceste
Vagabond
Fair point. Perfect in the summer though, if you don't mind mosquitoes.
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
From what I understand, the US is in really bad shape right now as far as employment is concerned. Why not move to Canada?
I lived in Erie for 3 years. I loathed the dreary weather up there. I had seasonal depression and cabin fever.
I'll stay in the South.
It seems to me we should almost have some sort of job (or school/training) requirement to receive unemployment. :areyoucra
Now hear me out: There never seems to be a lack of minimum wage jobs. The problem is that minimum wage is not a livable wage for the majority of people (particularly with families), and it is also likely a huge paycut from whatever adults established in a career had been making before they lost their job. So, it makes more sense to stay on unemployment, receiving more money than they would if they took the minimum wage job.
Why not simply make some sort of job a requirement to receive unemployment, with unemployment paying the difference between what you used to make and what you are now making at McDonald's? This would get people off their *****, help them keep their sense of self-respect, and save money for the government. (And likely grow small businesses in the process by expanding the minimum-wage workforce, and perhaps even limiting the available jobs for illegal immigrants.)
Another route could be the stipulation that you must be enrolled in some sort of training or schooling in order to make yourself more marketable in a changing workforce, with unemployment paying part or all of the enrollment fees.
Now hear me out: There never seems to be a lack of minimum wage jobs. The problem is that minimum wage is not a livable wage for the majority of people (particularly with families), and it is also likely a huge paycut from whatever adults established in a career had been making before they lost their job. So, it makes more sense to stay on unemployment, receiving more money than they would if they took the minimum wage job.
Why not simply make some sort of job a requirement to receive unemployment, with unemployment paying the difference between what you used to make and what you are now making at McDonald's? This would get people off their *****, help them keep their sense of self-respect, and save money for the government. (And likely grow small businesses in the process by expanding the minimum-wage workforce, and perhaps even limiting the available jobs for illegal immigrants.)
Another route could be the stipulation that you must be enrolled in some sort of training or schooling in order to make yourself more marketable in a changing workforce, with unemployment paying part or all of the enrollment fees.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
I'm sorry, are you saying that being forced by the government to work at McDonalds for minimum wage = keeping your self respect?
Anyway, the UK proposed a forced labour model and I criticized it on my blog. In a nutshell, it does not solve the problem of unemployment, it simply shifts the demographics of unemployment. When ex-electricians are forced by the government to take the low-skill jobs formerly done (voluntarily and sometimes enthusiastically) by people just entering the work-force (the young and immigrants), then all you've accomplished is destroying the dignity of skilled workers while making unskilled immigrants and teenagers welfare-dependant.
This makes sense. Unemployment is just too easy. I've had more than one potential employee decline an offer,
saying that their unemployment hadn't run out yet, so they'd rather not work yet. It shouldn't be a paid vacation.
It could be at a nice local diner if you prefer. The government is not picky.
Personally, it would be a greater blow to my self-esteem to not work, than to work at a less-than-prestigious locale. I would think that a job, doing hard-work, would be more empowering than the lack there of.
Besides, retention of self-respect is not the main point. It might be a nice side-effect for some, and it might not for others. The object here is unemployment and jobs, not building self-esteem.
1) It would not be intended to be a permanent shift, but temporary, as unemployment benefits are intended to be temporary. Sometimes in life you gotta clean the toilet, and if the government is throwing extra money your way for doing it, then so much the better.Alceste said:
2) The original subject of this OP was the fact that there is a surplus of minimum wage jobs, which means the teens are not filling up all the vacancies. Plus, there's all those "undesirable" jobs that are being filled by illegal immigrants.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Here in Texas, my husband works in the oil field. The pay - starting pay - for field operators is somewhere between $50,000 - $60,000 a year (and the cost of living is very low here). The job does not require any college. All it requires to start is a commercial drivers license. Companies prefer job experience but the market is booming so much that they will take people with little or no experience as long as they have their CDL (which costs about $2500 to get - sure beats the cost of college!).
You know what the problem is? It's not number of applicants. It's not even number of people with CDLs - though of course that does limit the pool (and the pool SHOULD be limited - these are tough, dangerous jobs).
The problem is that people don't want to work outside in all types of weather. They don't want to get up at 3 am and get out in the mud all day. They can't see the forest for the trees - that if they put in their time in the field while they are young and healthy and energetic, they can move up and be making OVER $100,000 a year within 8 years or so.
"It's too hard!" "The hours are too long!" "It's too hot outside!" "I don't want to spend one or two nights a week away from home!" "I don't want to get up at 3 am a couple of times a week!"
That's fine - but don't say there aren't jobs around here. You're just not willing to do it - even if the pay is double or triple what you could make elsewhere.
My husband has worked from the ground up in the oilfield and he has only an associate's degree. He did his time in the mud and heat and noise and gained the knowledge and experience - while always providing well for his family. He makes damn good money, and he sits in an air conditioned portable office on a job location most days and is completely OFF two weeks out of every month. He's the equivalent to a project manager (he's called a "company man," and is an independent contractor). You'd think that younger workers could look at that schedule and say to themselves - "I could work toward that."
They want the job - they just don't want to do the time.
We had a local plant close due to unrealistic expectations from the union there. 300 jobs were lost. These guys were making $26 an hour and lots of overtime. My husband was an ops mgr at the time and had a booth at a job fair where a bunch of these guys showed up. They were very interested in these high paying jobs - till they heard the job description. They weren't really used to working very hard for their paychecks. They were basically willing to lose their homes rather than work outside.
You know what the problem is? It's not number of applicants. It's not even number of people with CDLs - though of course that does limit the pool (and the pool SHOULD be limited - these are tough, dangerous jobs).
The problem is that people don't want to work outside in all types of weather. They don't want to get up at 3 am and get out in the mud all day. They can't see the forest for the trees - that if they put in their time in the field while they are young and healthy and energetic, they can move up and be making OVER $100,000 a year within 8 years or so.
"It's too hard!" "The hours are too long!" "It's too hot outside!" "I don't want to spend one or two nights a week away from home!" "I don't want to get up at 3 am a couple of times a week!"
That's fine - but don't say there aren't jobs around here. You're just not willing to do it - even if the pay is double or triple what you could make elsewhere.
My husband has worked from the ground up in the oilfield and he has only an associate's degree. He did his time in the mud and heat and noise and gained the knowledge and experience - while always providing well for his family. He makes damn good money, and he sits in an air conditioned portable office on a job location most days and is completely OFF two weeks out of every month. He's the equivalent to a project manager (he's called a "company man," and is an independent contractor). You'd think that younger workers could look at that schedule and say to themselves - "I could work toward that."
They want the job - they just don't want to do the time.
We had a local plant close due to unrealistic expectations from the union there. 300 jobs were lost. These guys were making $26 an hour and lots of overtime. My husband was an ops mgr at the time and had a booth at a job fair where a bunch of these guys showed up. They were very interested in these high paying jobs - till they heard the job description. They weren't really used to working very hard for their paychecks. They were basically willing to lose their homes rather than work outside.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Um...
Are you in the USA?
Cause it seems to me that unemployment is based on how much you made when you were working...
Yeah. What part do you disagree with or did not understand?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
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...
Definitely a lot of details would need to be considered. That tends to be the problem with these ideas to fix aspects of government: they sound so good and intuitive until you try to actually cement them down into some workable, realistic program.
That said, I really, really would like there to be some greater incentive to work/train/school while on unemployment.
As for overqualification, I didn't think about that: it certainly does happen in some fields, though perhaps not in the least skilled of them. I worked the passed two years in a chemistry lab right out of college. I have recently moved, and am now working as a busser at a restaurant in a cute little resort town. It didn't really come up that I might be "overqualified" to work in such a job; she was more interested that I was a hard worker. But then again, I'm still relatively young. Likely easier for people of my age bracket to get jobs like these.
Alceste
Vagabond
Can you give me a link on the "surplus of jobs" you're talking about?
Anyway I don't think the government should get into the forced labour placement agency business on behalf of private, for-profit companies then pay the wages too. If the gov't can afford that, they might as well hire people directly for infrastructure projects. A partnership between gov't and private industry is too susceptible to waste and corruption. As the state of the US in general amply demonstrates. Besides that, it would distort the labour market and depress wages for people not on assistance.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I think our government hired some people to make signs to put in front of government projects. The signs cost $10,000 a piece. They said, "This project was funded by the Obama Administration Recovery Program."
No telling what these people were paid to make these signs - but I'm sure it was far above minimum wage.
Our tax dollars at work!
No telling what these people were paid to make these signs - but I'm sure it was far above minimum wage.
Our tax dollars at work!
I would link the OP, but that seems a bit ridiculous. Did you forget which thread you were in?
Besides, I have heard numerous times on this forum in defense of legal and illegal immigration that if we did not allow these people to come here, then a large number of unskilled, low-paying jobs would go unfilled. Why not fill them with unemployed Americans?
I don't know where you are getting the idea of "forced labor placement". A person would be responsible for finding their own job. It need not be a minimum wage job. They merely seem abundant and relatively easy to land. But a lot of middle tier jobs are going unfilled as well, since people don't want to take a pay cut if they don't absolutely have to.Alceste said:
"Forced labor" is a rather melodramatic turn of phrase as well. Some sort of work, or enrollment in training or classes, would simply be a criteria of eligibility for a government aid program. Nobody's forced into a particular form of labor, and nobody's forced to sign up. Heck; you could even choose not to work and go get some certification instead. How is that different than the plethora of other requirements government demands before it will give you aid?
Right now, unemployment pays you around what you were making at your previous job. So let's have a simple example. Say you were making $15 /hr when your company laid you off. You then go find a job at McDonald's for $7.50/hr. Under my idea, the government would also pay you unemployment of $7.50/hr of work so that you are still making $15 an hour. It saves the government half the money they would already have been spending.Alceste said:
The labor market is already distorted and disfunctional. It's not like this plan would break a happy system. Besides, if there are jobs out there that are not being filled, and people out there without a job, then it makes sense to try to get them to find each other. You aren't displacing someone if someone wasn't there in the first place.
As for wage depression, that is a valid concern. I don't know how big an effect it would be.
Alceste
Vagabond
What I say was employers complaining because they have failed to attract applicants. The wages they were offering were below the cost of living. IMO, the solution is for those employers to offer a living wage. Any government intervention making up the difference between the minimum wage and a reasonable living wage would create a distortion in the labour market.
IMO, these businesses need to work harder to attract applicants. It's the government`s place to require that the unemployed take unacceptable positions to be eligible for benefits.
On the other hand, I would support a training program, provided the individual in need of assistance chooses the program rather than having it assigned to them and told they have to attend or lose their benefits. Education doesn`t take unless the student has a genuine desire to learn.
Training programs are often an expensive joke. Government likes fashionable programs, no matter what their value. I heard an
interview on the radio recently with a gal who just earned a degree, but was having no luck finding employment. She talked about
all the innovative steps she'd taken & how hard she looked. Then it came out that her degree was in "international diversity studies".
What on Earth would that qualify anyone to actually do of value? Sounds like 4 years of study down the drain.
Alceste
Vagabond
Well then, if training is useless, it would be best to just leave the labour market to sort itself out without government intervention, wouldn't you say? Unemployment insurance runs out eventually.
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.