Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I actually favor training, especially favor it for the disadvantaged who lack basic work skills & familiarity with workplace conduct.
So, basically, nearly everyone under the age of 30.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I actually favor training, especially favor it for the disadvantaged who lack basic work skills & familiarity with workplace conduct.
So, basically, nearly everyone under the age of 30.
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.
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.
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.
I don't blame you for not wanting to support that view.
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.
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.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...
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
To a conservative, it's your fault until you make about 10 million a year. After that, it's everyone else's fault.
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 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).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).