Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The presence of the long-term unemployed might also have something to do with the staggering lack of jobs:
There are not enough jobs to go around. Based upon published statistics, if you use the U3 unemployment number - which is the LOWEST estimate and thus the most optimistic the systems used - we're looking at 2.6 people out of work per job opening. That is rather bad... and if you use the U6 number, the ratio balloons to 5.1 people who need a job per job opening, which is horrible.
So, while folks can debate how "much to blame" the unemployed are, the painful reality is that even if every person out of work was perfectly educated, skilled, and experienced in every way, millions of people would still be out of work. This situation is not improving, and yet Congress and the rest think we need more visa workers, fewer social safety nets, etc.
The presence of the long-term unemployed might also have something to do with the staggering lack of jobs:
There are not enough jobs to go around. Based upon published statistics, if you use the U3 unemployment number - which is the LOWEST estimate and thus the most optimistic the systems used - we're looking at 2.6 people out of work per job opening. That is rather bad... and if you use the U6 number, the ratio balloons to 5.1 people who need a job per job opening, which is horrible.
So, while folks can debate how "much to blame" the unemployed are, the painful reality is that even if every person out of work was perfectly educated, skilled, and experienced in every way, millions of people would still be out of work. This situation is not improving, and yet Congress and the rest think we need more visa workers, fewer social safety nets, etc.
There are more people looking for work than jobs available, but one's odds may be considerably better or worse than the ratios you indicate.
Someone may have worked for a poorly managed firm in an otherwise hot industry, the firm gone out of business, and the worker displaced. If this worker is flexible on location and employer, he has a far greater chance of becoming employed than a convicted felon who was recently laid off from a low skill job.
One can increase his or her own odds by becoming more flexible and this is worthy of note. While you're generally right, the picture per worker is not this black and white.
Or maybe the solution could be to raise the minimum wage so it actually gives people a chance to make it without government assistance...but nah, "socialism".
raising minimum wage would mean less jobs because employers can only spend so much on employee wages.. an employer can hire 2 people paying them $5 per hour, but if minimum wage is $10 per hour, than that employer can only hire 1. it will be even harder to find a job.
the solution is to abolish welfare AND the minimum wage, as the US had for almost 150 years before welfare came in. not only will that take ALL the strain off the current budget, but it will get the lazy off their ass and looking for jobs. without a minimum wage, they'll get paid less but jobs will be plentiful and they will be working and EARNING their living. Then as the debt gets smaller, less of the budget is paid as interest payment, taxes will get lower, economy will grow, their wages will increase and price of living will decrease accordingly.
Really? Will employers sign a guarantee that someone who pays for and trains in X field will be hired upon graduation?
Exactly! Training for anything POSSIBLY worthwhile today is expensive, even an associates degree. Credits are expensive. And Tech school is at least 10 grand anymore also. As someone else has said on here if you already have debt from a Bachelors Degree getting another loan is no given.
Plus what you said above and hence my point. A lot of people on here and elsewhere have the attitude that if you acquire what they consider one of these magical, "in demand", "marketable skills" of whatever they deem them to be at the moment than employment becomes as automatic as setting your alarm clock. And to those not living in Wonderland they're aware that's far from the case.
I know a woman who bartends who got her nursing degree and I even was at the little celebration at the bar she works at. She's still bartending and has yet to work a day as a nurse.
I'm sure her story could be multiplied by the thousands. She's married with a working husband so no biggie but she was not old when she got her degree. Around mid-thirties 34-35.
Point is getting re-trained for these "marketable" skills/degrees is no panacea. The employment problem is structural not motivational. And I include all these tech schools and colleges costing thousands of dollars to be "re-trained" from those least able to afford it as part of a structural problem. To ask those with bills who make little already to take out huge loans to get retrained is ridiculous without some sort of guarantee or bankruptcy protection.
...the solution is to abolish welfare AND the minimum wage, as the US had for almost 150 years before welfare came in...
When someone makes this argument I always wonder what kind of society they envision as a result. In the 150+ years before the welfare state and minimum wage my Appalachian underclass ancestors survived primarily by subsistence farming, hunting and stealing. They were rarely employed for wages, working conditions at paying jobs sucked so bad that they were viewed as something to be done strictly on a temporary basis when in dire need of cash. It's not something I can frame as a golden age I'd like to revisit.
When someone makes this argument I always wonder what kind of society they envision as a result. In the 150+ years before the welfare state and minimum wage my Appalachian underclass ancestors survived primarily by subsistence farming, hunting and stealing. They were rarely employed for wages, working conditions at paying jobs sucked so bad that they were viewed as something to be done strictly on a temporary basis when in dire need of cash. It's not something I can frame as a golden age I'd like to revisit.
Not only that but it's not the 1850's or early 1900's anymore, obviously. If you got rid of minimum wage and welfare today you would have civil unrest bordering on spilling over to outright revolution within a couple of weeks to a month or two at most. There would be National Guard and U.N. troops patrolling the streets.
I mean if it happened I would be interested to see what would happen to see if I'm right. I'm not adverse to the ideas as matter of principles but more on practicality. I know if the people who want pure "free markets" ever got their way I'd watch the chaos from my T.V. well having multiple firearms within arms reach incase it came to my door step.
Anyone interested in learning more about the working man's condition in U.S. history may be interested in this book:
raising minimum wage would mean less jobs because employers can only spend so much on employee wages.. an employer can hire 2 people paying them $5 per hour, but if minimum wage is $10 per hour, than that employer can only hire 1. it will be even harder to find a job.
the solution is to abolish welfare AND the minimum wage, as the US had for almost 150 years before welfare came in. not only will that take ALL the strain off the current budget, but it will get the lazy off their ass and looking for jobs. without a minimum wage, they'll get paid less but jobs will be plentiful and they will be working and EARNING their living. Then as the debt gets smaller, less of the budget is paid as interest payment, taxes will get lower, economy will grow, their wages will increase and price of living will decrease accordingly.
When someone makes this argument I always wonder what kind of society they envision as a result. In the 150+ years before the welfare state and minimum wage my Appalachian underclass ancestors survived primarily by subsistence farming, hunting and stealing. They were rarely employed for wages, working conditions at paying jobs sucked so bad that they were viewed as something to be done strictly on a temporary basis when in dire need of cash. It's not something I can frame as a golden age I'd like to revisit.
Exactly. People seem to think history happened in a total vacuum. There's a reason we have minimum wage and social welfare programs. We tried going without them in the past. It didn't work.
There are plenty more articles out there today on this study but the bottom line is by most predictions the LTU are likely not to benefit from the recovering economy.
What is happening is that while the unemployment rate keeps coming down, much of that is due to persons simply dropping out of looking for work. This my friends is not good.
The United States is entering a period with labour participation rates that haven't been seen historically in ages if ever. These often are men and women in their prime (forty to sixty years old), most with children and or family depending upon them as well.
There are plenty more articles out there today on this study but the bottom line is by most predictions the LTU are likely not to benefit from the recovering economy.
Why should they?
You created this mess...you got exactly what you wanted....and now you're whining like an ol' lady.
I guess it never occurred to you that the Long-Term Unemployed are less than mediocre.
That's what happens when you have stupid government polices.....like Student Loans.
The Laws of Economics are inviolable, and when you violate them, stuff like this happens. I hope you learn your lesson before you end up living in a cardboard box eating mud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
Exactly. People seem to think history happened in a total vacuum. There's a reason we have minimum wage and social welfare programs. We tried going without them in the past. It didn't work.
It did work, but thanks for misleading people just the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
Not only that but it's not the 1850's or early 1900's anymore, obviously. If you got rid of minimum wage and welfare today you would have civil unrest bordering on spilling over to outright revolution within a couple of weeks to a month or two at most.
What a treat!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scare Tactic
If you suppose that terrorizing your opponent is giving him a reason for believing that you are correct, then you are using a scare tactic and reasoning fallaciously.
In the 150+ years before the welfare state and minimum wage my Appalachian underclass ancestors survived primarily by subsistence farming, hunting and stealing.
Which was a life-style they chose voluntarily...you left out that part...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Evidence
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion
I know an old woman who swallowed a fly, why, oh, why, she swallowed a fly, I guess she'll die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
The presence of the long-term unemployed might also have something to do with the staggering lack of jobs
You can thank the Left-Wing for "the staggering lack of jobs."
You should have entered the 5th Level Economy in the mid-1990s. At this point, about 18%-20% of your GDP should come from Research & Development, but it doesn't, because the Left-Wing destroyed your education system. The jobs you lost in Manufacturing --- and those job losses were inevitable -- should have been replaced on almost a one-for-one basis with high-paying R&D jobs.
It's 20 years from the word "go" to position the US to enter the 5th Level Economy.
That means if tomorrow Obama abolishes the Department of Dumbing-Down and rescinds or repeals all "federal" laws and regulations interfering with Education, it would be 2034 before you can even think about entering the 5th Level Economy.
But why would you want to do that? You should continue doing what you're doing, because it's obviously working so well for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
Or maybe the solution could be to raise the minimum wage so it actually gives people a chance to make it without government assistance...but nah, "socialism".
Raising the minimum wage will create more unemployment, and the will not get people off of "government assistance" since government would only lower the bar to include everyone making the new minimum wage.
Thanks for the exercise in tautology.
The best solution is for you to understand that your Standard of Living is going to decline, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
Deal with it....
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
