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.
We aren't and haven't been the most powerful nation in the world because of our superior workers for a couple decades now. We're the most powerful nation in the world because of our military and our weapons systems.
Can't argue with that. I'll add finance to your list.
All of these unemployment/re-employment/blah blah "solutions" assume that legislation/regulation/bureaucracy can dictate the behavior of employer and prospective employee, such that both will voluntarily choose to make the association with one another in a mutually beneficial way.
Government cannot build a functioning website with a billion dollars and 4 years of time, but they are supposed to write legislation to create programs and bureaucracies that will somehow know ahead of time what skills, knowledge and experience will be beneficial to employers in different industries and markets, and will also attract the unemployed to seek out in the proper distributions (correct number of people per job seeking training for those jobs).
If that sounds like a fool's errand...that's because it is.
What we need is necessity to be the mother of invention. Make unemployment and lack of skills uncomfortable, and people will seek to improve their lot in life absent any program that is structured to hold their hand.
From Robert Reich's Facebook page:
"Behind the battle over extending unemployment benefits to the 1.3 million long-term unemployed (along with another 72,000 each week since the extended-benefit program ended December 28) who have exhausted them, is a basic reality that's never discussed: The unemployment system we've inherited isn't suited to today's economy. It's for an economy where the vast majority of unemployed are temporarily laid off during downturns, and likely to get their old jobs back after the worst of the downturn is over -- usually about six months.
That's where the term "laid off" comes from, and it's why ordinary benefits don't exceed 26 weeks. But people who lose their jobs in today's economy rarely get them back. They need a re-employment system rather than an unemployment system -- a system designed to help them get new jobs: featuring job-training with income support during the training, job-search assistance, job counseling, and wage insurance (so if the new job pays less, they'll get 3/4 of the difference for the first year). Unless or until we move from an unemployment to a re-employment system, we'll be stuck again and again in battles over extending benefits."
A re-employment system rather than an unemployment system to give people the new skills they need to succeed and be self-supporting in this changing job market sounds like an idea whose time has come. It would also help the U.S. create a more highly skilled workforce that will be better able to compete globally, an area where we are rapidly falling behind in the world. The alternative, it seems, is Reich's prediction of being stuck again and again in battles of extending unemployment benefits without doing anything to work on the underlying problem.
Welcome to the era of Obama where most people are unemployed, and then give up, leave the workforce.
Job training is fine, but what kind of job training are we talking about? Do we want to create a new bureaucracy, where bureaucrats are deciding what skills the ever-changing free market is demanding? Do we want bureaucrats to design a training syllabus and we crank out thousands of people trained with the same set of skills, even though the market has changed and doesn't want any more of those skills, but the slow to respond government keeps pumping people out any way?
"Behind the battle over extending unemployment benefits to the 1.3 million long-term unemployed (along with another 72,000 each week since the extended-benefit program ended December 28) who have exhausted them, is a basic reality that's never discussed: The unemployment system we've inherited isn't suited to today's economy. It's for an economy where the vast majority of unemployed are temporarily laid off during downturns, and likely to get their old jobs back after the worst of the downturn is over -- usually about six months.
That's where the term "laid off" comes from, and it's why ordinary benefits don't exceed 26 weeks. But people who lose their jobs in today's economy rarely get them back. They need a re-employment system rather than an unemployment system -- a system designed to help them get new jobs: featuring job-training with income support during the training, job-search assistance, job counseling, and wage insurance (so if the new job pays less, they'll get 3/4 of the difference for the first year). Unless or until we move from an unemployment to a re-employment system, we'll be stuck again and again in battles over extending benefits."
A re-employment system rather than an unemployment system to give people the new skills they need to succeed and be self-supporting in this changing job market sounds like an idea whose time has come. It would also help the U.S. create a more highly skilled workforce that will be better able to compete globally, an area where we are rapidly falling behind in the world. The alternative, it seems, is Reich's prediction of being stuck again and again in battles of extending unemployment benefits without doing anything to work on the underlying problem.
Robert Reich has also posted "Why Getting Tough on China Won't Solve Our Problems." Our being the USA. He also supports NAFTA and approves of what Clinton did in his trade agreements.
From Robert Reich's Facebook page:
"Behind the battle over extending unemployment benefits to the 1.3 million long-term unemployed (along with another 72,000 each week since the extended-benefit program ended December 28) who have exhausted them, is a basic reality that's never discussed: The unemployment system we've inherited isn't suited to today's economy. It's for an economy where the vast majority of unemployed are temporarily laid off during downturns, and likely to get their old jobs back after the worst of the downturn is over -- usually about six months.
That's where the term "laid off" comes from, and it's why ordinary benefits don't exceed 26 weeks. But people who lose their jobs in today's economy rarely get them back. They need a re-employment system rather than an unemployment system -- a system designed to help them get new jobs: featuring job-training with income support during the training, job-search assistance, job counseling, and wage insurance (so if the new job pays less, they'll get 3/4 of the difference for the first year). Unless or until we move from an unemployment to a re-employment system, we'll be stuck again and again in battles over extending benefits."
A re-employment system rather than an unemployment system to give people the new skills they need to succeed and be self-supporting in this changing job market sounds like an idea whose time has come. It would also help the U.S. create a more highly skilled workforce that will be better able to compete globally, an area where we are rapidly falling behind in the world. The alternative, it seems, is Reich's prediction of being stuck again and again in battles of extending unemployment benefits without doing anything to work on the underlying problem.
Government has NEVER "trained people to go back to work". Ever.
It tries. It spends massive amounts of money and it is all wasted.
Reich just wants to put a new name on old stupidity as a PR move to mollify the masses for a while.
He's wrong, the root of the problem is that the number of people who have no interest in any kind of employment is steadily rising.
Regarding people not wanting to work, this is a savage lie, most people DO or at least DID have an interest in working. However, when they apply for hundreds of jobs and get nothing back, you begin to wonder why they give up.
Most people see the massive exploitation that is going on and are just deciding to opt out. Why shouldn't they, they are tired of being ground into the dirt by robber barrons who will take their youth, energy, creativity and toss them to the trash in a second.
I'm sorry to say, it is the current crony capitalist system that promises no future for many people today or systematically locks them out that is creating the massive disinterest in work.
It will only continue to get worse and worse as people begin to believe there is no future for them other than to become obsolete (automation), offshored (cheap exploited labor), or out the door (downsized).
The current system is headed for inevitable collapse unless there are some major changes which won't be likely to happen.
Sounds like a work force name change. I see no reason job traing can't be in form of loan for two year training much like college.Ski in the game is need or many will just take money and hangout.
You are another one that is clueless and just runs with whatever you are told. Almost ALL, if not all, states have free training for the unemployed. So what's the cause? Why didn't you, the OP or the boob with FB page not already know this? What is the unemployed's excuse for not taking advantage of these programs that are already out there?
There are , I think, 47 FEDERAL JOB TRAINING programs TODAY.
Are they effective?
Have they EVER been effective?
I have never liked Reich's philosophy so the fact that he WAS a Sect. of Labor means nothing to me so does he propose shutting dowmn all these non-effective programs or does he want to start a 48th?
"Due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), both the number of--and funding for--federal employment and training programs have increased since our 2003 report, but little is known about the effectiveness of most programs"
And this is from the Government Accounting Office which ADMITS that it DOES NOT know how effective they are and THAT is their reason for existence.
This is typical of the federal gov't. they always have good intentions yet, usually FAIL to monitor, oversee or make sure the programs are effective and aren't just another waste of money.
What makes ANYONE think this new 48th program won't end up just like the first 47?
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.
