RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed?

RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 10:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Here's a good plan I think. You select a town that is dying or dead. How about Detroit, or East Saint Louis. You select an industry that requires low start up costs, and low barrier to entry. Oh, I don't know, how about Website Development/Database Management/Open Source Programming Languages/etc..... The US government, State Government, Say simply any company with revenue less than 10 million / year that moves there, pays 1/2 the tax rate they would otherwise. You go to Google, and say hey put some of that Google Fiber in here. You open up a hosting center in the town, that will allow anyone to colocate a server actual cost. Then you open a 24 hour a day computer learning center right in the middle of hell's kitchen, with generous sponsorship from HP/google/microsoft/etc... security will not be an issue. Then you bring in professors, to teach all the way from introductory computer science classes all the way through the most advanced topics, you record these you put them on the web. Now, anyone can get a Masters Degree from home/ or the equivalent education if not the diploma, but that doesn't matter if you are working for yourself, and it doesn't matter much anyway, as in computer science, it's more about what have you done, than a paper anyway. There you go, economic opportunity, brought to the masses, at low cost. Do you know how many computer science/tech related type jobs have been outsourced to India? I think it's time for me to start one of my famous "outsourcing threads". Check this out: 650,000 Lost IT jobs Blah, that means there 650,000 people that should be starting there own companies together, so they can't be outsourced. The problem with this attitude of working for megacorps is they don't give a shit about you, nor should they really. People really need to work for themselves if possible, as that is the only means of any form of job security. There is no reason for 650,000 people that know computers inside and out to be unemployed at this time in history, it's absurd.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 10:40:03 PM)
I was always fond of the idea of making people self sufficient while on government assistance. Depending on the disability, people can still work. Sign up for benefits also means you sign up for an education of some kind. they have to take full time classes, day care would be provided, rent, insurance, foodstamps and insurance. To keep your assistance, you have to have passing grades. Yeah, I know, whats that going to do for them? Its a limited run. Instead of it becoming a way of life... or continuing as one... you have to get off eventually. Once you graduate, its off to the work force. Depending on the field... 3 - 6 months to find a job and get settled in... then you are cut off completely. Its about time we started making people become more educated. Sure, some will fall through the cracks, but a far greater number would be better trained to enter the work force as something besides a burger flipper. It would also increase the demand for teachers and day care centers. Its not a fix all... but it would go a long way to help.

Marini -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 10:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I was always fond of the idea of making people self sufficient while on government assistance. Depending on the disability, people can still work. Sign up for benefits also means you sign up for an education of some kind. they have to take full time classes, day care would be provided, rent, insurance, foodstamps and insurance. To keep your assistance, you have to have passing grades. Yeah, I know, whats that going to do for them? Its a limited run. Instead of it becoming a way of life... or continuing as one... you have to get off eventually. Once you graduate, its off to the work force. Depending on the field... 3 - 6 months to find a job and get settled in... then you are cut off completely. Its about time we started making people become more educated. Sure, some will fall through the cracks, but a far greater number would be better trained to enter the work force as something besides a burger flipper. It would also increase the demand for teachers and day care centers. Its not a fix all... but it would go a long way to help. This could be a viable plan "to a degree", I am of the mindset that because of the loss of manufacturing jobs, unbridled outsourcing, millions of people in this country illegally, the state of the economy, and a few other factors, that there are NOT enough jobs "available" for those that want to work. What if they DON'T find "a job" in their "field" in 3-6 months? What if many of the howdy doody jobs are just not there? Can we provide assistance for them, if it takes years for them to find "a job" in "their field"? Thus, the premise of my OP. If the jobs are simply not there, is "employment" a right? I want to know what should be done {if anything at all} to assist those that can not find a job. Many people with all sorts of training/and college degrees are not finding jobs, tazzy. Should they just keep going through training program after training program for years and years until one day they manage to land a job? Many people have stated in this post, that they do NOT think these people should get any form of government assistance, unless they are disabled or elderly. Many people have clearly stated, they do not WANT to see any more government programs created. I appreciate all the responses!!!!

juliaoceania -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 10:50:05 PM)
quote: I was always fond of the idea of making people self sufficient while on government assistance. Depending on the disability, people can still work. Sign up for benefits also means you sign up for an education of some kind. they have to take full time classes, day care would be provided, rent, insurance, foodstamps and insurance. To keep your assistance, you have to have passing grades. After studying welfare reform, the needs of recipients, the mindset that develops when people get into the system, I have some definite ideas about it... For example, in order to get aid you have to be completely broke. You cannot have any sort of nest egg. You cannot even have any jewelry. You have to claim all of your computer stuff, tv, etc. You are not allowed to have heirlooms, either. What they teach you is that if you put anything away, save any little thing for the future you will be denied any help... no foodstamps, no medical aid. This launches people into a certain poverty mindset. They do not learn how to put aside money so that they are not one paycheck away from homelessness. It encourages people to think in terms of life on the brink. It does not encourage self sufficiency. It makes people think that if they put aside to make sure they have something in case of an emergency, they will lose the safety net of any government assistance. I think people should be allowed to save enough money to where they could live off of it for a couple of months as long as they are willing to work and show a savings history. I do not think they should be punished for this by having their medical help cut, or their food stamps, and perhaps they should have some cash aid while establishing a savings account. I think this would teach people life skills of bill paying, saving, and how to manage their finances so they can pay for a car repair, or emergency household expenses. Teach people not to be one paycheck away from destitute! Reward sound economic decisions! Many people in the system have no training on how to do this

Marini -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 11:05:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW I don't think employement is a right. I do think clothing, food, and shelter are rights. So, while the government doesn't have to create jobs for everyone; it would be interesting to see, what would happen, if /the government created Nike, Polo RL, etc manufacturing here, and subsidized the health care. Kill 2 birds with one stone; people who are living on the streets or welfare would get a job, and the government wouldn't have to foot the bill for feeding, clothing, and sheltering them. M M, are you saying the government should "create" corporations like Nike, Polo, RL and than hire the people that are on government assistance, welfare, homeless, etc. to work in them? If indeed that is what you are saying, than you are saying that the government should create jobs. Maybe I am missing something here. I am enjoying all the responses, very, very interesting.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 11:21:22 PM)
quote: Many people have stated in this post, that they do NOT think these people should get any form of government assistance, unless they are disabled or elderly. Many people have clearly stated, they do not WANT to see any more government programs created. This isnt a new program, Marini. It already exists and is as broken as the rest because we have allowed people to become dependent upon it. We have many well educated people out of work... some are tops in their fields... why cant they teach? We have many young and old women out of work... why cant some of them work in day care centers while these people are getting an education? My point is,.. what is cheaper... paying someone to stay on welfare for 7 years or paying someone to get off welfare in 2 - 4?

juliaoceania -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 11:37:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Many people have stated in this post, that they do NOT think these people should get any form of government assistance, unless they are disabled or elderly. Many people have clearly stated, they do not WANT to see any more government programs created. This isnt a new program, Marini. It already exists and is as broken as the rest because we have allowed people to become dependent upon it. We have many well educated people out of work... some are tops in their fields... why cant they teach? We have many young and old women out of work... why cant some of them work in day care centers while these people are getting an education? My point is,.. what is cheaper... paying someone to stay on welfare for 7 years or paying someone to get off welfare in 2 - 4? The above only holds true if there is work to be had. You cannot teach if you cannot find a teaching job...teachers are being cut all around the country

tazzygirl -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 11:42:47 PM)
How many people are on welfare that would require teachers?

juliaoceania -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 11:50:20 PM)
So we are talking Welfare University? It does not sound like a resume builder to me

WyldHrt -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 11:53:05 PM)
quote: There is a vast amount of decent Federally owned land out there... why not offer unemployed volunteers an opportunity to earn "40 acres and a mule" by banding together with other skilled and willing-to-work people to create entirely new communities for people to live?[/snip] I don't think it will work, Treasure. Federal land is controlled by the BLM which, at least when I was in college, was known less than affectionately as the "Bureau of Livestock and Mining". Much if not most of the decent land is leased, and there's about no way the gov't is going to give up that revenue.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/18/2011 11:54:25 PM)
LOL.. not a welfare university! Pell grants abound... scholarships can be obtained. Most dont try because they get complacent. Actually pushing them into a college.. be it a 4 year or a community... might just make a huge difference in both self esteem of those on the dole and those who can help. Its not a cure all, by no means... but it is a place to start with all the programs already in existence.

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 12:01:58 AM)
This is supposed to be a free market economy, but that only focus on where to make the cheapest product, and attain the highest profit. The government, while not interested in becoming a corporation, is one in effect, convering bottom lines for the poor, unemployed. If the government did establish a few companies, with unemployed ceos, with the goal of profiting, but also that of hiring unemployed people, (especially the one's on it's payroll, without work), it would itself be competition for the companies that are importing. Simplistic, I know. But unless we figure out how to bring back employment, construct our own roads/bridges, arms, clothing, I don't see the economy turning around. M

juliaoceania -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 12:11:48 AM)
That sounds a bit like Nazi Germany.. the government running corporations

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 12:42:46 AM)
I was suggesting one small experiment, to compete with the ourtsourced companies, where healthcare is subsidized here... However, if this experiment sounds like NAZI Germany, than by all means, let us allow pure capitalism to lead unabated, and let the chips (unemployed poor/disinfranchised people), fall where they may. M

tweakabelle -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 12:59:27 AM)
It's interesting that when welfare is discussed, the theme is not helping people but avoiding welfare dependency. Here, there is a skilled labour shortage. At the same time, unemployment is running at just under 5%. Economists actually classify 5% or less unemployment as "full employment" here. Their reason is that if less than 5% are unemployed, pressures on wage levels in the labour market create inflationary pressures. To put that another way, unless we have at least 5% unemployment, workers will have too much power over capital and demand more than their allocated share of the pie - and we can't have that under any circumstances can we? So the reality is that there are always going to be unemployed people, that the unemployed will be mainly short-term unemployed (people between jobs, recently redundant, newly graduated etc. who more or less take care of themselves and get off assistance within 3-6 months) and there will always be a smaller residual core of long-term unemployed. The real question to be considered is what to do with the long term unemployed. How can we deal with that issue without upsetting the apple cart for everyone? One solution adopted here is to recognise certain types of unpaid voluntary work in the not-for-profit sector. An unemployed person can choose to volunteer with a charity for say 2 days or 20 hours per week. Or participate in a community improvement scheme. Or pass their skills onto disadvantaged teenagers. Or assist the elderly. Whatever ... you get the picture I'm sure. This is accepted as a community benefit and enables them to pass the employment seeking test necessary to qualify for ongoing unemployment insurance. I'm not suggesting this is an ideal scheme but it does have the virtue of addressing the concerns of taxpayers who wish to see their tax $ spent constructively, recognising economic realities and keeping some structure in the lives of the long term unemployed, people who quite often are unemployable (lacking skills, criminal backgrounds etc). It is supplemented by training schemes available for those who wish to improve their lives. The nice thing about it is that it helps ensure assistance gets to those who need it and who might otherwise miss out on it - the elderly, the sick, the disadvantaged. It uses a far more flexible approach to the notion of community benefit and the obligations of those on long term welfare. Perhaps this kind of flexibility is what's needed rather than draconian measures like time limits and even more penalising of those who are already disadvantaged. It may be that some variation of this principle could be useful to you guys in the US and elsewhere.

barelynangel -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 5:00:45 AM)
Juliaoceana, i think you don't have correct information. This recent article states clearly that at least food stamps are based on gross income not on anything else. Its why this 2 million dollar lottery winner can still collect food stamps. http://www.freep.com/article/20110519/NEWS06/105190580/1001/rss01 FR -- i also believe that talk of having people on welfare have to do some type of work for the assistance they receive has been discussed over the years but people think its fine to collect aid from the government, but its not fine to expect those people to work for that aid. They feel its demeaning to them, at least that's what i alway hear when this topic is brought up. I have no issue if people were required to put in community service hours every month they receive aid that will be at mininum -- minimum wage or a salary applicable to what the job would pay someone not on aid, in the form of aid, medical, and food stamps but will consist of community service and their skills put to work while they receive aid. That these jobs only be for people on aid because the concept is 1) the state doesn't have to physically budget for these jobs because they are already budgeted in the "aid" section. But this is said to be too humiliating and demeaning to require of people collecting aid because the idea is -- to single out people collecting aid by requiring them to work in the community is punishment. Hell, there are so many layoffs going on, I would say they could even be required to volunteer at a place that needs help. This is just the jist of what i heard over the years talked about. angel

EternalHoH -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 7:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PdxJ If corporations make a profit they what? That's right - they hire more employees, increase wages and open more plants/ warehouses, etc. Which does what? Yes, it lowers unemployment. Absolute bullshit. They take their money to the Wall Street casino, and plunk a wager down. Who in the hell would go through the hassle of hiring more workers to expand their business to grow their wealth even more when other shortcuts to wealth have been created in the past 10 years. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.

flcouple2009 -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 7:39:48 AM)
No, your running issues together. He was not awarded the food stamps AFTER winning the lottery. He is spending what he was awarded previously. In most places one needs to qualify every 6 months. Any increase in pay or bank account would play into the new qualifying. Bought a car? It now has to be reported on the forms. Different states have different rules but none generally review benefits within the time frame they are awarded for. That said many states give you a financial threshold which if you go over you have to report and the benefits are recalculated. There can be penalties for failing to report.

TreasureKY -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 7:42:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Imo, that would not happen, those people would need jobs and in some remote place, thousands of long term jobs would need to be created some how but that is not likely. There wouldnt be much of a future for kids that grow up there either, once they finished school they would move to a real city where they could get work or go to college so then the town eventually dies. So you have a brand new community where everyone is skilled (we know so because they had to apply and be accepted into the program), and everyone has demonstrated their willingness to work hard (they had to in order to stay in the program), and everyone has a vested interest in staying put and keeping their community alive (they all own land and homes there)... so you don't think that kind of employee base to draw from would attract any new businesses? quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Yeah, brilliant. Except most land like that is vacant for a reason. It's caliche, or clay, or all rock, and can't be farmed. It's not near any water. It's out in the middle of fucking nowhere. Not to mention the fact that even if such a project were viable, land that is held in trust for all of us will be given up to some developer who has political connections so he can make even more money. I'm not willing to trade my national birthright so some stupid cocksucker like Trump can come in and built another Levittown so he can buy another casino. Making the land into a livable community would be the payment required in order to receive your piece of it. People have been taming inhospitable land throughout history. Land wouldn't be given up to some developer... it would be given up, in small parcels, to the skilled people who would apply for the opportunity to live there and build a future for themselves off of government welfare. Isn't the land also the national birthright of those people, too? quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I thought her idea sounded a little bit like - gasp - communism..... On the contrary... in the end, the "State" would own none of it. quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt I don't think it will work, Treasure. Federal land is controlled by the BLM which, at least when I was in college, was known less than affectionately as the "Bureau of Livestock and Mining". Much if not most of the decent land is leased, and there's about no way the gov't is going to give up that revenue. Who does the government answer to?

juliaoceania -> RE: Is "employment" a right? What should be done to help the long term unemployed? (5/19/2011 7:46:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW I was suggesting one small experiment, to compete with the ourtsourced companies, where healthcare is subsidized here... However, if this experiment sounds like NAZI Germany, than by all means, let us allow pure capitalism to lead unabated, and let the chips (unemployed poor/disinfranchised people), fall where they may. M I think we need to enforce some of the monopoly laws that used to be in place. Create an environment where there can be fair competition, and stop trading with countries that do not have a good human rights record.... including those who have sweat shops, etc. We should prop up markets that do not drive down wages. We should invest in our own people. I do not think that the government being in bed with corps is the right answer. I think that government needs to keep a level playing field and forward the economic progress of its citizens, and I do not mean the "corporate citizen", which isn't a citizen at all

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875