amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Sure, I would! Casinos and lotteries too, but these are mostly private, voluntary transfer schemes.
Most unemployed now no longer on dole in US
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Are you suggesting increased income is not a significant motivator? I think you're suggesting increased income is not a significant motivator.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
You'd be surprised at how many people would just not work if the welfare check was enough for them to skim by.
The big question for a job seeker on unemployment is: will it pay more then unemployment? if not what's the point?
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
It might last longer than 2 years?
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
If the variation between what they receive on welfare versus what they would make working full-time wasn't very great, would increased income still be that same powerful motivator? Think about how many people retire at younger ages: why do they do it when they can make more money continuing to work? I would guess that they want more leisure time, so their time becomes more valuable than the extra money they would receive; I think the same could be applied to some people on welfare.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
To be honest, where are your statistics? You can get 5/10 points bonus when looking for a government job, but that doesn't mean instant employment for a veteran. And last I checked, the US military is projected to downsize force and mission, so going back into the service might not be an option.
Except during those 8 months I was still in the Army, so I was very limited as to what jobs I could look for. I was even offered some jobs, but because I couldn't get to the interviews (due to training, and the fact that I couldn't get the leave time to go to some of the out of state interviews) I was passed up. Finding work was not a problem; finding work while still on active duty though is a different story altogether.
@GoodGame: You are limiting your focus to just getting a job. Veterans do not need to be on unemployment because if they can't get a job they can always use their GI Bill to go to school. This is especially true for anyone who joined the military after 9/11, because the Post-9/11 GI Bill even pays a housing allowence that more than covers any living expensesyou may have so that you can focus on schoolwork and not have to work.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Most often they have no real choice and they know that.
(i) The employer is laying off in general or wants to lay you off in particular and,
if nearing retirement age, an early retirements package may be better than
going on strike, going to court or taking any other form of severance pay.
(ii) Specific diagnosed medical problems, cancer, heart disease, injuries.
(iii) Encroaching medical problems e.g. high blood pressure and stress
that will likely result in (ii) if trying too maintain pace staying at work.
(iv) An inability from general health and aging to maintain the pace.
(v) An inability to increase the pace (employer plans to lay off or retire
40% and expect remaining 60% to work twice as hard; cut prices by
20% and double executive remuneration for the fat cats.)
(vi) Not being laid off involves relocating to another town or state
and your partner cannot similarly relocate their job.
(vii) a combination of the above.
So they put on a positive spin by saying they elected to retire early.
Yes they do. I got off of the phone with a Pennsylvania Job Board official at work on Friday, who posted two of my jobs that pay less than that.
The state employment services are not very sophisticated though. Non-profit agencies and private staffing firms do a better job.
So raise wages. That would fix the problem. Don't blame the extremely austere safety net.
They will consider this option towards the end of their 99 weeks. This will create an unemployed person who will "job search" (which might consist of sending out some craiglist ads to secure interviews), but won't put forth the full effort until the benefits start to run out.
Agreed. I went to one of their little orientation services and was less than impressed. However, it is sufficient for those who can't use a staffing firm for whatever reason.
Anyway, the point is that whether it be a non-profit agency, staffing firm, or state programs, there is more than enough help out there for the unemployed. Businesses are hiring, a lot of people just don't know where to look because businesses are starting to move away from traditional forms of job posting, but people aren't adapting to that.
Yeah, but I don't see why you wouldn't be able to. Staffing firms are usually free for the applicant. They make their money by charging the business.
There are plenty of resources out there, and you're right, many of the unemployed do not take proper advantage of them. However, (and this is especially true for lower skill/education workers would would typically be absorbed by retail and general labor)...falling wages do sometimes make it more efficient to stay on welfare. I turn down applicants sometimes because they would make more money staying on public assistance than they would working the hours I could give them.
True, but a lot of state program also offer reeducation and vocational training to allow those lower skilled/educated people to get the skills they need to find a job that's better than staying on state assistance.
Right, but none of those programs have the capacity to serve even a small percentage of the population that needs them. Job training is expensive, and can't really been done in massive groups at once. I have partnerships with dozens of these groups in Chicago and Northern Indiana, and even ones directly paid by state tax dollars can only serve a few dozen people at a time. The organizations that serve very large groups don't offer any credentialing, so the training is kinda worthless.
Good point, but there are also many who turn down these services when they are offered. My father-in-law is an example. The state offered to pay for any job training or certification he wanted, but he has so far chosen to just stay on unemployment.
Also every single person that was present at the orientation I went to declined all additional help from the state and elected to just keep getting their monetary benefits.
With hundreds of thousands of vets having seen direct combat (or treating wounds from combat), it's not unreasonable to expect some of those unable to find work and unable to go to school are suffering from things like PTSD.
I'd also note that many of those who enlist do so for lack of other options. When you don't see yourself able to goto university, or don't see the point, getting a free ticket isn't going to encourage you.
Frankly if I could do 19 over again I'd join the Air Force. I'd have to find a way for my wife to move to the US instead of me here. But the benefits are just outstanding.
I wonder how much of that is fear of change or plain old discouragement.
The ones that were wounded get disability pay, not unemployment compensation and I don't have a problem with them.
The ones I'm talking about are the ones who leave the military and just collect unemployment without even trying to look for a job, then they complain that their country abandoned them and veterans shouldn't be treated that way.
And the GI Bill doesn't just cover university education; it covers vocational training and online degrees now too. Pretty much any kind of education you want, the GI Bill will cover. Hell, I think they even mentioned that it covers certification courses as well. There is absolutely no excuse for a veteran to not use their GI Bill. I'm using mine and I'll be going to a pretty good school. The VA also has small business loans now for any veteran who decides running their own business is what they want to pursue.
Basically, so many programs exist for veterans, that there really is no excuse for a veteran to be on unemployment for an extended period of time.
As for your second point: It may be just plain old discouragement or fear of change, but then those people have no right to complain when the state kicks them off their teet.
Does the disability pay cover PTSD? That's what I was getting at, not the Marine missing a leg due to combat.
Similar threads
