By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Do people actually understand how welfare in America works?

Kasz216 on 10 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:

You never watched that one episode of The Simpsons about what happens in unlicensed cabs, did you? Granted, they were in Rio de Janeiro at the time, but still... licensing and regulations exist for good reasons just as often (or moreso) than they exist for poor ones.


That's all you got out of my post?

Licenses exist because taxi companies benefit massively from them. You know how much it costs to legally drive a cab in New York? About a million dollars. Who are the only people who can afford that? The big taxi companies.

Guess who the number one lobbyists are for taxi regulations and medallions? Taxi companies.

No, but your larger points have other issues, including the catch-22 of qualified, out of work individuals (like myself). Employers don't hire us for low-end jobs, because they know as well as we do that we'll hop as soon as a real opportunity comes by, and then they don't waste training on us. In a free market society, this problem would grow rather than shrink, as you'd have such out-of-work individuals hedged out by teenagers or underqualified immigrants or something.

The Free Market is a model like every other economic model, and like every other economic model, is flawed.


Not if you look at the actual labor statistics.

Actuall you tend to find the exact opposite problem.

College Graduate unemployment is actually EXTREMLY low despite the level of people working in their fields being low... and most of them working very low end jobs.  The unemployment rate is over twice as high for people with a highschool education.  College degree unemployment is only 3.9%... and that's including people who only accept jobs in their field and can afford to, and people like richard who theoretically have outdated skill sets despite booms in their industries.  (IT is huge in need right now.)

Essentially meaning that at the moment you need to pay tens of thousnads of dollars just to get jobs that pay like 20 thousand dollars in a lot of areas.

Don't know what's going on specifically in your case.  Could just be your aganst OTHER college grads.  Or your just botching the interviews.  I know i lost a lot of jobs just because i don't really have a tolerance for the way you have to go through job interviews with the usual required lying and selective truth telling to get a job.  Usually saying things right out.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 10 June 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:

Again, the assumption of free labor mobility is about as fanciful as the Tooth Fairy. In a free market, just as many people would be screwed over by structural problems, such as the failures of certain whole industries or certain positions becoming obsolete.

Prove it. Prove that "free labor mobility is about as fanciful as the Tooth Fairy".

Post some arguments from economics that show that 0% unemployment is a reality, and it is entirely possible for people to end up being able to make enough money they could afford food, medical, shelter, clothes, toiletries and so on.  

If you want practical realities, is it possible for everyone to be a nurse, or go work on computers?  Is the way the economy is structured now, when a new wave comes in of productivity advances, does that suddenly mean that there are jobs created elsewhere?

If you want an argument against 0% unemployment, that advocates the future of work is going to be non-profit NGO's using people to address social problems, I give you "The End of Work":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work

Now you need to present arguments against this.



richardhutnik on 10 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:

You never watched that one episode of The Simpsons about what happens in unlicensed cabs, did you? Granted, they were in Rio de Janeiro at the time, but still... licensing and regulations exist for good reasons just as often (or moreso) than they exist for poor ones.


That's all you got out of my post?

Licenses exist because taxi companies benefit massively from them. You know how much it costs to legally drive a cab in New York? About a million dollars. Who are the only people who can afford that? The big taxi companies.

Guess who the number one lobbyists are for taxi regulations and medallions? Taxi companies.

No, but your larger points have other issues, including the catch-22 of qualified, out of work individuals (like myself). Employers don't hire us for low-end jobs, because they know as well as we do that we'll hop as soon as a real opportunity comes by, and then they don't waste training on us. In a free market society, this problem would grow rather than shrink, as you'd have such out-of-work individuals hedged out by teenagers or underqualified immigrants or something.

The Free Market is a model like every other economic model, and like every other economic model, is flawed.

As it is now, you have the reverse, you have people with college degrees working jobs that teenagers used to do.  Unemployment rate for teens is like over 80% because college graduates, seniors, and displaced professionals are working the jobs teens used to do.  I actually know one former casino executive who sat on boards who is doing tech phone support currently out in Las Vegas.



richardhutnik on 10 June 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:

Deregulated grey markets like that already exist, and yes, the government doesn't try to shut it down unless its getting large enough to notice, at which point its often getting exploitative somewhere along the line.

Believe me, i'm all for the reduction of regulations that are onerous, but where we'll reach loggerheads here is the matter of what is onerous, what is unfortunately necessary, and what is just.


Lemonade stands are large enough to notice?

But, we need to regulate that. After all, those kids could be mixing cyanide into the drink.

Also, if you're really struggling to find employment because employers are worried about training costs and you leaving shortly after, just stick a little note in your resumé/cover letter that says you'll happily negotiate terms/a contract with the employer in regards to minimum employment time. Promise to not leave for another job until X amount of weeks/months/years (depending on the nature of the job).

Do you seriously think a place like McDonald's is going to bother to hire someone and offer them a contract for terms of employment?  How exactly would it be enforceable, and do they want to even bother to want to take a person to court if they did up and leave?  Corporations are usually set in their ways, and those who franchise follow very tight patterns and look to hire people in those patterns.  A problem with what you suggest is that it is devoid of consideration on the part of the employer.  And, if you want to see why employers are against unions, the main reason is that unions make them signs contracts regarding employment.  Employers want much more flexibility to hire and fire as they choose, which is why right to work is what is pushed for.  It means to have everything on a whim.  Employers know that if something comes along someone will end up jumping on it, irregardless of what people may say when hired. 

I am reminder of a time, coming out of college, I did offer to have them have me sign a contract for employment I would promise to stay with them if they hired me.  This was for an IT position.  They didn't bite on it.



richardhutnik on 10 June 2012
Kasz216 said:

College Graduate unemployment is actually EXTREMLY low despite the level of people working in their fields being low... and most of them working very low end jobs.  The unemployment rate is over twice as high for people with a highschool education.  College degree unemployment is only 3.9%... and that's including people who only accept jobs in their field and can afford to, and people like richard who theoretically have outdated skill sets despite booms in their industries.  (IT is huge in need right now.)

Exactly WHAT part of the IT industry is booming in regards to jobs?  If it comes to software development, or anything that can be sent offshore, it is sent to India or Eastern Europe.  The Dept. that does labor statistics reported that the amount of programmers needed will decline in the coming years.

Are you referring to people who work and maintain servers and such?  Well, I know where I am, which is possibly a big part of it, there isn't a need for anyone.  And local governments aren't hiring either.  IBM has kept downsizing, leaving the local market where I am flooded with former IBMers.  IBM does consolidating and whatnot.  And if you are not local to a place, it is hard to end up even getting an interview with them.  The times are not like they used to be at all.

Are you talking manufacturing in the IT industry?  Well, chip manufacturing is down, and has been down, which came out recently when the GOP ripped a new one for saying during a video conference thing that a woman's husband should be able to find a job in chip design, because it was said hot, when hiring in that industry has been down.  BLS info has computer manufacturing unemployment for May 2012 at 5.8%, which is better than other sectors, but still high:

http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag334.htm

Well, maybe one can get lucky enough to have the right mix of skills, certifications and portfolio and not been out of work for less than 6 months, then they can pick up a corp-to-corp 3 month contract, without benefits.  Then go from contract to contract.  That can happen.  There is a need for JIT work, consisting of one being lucky enough to have the right mix of skills.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 10 June 2012
richardhutnik said:

Post some arguments from economics that show that 0% unemployment is a reality, and it is entirely possible for people to end up being able to make enough money they could afford food, medical, shelter, clothes, toiletries and so on.  

Finally, some fun!

Primarily, throughout history, unemployment was below 0%. What do I mean by below 0%? I mean that, there were more jobs than there were working adults. My evidence? The fact that before the Industrial Revolution (and during) there were jobs for the vast majority of children... now, you can argue that this was a tragedy, and I'd agree. But the argument was about 0% unemployment being a reality.

There are also tonnes of examples in the modern world. For example, in all the places where child labour is still prevelant. Also, places like shanti towns, etc.

Now, I know you're next argument is going to be about the standard of living throughout these examples, but that is something unrelated, and actually related to your next argument, and that is about the capital stock of the economy. Going back to pre-Industrial Britain, every wanting adult and child were able to find work. Hit the industrial revolution, and every wanting adult and child were still able to find work, despite greater automation, and the like. The difference being that the capital stock of the economy increased, and so people's incomes stretched further (as prices fell). This meant that, gradually, the standards of living across Britain slowly increased. At first this is evidenced by expanding life expectancy, larger living quarters, growing heights, etc; later, it was shown by the fact that fewer and fewer families had to send their children into work just to generate enough income. Notice that people didn't lose jobs because there weren't any, they lost them because they no longer had to participate.

If it hadn't been for the ever-increasing tax and regulation problems, Government meddling of the economy, and the introduction of welfare systems all across the developed world, this still would have been the case today.

If you want practical realities, is it possible for everyone to be a nurse, or go work on computers?  Is the way the economy is structured now, when a new wave comes in of productivity advances, does that suddenly mean that there are jobs created elsewhere?

It's not that jobs are suddenly created, it's that jobs were already there, but the labour had been moved away to fill a more "urgent" role in the economy. If that role is now satisfied by technology, then the labour can move to less urgent jobs. Incomes stay high not because the raw figure of the income is increasing, but because the technological improvements (increased capital stock) have resulted in a greater abundance of goods, and thus lower prices, meaning that you can get more bang for your buck, so to speak.

If you want an argument against 0% unemployment, that advocates the future of work is going to be non-profit NGO's using people to address social problems, I give you "The End of Work":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work

I'd like to posit the following: when is this going to happen? The development of capital stock has essentially outpaced population growth since the dawn of humanity. Better stop those pesky farmers, they put the hunter-gatherers out of work. I mean, if we look at time periods where the data is much more easily ready, there is no evidence of this. Think about it, the past 50 years have seen the greatest period of technological development and automation since the dawn of time; population growth has exploded, plus the migration of labour; women have re-entered the work force; and people are living and working for more and more years. Has unemployment suddenly exploded? No. In fact, out side of recessions, employment has either been flat or increasing during the good years, and that's just in the USA. On the world-net, we have tens, if not hundreds, of millions more jobs today than we had just a few years ago.

Now you need to present arguments against this.





SamuelRSmith on 10 June 2012
richardhutnik said:

Do you seriously think a place like McDonald's is going to bother to hire someone and offer them a contract for terms of employment?  How exactly would it be enforceable, and do they want to even bother to want to take a person to court if they did up and leave?  Corporations are usually set in their ways, and those who franchise follow very tight patterns and look to hire people in those patterns.  A problem with what you suggest is that it is devoid of consideration on the part of the employer.  And, if you want to see why employers are against unions, the main reason is that unions make them signs contracts regarding employment.  Employers want much more flexibility to hire and fire as they choose, which is why right to work is what is pushed for.  It means to have everything on a whim.  Employers know that if something comes along someone will end up jumping on it, irregardless of what people may say when hired. 

I am reminder of a time, coming out of college, I did offer to have them have me sign a contract for employment I would promise to stay with them if they hired me.  This was for an IT position.  They didn't bite on it.


Well, first and foremost, you need to look a bit more carefully about how McDonald's is set up. First of all, they hire anybody, because they're used to the high turnover of staff, that's what their business model relies on. Second, McDonald's doesn't do the hiring, it is done by the franchise owners, they write the contracts, and do all the rest. You negotiate such terms with them. Hell, they may not even bite, but just the fact that you're discussing such things with the manager you're interviewing will suggest to them that you're more serious about sticking around (even if you're not).

Also, you may very well be right about major corporations not agreeing to this kind of thing. Well, it's a good job the vast majority of employers are not major corporations, they're small and medium businesses, where such things are much more realistic.

How is it enforceable? The same way all contracts are enforceable... through the courts.

It didn't work for you once, so you give up on it? Not to mention that if this problem is even as large as Mr. Khan suggested, the idea of these contracts would be much more common than they are today, and, as such, more businesses would be open/aware of the idea.



TheProphet on 10 June 2012

Yes, there is a big misconception about welfare. Welfare is designed to prevent social unrest. Without welfare, and the very basics, people will rise up and over throw their leaders. In a captialistic society, wealth depends on having a valuable skill. However, there are a lot of people who are not exceptionally gifted. Many have a below average skill set. So to keep these people from revolting they get welfare. Society is very wealthy and can afford it. The poorest people in America are probably better off than 99 percent of the rest of the world. Welfare is not the root cause of the bankruptcy of America. It has had welfare for many decades now. The reason for America's bankruptcy is the disintegration of the family unit. The government was become the provider, instead of the father. This will never be sustainablee. 



richardhutnik on 10 June 2012
SamuelRSmith said:

If you want an argument against 0% unemployment, that advocates the future of work is going to be non-profit NGO's using people to address social problems, I give you "The End of Work":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work

I'd like to posit the following: when is this going to happen? The development of capital stock has essentially outpaced population growth since the dawn of humanity. Better stop those pesky farmers, they put the hunter-gatherers out of work. I mean, if we look at time periods where the data is much more easily ready, there is no evidence of this. Think about it, the past 50 years have seen the greatest period of technological development and automation since the dawn of time; population growth has exploded, plus the migration of labour; women have re-entered the work force; and people are living and working for more and more years. Has unemployment suddenly exploded? No. In fact, out side of recessions, employment has either been flat or increasing during the good years, and that's just in the USA. On the world-net, we have tens, if not hundreds, of millions more jobs today than we had just a few years ago.

Now you need to present arguments against this.

 

If economic activity and growth has been the byproduct of malinvestment and excessive debt, cause excessive money floating about, and this excessive debt is not sustainable, when the contraction happens due to the debt not being serviced, or the money supply shrinks to service it, then what do you think will happen to unemployment?

Thing is that End of Work goes into that.  Have you even read the book?  If not, then you don't know the arguments.  And what you have seen happen is that manufacturing in the United States did increase, but labor demands decreased:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/25/the-truth-about-the-great-american-manufacturing-d.aspx

And how about manufacturing jobs in China?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/03/that-giant-sucking-sound-of-manufacturing-jobs-going-to-china/

Well, China is also losing manufacturing jobs.

So, you will now say, "Well there is information technology jobs available".  Care to show there are enough of those around which could soak up the displaced manufacturing jobs?  Look around the Internet.  Care to show the future isn't going to be free content backed by advertising, that scales so that top IP producers get the lion's share of money, while the rest starve, or life won't be like Second Life, where things are so cheap to produce people can hang around forever producing free content for people, in hopes they can make it big some day?  No one is able to make a living in this free hell, but you can't afford to leave either.  And thus, I get back to The End of Work.



richardhutnik on 10 June 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
richardhutnik said:

Do you seriously think a place like McDonald's is going to bother to hire someone and offer them a contract for terms of employment?  How exactly would it be enforceable, and do they want to even bother to want to take a person to court if they did up and leave?  Corporations are usually set in their ways, and those who franchise follow very tight patterns and look to hire people in those patterns.  A problem with what you suggest is that it is devoid of consideration on the part of the employer.  And, if you want to see why employers are against unions, the main reason is that unions make them signs contracts regarding employment.  Employers want much more flexibility to hire and fire as they choose, which is why right to work is what is pushed for.  It means to have everything on a whim.  Employers know that if something comes along someone will end up jumping on it, irregardless of what people may say when hired. 

I am reminder of a time, coming out of college, I did offer to have them have me sign a contract for employment I would promise to stay with them if they hired me.  This was for an IT position.  They didn't bite on it.


Well, first and foremost, you need to look a bit more carefully about how McDonald's is set up. First of all, they hire anybody, because they're used to the high turnover of staff, that's what their business model relies on. Second, McDonald's doesn't do the hiring, it is done by the franchise owners, they write the contracts, and do all the rest. You negotiate such terms with them. Hell, they may not even bite, but just the fact that you're discussing such things with the manager you're interviewing will suggest to them that you're more serious about sticking around (even if you're not).

Also, you may very well be right about major corporations not agreeing to this kind of thing. Well, it's a good job the vast majority of employers are not major corporations, they're small and medium businesses, where such things are much more realistic.

How is it enforceable? The same way all contracts are enforceable... through the courts.

It didn't work for you once, so you give up on it? Not to mention that if this problem is even as large as Mr. Khan suggested, the idea of these contracts would be much more common than they are today, and, as such, more businesses would be open/aware of the idea.

Why it isn't enforceable in courts is that what you may be able to negotiate won't involve sufficient amount of consideration for courts to hold it.  Sure, an employer will end up agreeing that you promise you won't leave for X months.  But will they offer consideration back that they won't fire you in that time period?  If it is one-sided where one side will pay fines, and the other side offers nothing back, if it goes to the courts, the courts will throw it out.  This is very likely a reason why large corporations won't do it.  You don't think they haven't run into this?  If it was such a great deal for them, don't you think they would offer it?  Even contractors (see the word contract in there?) who do sign contracts for employment, have much flexibility to get out of them.  Right to work means hire or fire at will, and is an environment employers prefer.  Even if you beg otherwise, you don't get it.   And those one way contracts look a lot like... slavery.  That is exactly the relationship a slave has.  They are bound to an employer for lenght of time, and the employer can then let them go for any time, and any reason.  Courts won't honor that.  Doesn't matter if courts have the job of enforcing contracts, if a contract sucks, they won't act.  And employers won't respond either, even if someone were to offer their services for free for a few months.  Funny thing how relationships will crumble when there isn't mutual exchange of similar consideration.

However, as was mentioned, you MIGHT be able to do something like this with a small company, who has much flexibility.   But then you would end up having to have a decent contract signed up and sufficient consideration.  It would also likely involve bringing lawyers in and paying them to do it.  And making sure it is right.  I am fairly sure a small business owner wouldn't want to put up with the added paperwork headache and additional contract signed.  They would want someone who fits into what they want, not come back with this extra work.  But there might be a place for it.  

In regards to hiring on the low end, most are done by large corporations.  Most retail is this.  Small businesses will hire only as last resort.