Are there enough jobs to replace welfare?

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
No, there are not enough jobs, and in all likelihood the disparity is going to do nothing but grow.

There are two major reasons for this. First Americans require too high of wages to be competitive with the rest of the world for most jobs. This is only going to get worse as other counties such as China and India advance and do a much better job of educating their population while giving them somewhat of a taste of capitalism. Basically the world is in the process of leveling out wages and this likely going to be painful for both Europe and the US.

The second reason is technology is eliminating jobs at an ever increasing rate. To me this is the more serious problem as I really don't see how society is going to adapt to this in an orderly matter. There has been huge progress in both robotics and forms of artificial intelligence that will eliminate huge amounts of jobs. Two jobs that I see being eliminated very soon are drivers/truckers due to self driving vehicles like the google car, and cashiers due to self checkout and the elimination of cash. IBM at this moment is working on a supercomputer to diagnose diseases, so even highly educated positions such as doctors are at risk. Even soldiers will soon be replaced by battlefield robots and drones. None of this is far off, in fact all of what I just listed I think will be the norm in less than ten years.

I am really afraid one way or another the population is going to be greatly reduced simply because there won't be enough jobs to go around, and well without some kind of purpose many people just can't cope nor will they be considered an asset to the government.
edit on 11-11-2012 by proximo because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by proximo
 


While I agree with what you are saying I would like to expand on the American working for more wages bit.

I feel this has pretty much boiled down to inflation and the FED's over production of the dollar.

All of the trillion dollar bailouts put more dollars out there, so in turn we need more dollars to buy things, such as utilities and rent. It would be different if we could get paid less and still pay the bills.

I often wonder if we would be worse off or better off if we hadn't bailed out wallstreet and all the corporate slime. After all they are the reason why everything is expensive to begin with.

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't I guess.
edit on 11-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


We would definitely have been better off not bailing out Wall Street they are a gigantic worthless leach on the economy. Wall Street takes fees for gambling with productive members of societies money. The only reason they were bailed out is due to the politicians being unwilling to let the necessary economic collapse occur, they did nothing but delay it and make the coming collapse larger. But that is another topic.

As far as higher wages being due to inflation, that really isn't the reason, and it's easy to see that. Manufacturing of all but the most sophisticated items can be done for 10-20 percent the cost of producing them here, because the workers will literally work for less than a dollar a day. Combine that with china having zero respect for intellectual property or controlling pollution and it is basically impossible to compete with them.

Basically they just aren't playing fair, nor will they since they have to keep a billion people from starving or face a revolt. There is no way to make them follow our laws, nor can we realistically keep products produced there out. The law of supply and demand always will win out. Manufacturing jobs just are not coming back here till we have workers willing to work for 2-3 dollars a day.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
With the number of welfare recipients, the number of jobs available, the major hit the economy would take if we got rid of welfare, the truth is that the U.S. would become a 3rd world country overnight without the welfare system.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Perhaps it is just my mindset that makes me look at things from a different angle but I honestly think that the question being asked is the wrong question. In 1492, there wasn't any jobs here and the population was doing rather well, but that thought is too far out of the box to just throw out there for people to grasp the concept. SO a little background is needed for a foundation.

As children, we played with other children, found things such sticks that we used our imagination to become swords or rifles, added rubber bands and a swatch of leather to become a slingshot, built forts out of discarded materials, etc. Point is that children do not have vast amounts of resources and income is generally from chores, found money (or in my case collecting empty soda pop bottles for the 10 cent refund---child of the 1970's). Nothing was given, other than Christmas/Birthday presents, and it took ambition, effort and imagination to accomplish goals.

In starting a character in WoW, you don't have vast amounts of cash you have to go out into the world and work for it (unless it is an alt and you load them up with you main character). But just like when you were children, you make friends in the game and use collaboration and effort to accomplish goals.

In the real world, same rules apply except it isn't the friends that you already have that employ you. You have to go out and apply for a job. I personally have had very few jobs just handed to me that required an interview. In fact, I can only think of two of them and they had other connections prior to the interview. In every case of being hired after an interview it was alway a proper mix of business and casual conversation so they could evaluate my personality. Think of it as walking up on a kickball game with kids you don't know and asking if you can play too. You have to prove yourself to be worth playing with in that you both understand the rules of the game and can catch the ball as well as run the bases at the very least.

Secondly, and this is a difficult concept for some to grasp, but a job doesn't define who or what you are. The concept of keeping up with the Jones or being important because you have a high paying critical job like a doctor is bogus. I once had a conversation with a DO because she noticed that I made a conscious but uncognitive man quit convulsing around while being wheeled in a gurney by only holding his wrist with my thumb and index finger. I explained that I figured he could sense the movement and was thrashing because his body thought it was failing so I held the pressure points that dissuade motion sickness. Based on that conversation, since we discussed other beneficial points I knew, she decided to take an advanced class in pressure points for her continuing education. My job at the time was janitor/security at the hospital, although I did fill in for my supervisor when he was out on medical leave a couple times and I co-authored (without credit) some of the emergency policy procedures in the event of fire or bomb threat, etc. as some things were confusing and conflicting depending on which department read their procedures for an event. But I was given a party akin to a retirement party when I resigned from the hospital to pursue a career in trucking of all things.

So to the original question of are there jobs out there, yes. But with caveat that you may have to invent them. As a homeless man told me in St. Augustine me over breakfast that I bought for him one day. You can beg for money or you can do something for money. He drew caricatures but said it could be just sanding and polishing driftwood off the beech. The point is that if you make an effort and have something people can buy than you will make more money far easier than just begging. He also did very detailed sketches of the building in St. Augustine colored with watercolor paint. One sold for $500 to a local art shop and he treated to lunch in one of St. Augustine's nicest restaurants a couple weeks later to both repay my kindness and to have someone to celebrate such success.

The world is big place how you choose to live in it is up to you. You can work a 40 hour week and goof off on the weekends spending your money, you can pick up a second job as I do and try to save that income as well as supplement the fact that I have a low wage but stable job during the week. Or if you have the means you could build picnic tables or sew handbags or a million other things that can be made and sold. Even grandpa would fix old bits junk that he would trade or sell for other things as a bit of a hobby when he retired.

I guess my point is that if we ever had a collapse to the point of having to make log cabins and live off the land and wits, far too many people couldn't adapt because there would be no jobs nor handouts and they don't have the ability to see opportunity around them.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
In the USA the Middle Class is all but gone.
The American Dream is virtually unattainable.

In order to live a decent life one must be Rich or Poverty Stricken.

A single individual would need to gross near $1000 weekly to live as well as one can on Benefits.

A Common Minimum Wage Worker can expect a $320 weekly Gross. No Health Insurence. No Food Assistence. No $1 a Day Auto Coverage.

There is simply no incentive to work.

Not just IMO. Fact.







posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

I don't know, but I caught a bit of 60 Minutes on CBS tonight and they said manufacturers had 3 million jobs waiting to be filled but the schools are putting out such idiots these days that can't spell, write, do math, focus, learn..... that the jobs are going unfilled. That is all I heard... nothing about the pay but the people making this statement and the scenes behind them made it seem fairly technical yet doable.... and from many of the young people I have talked too.... I'm scared for their future and ours. Our public schools are letting people out of school that are in no way prepared for a real job and real life. Not to say everyone, of course! But nothing compared to my schooling. We import engineers for a reason!



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaxnmarko
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

I don't know, but I caught a bit of 60 Minutes on CBS tonight and they said manufacturers had 3 million jobs waiting to be filled but the schools are putting out such idiots these days that can't spell, write, do math, focus, learn..... that the jobs are going unfilled. That is all I heard... nothing about the pay but the people making this statement and the scenes behind them made it seem fairly technical yet doable.... and from many of the young people I have talked too.... I'm scared for their future and ours. Our public schools are letting people out of school that are in no way prepared for a real job and real life. Not to say everyone, of course! But nothing compared to my schooling. We import engineers for a reason!


So what you basically are saying is,

You have to be an engineer to get a manufacturing job.

I doubt it friend.

No one needs a degree in engineering to learn a skill. While I agree you do need certain abilities to be able to learn, you do not need a degree to push a button or take something out of a machine.

These manufacturing jobs are not giving people a chance to train them. There used to be a thing called training. Not you are supposed to know every little thing about the job before you apply.

I worked at he local paper for 12 years. I don't know how many applicants were needing a job because the had
college educations and nobody would hire them because the were "over qualified ".

That is all I have to say about that unless you can link me something that has the jobs and numbers.

If I were an employer and I needed help, I would train someone to do the job.

That leads to another problem about the expectations of the people that do the hiring.

One should not have to go in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars just to land a job that pays 50,000 a year.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BaneOfQuo
This generation is bloody lazy.
...

Sickening.


You know just today, I was watching a kid. He was telling me of his grandmother and how he thinks she's really cool, and how he wants to be part of the old times. I said write a letter. Out comes the phone and the thumbs started going away, no no no Write a letter, out comes the "I liked her on facebook"
NO write a letter. still wondering what he was doing thumbs going and such fine I did, I sent an email.

No write a letter, you mean with pen and paper?
Yes
F that its to much work. (my thought freaking lazy little..)

I was shocked and yet not surprised. I'm not really old, yet I'm old enough to know what work is and what you need to do
but when you live in an area that has no jobs because they went over seas or there is not enough openings compared to the people unemployed it kinda sucks. Can't just getup and move with out any money to cover that either.

I noticed a trend though - Interns needed to help bag groceries " be an intern learn the job and you might get it"
Gas stations are starting to do it as well (not only trying to make it a 12 cent difference instead of ten)

Basically work for free and you might get the job. That is sickening



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Sorry, didn't read the ops

Are we talking people welfare (such as commonly thought) or corporate welfare (gov gives to corporations for...?)

The issue with corporate welfare isn't that there is no jobs...they got jobs..they just want to make sure they are the only ones with decent jobs.

As far as people welfare...
oh get over yourselves folks...ya, they are living large with their food stamps and section 8 housing...why don't you give it a go for awhile and see how great they have it.
nevermind the decapitation, there is also a splinter in the toe of america!



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I think you should read my opening post.

2nd.

But I agree with what you said.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   
If a person needs money to live, they will find the initiative to make money. Perhaps making a handmade product, mowing lawns, babysitting, cleaning houses, dog crap scooping, bartering for services etc... Heck, go ahead and work under the tables, just make some money. The welfare state breeds laziness.

One winter we had some legal aliens from a Ukraine country, that desperately needed money, come to our house and offer to shovel our huge driveway for $15. We gave then $30 when they were done, and I was proud of them. I wish more folks would come to my door and offer services. Since this helps both of us.

Often I have seen homeless begging for money with signs, and they don't get a cent of the money that I WORKED for. Walk up to my door, and I would gladly find some outside work for them. Perhaps weeding my yard, calking, cement patching, landscaping, etc...

Sorry there is no sympathy from me if a person is in bad financial straits and has no initiative to make a spare buck. And instead sits back waiting for the check to arrive. "But there are no jobs..." Whine whine whine...

Me? I would be out cleaning houses and making $500 a week. Believe me, if my livelihood became compromised, I WOULD do this. And I am twice as old as those young twits that sit on their couches collecting checks.

Babysitting services... They cost a fortune! Take in a few kids a week at a much cheaper cost than the average center and you have a livelihood.
edit on 12-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
The government needs to do whats best for this country and not whats best for big corporations. If a company wants to outsource most of its workforce or use cheap China/India labor, they should have to pay higher import taxes and be at risk to lose any and all patents/copyrights. The "free trade" agreements only hurt American's.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Not to wax too philosophicaI, but perhaps we need to rethink this thing we call a "job?" Is making our jobs work more or less difficult than making marriage work? Should our job performance be the thing loved ones remember us by after we die?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
It wouldn't matter. I don't know how many persons on welfare you know, but the majority in the DC, Baltimore region are on it because their parents and even some cases grandparents have always been on it. It is not about "times of need" anymore, or a "safety net", but a means of support and a hammock. What I suppose some of you fail to realize is that many of them do not want to work. In some cases it's just out of pure laziness, but in others, mathematically you make way more not working.

A real life example, there is an unmarried mother of 2 in Frederick, MD, whose name I will not disclose. Granted she does have a job making $14 an hour, but since it is so low, she is eligible for all kinds of benefits. She lives in a rather nice 4 bedroom 2.5 bathroom townhouse whose rent is $1700 a month. Fortunately for her she is on section 8, and only pays $60. She is given $800 a month for food on her EBT card. She and her kids are on Medicaid. Come tax time she gets 100% of her taxes back, plus child credits. The money she earns from work she can and does spend on anything she wants, tvs, phones, vacations etc. Maybe I'm wrong but it just seems strange that one can live a higher standard of life than the persons paying for it?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrieBird
Public works! We desperately need to rebuild our infrastructure and modernize our transit system, ect ect. This could be work in exchange for welfare. I have always believed that one should work in order to recieve welfare. Working for what you have gives people a sense of worth, and accomplishment and at the same time much needed rebuilding of America. I see it as a win win plus its keeps people employed and relevant, as well as teaching new on the job skills. Why not that?


This worked in the past during the Great Depression.
It probably won't work as advertised because there isn't enough money in taxes to fund them, for sure.
And the only other place revenue would come from to pay these new found federal employees would be to
float another bond and borrow it.

What would be the tipping point before we are de facto a communist country with everyone employed by the state? We are just about at or past it now.

It bugs me to know that we are at minimum $16Trillion in debt with nothing to show for it.
Where did the money go?
I wish we had a thread just for that, of people speculating who got the money.
A pie chart would be nice.
We could see how much went to "defense" and then percolate that down to the many contractors and how many individual employees got a crumb or a good bite.
Same with the other areas, domestic spending for agency employees and their pay.
Interest, that great gobbler of pies everywhere, and how many countries and their central banks scarfed that down...and so on.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Let's talk about the current debate on philosophical approaches to economical prosperity.

I did not support either candidate because I think both of them are wrong.

Cutting taxes to the "job creators" has not stimulated job growth. What stimulates job growth is when people re-invest their money into their businesses. They create jobs, those people buy things, more companies hire to keep up with demand...etc...etc...etc.

Tax cuts (which I personally love but I see the paradox here) generally end up in personal bank accounts, not in business expansion or investment. People get tax credits when they actually invest in business so...the twist to all of this is if you place a tax on profit, the business owner/investor is faced with a decision. Put their money into use/circulation, or it will be taxed. This is the other side of the coin that some people do not realize. When people have to make the choice to use their money or lose it in taxes, they will generally "use it"...which in the long run will eventually come back to them in increased production.

It is an odd circumstance. I fully understand you cannot tax the rich enough to solve the financial problems facing the country. I also understand that they do hold the keys to turning things over, but in a different way. IF the tax breaks were "creating jobs" like we are often told, that would be great...but that is not what is happening. Wall Street numbers have basically returned to the levels pre-recession...corporations and investors are making just as much money as they ever did. There is, however, no incentive for them to "use" that money creating jobs

So, they are hoarding it rather than re-investing it. If they want tax breaks, invest your money in business expansion...what we have been trying is not working for the average person.

It is a conundrum for sure.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The problem is structural.

If you -- as an employer -- have "created" jobs which pay below the poverty level, than by definition, you have created a drag on the economy forcing the state to subsidize your "business" (backdoor corporate welfare). There should be ZERO tax incentives or breaks for businesses that create drag in this way.

Unfortunately -- decades of inertia have been built up behind the notion that some of these companies are the engine of America. This might be true, to a certain extent, IF the tax revenue for these businesses (earned by the state) exceeds the outlay the state must provide to make up the difference, but -- if that is true -- then a massive reeducation program is necessary to inform the populace that such a thing is occurring.

Yes -- you can invent your own work. Yes -- you can creatively "make money" without a job. The question is: what regulations prevent most people from doing so? Are the barriers to entry in a particular market high enough to keep most honest people out of it? A good example is the "baby-sitting" example cited twice in this thread. It is simply not legal in most states for an unlicensed child-care provider to look after more than X kids at any given time (where X equals the local regulation on licensed versus unlicensed care).

In a similar way, there are licencing requirements for builders of all kinds, and operating without one often carries significant monetary or criminal penalties. Asking people to ignore these rules, laws and regulations, to "boot-strap" themselves might work in Bosnia, but they fail in a state where significant enforcement and penalties are the norm.

Demographically -- we have a huge problem. Because technological efficiency has increased five-fold, employers need fewer employees to make the work happen. But the population has doubled in the same time-frame, and millions are entering the workforce every year, many with college degrees. Over-saturated fields of study are definitely part of the problem, but what incentives do schools have to deprioritize degrees in Psychology, or Ethnic studies if they are cheaper to provide, and student loans are easy to get? Yes -- many community colleges and trade-schools are turning out an inferior product, and yes -- most students are paying full premium prices for these degrees and certificates, and there is no rational authority to turn to to determine which are which: The notion that if the school is eligible for student loans, than the government must approve of their curriculum is bogus. The student, as a consumer -- is thrown to the wolves of a market that has no incentive to correct itself in any meaningful way.

I could go on for 25 more paragraphs, detailing structural problems with our notion of education and work (why don't public schools teach math the way the Khan Academy does, for example?) but such a thread is dangerously out of focus. The facts on the ground are simple: our concept of full employment is badly out of date given the technological advances in computerization, automation, manufacturing and resource management. We can no longer afford to subsidize employers who create drag by employing the greater majority of their workforce below levels that qualify for assistance, and we can no longer afford to subsidize employers who ship much of their "work" overseas to even cheaper markets.

We could do away with assistance completely. Unfortunately -- it is an elegant and seductive solution, but it would sink the economy even more than now.
edit on 12-11-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

One article suggests that Americans spend ~30 extra hours per month. Assuming that is on top of a 40-45 hour work week, you are talking about 1/4 of one person that should be working versus one person doing 1/4 person more work than required.


Correct, we have too many people working too many hours each, that eats up what could be more jobs. Also, earlier retirement should be encouraged, not discouraged. Our social security and medicare structure exacerbates unemployment.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 


Absolutely spot on.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join