Show of Hands

Misread the question. Yes they should

Where is welfare mentioned in this question?

Because so many people on welfare do it to abuse the system & avoid having to work, spoiling it fir thise who need it. And many are on welfare bc they lack the skills to get a job, but virtually nothing is spent to help them get skills so they stay in their rut & get paid to just linger & get complacent.

In fact that's why a lot of people join the military, bc the military advertises job training. Those people will bust their humps & put themselves in harm's way, but often are overlooked after returning to civilian life & often don't get skills useful post-military, but they work hard & are very punctual, so why don't they get more breaks? Seems to me most jobs are learned on-the-job so hire someone reliable to do it.

Just like a pre-employment requirement.

Drug testing for all government benefits, because it's nearly impossible for active drug users to find a job. Pop positive, you get a treatment program until you're straight or lose your bennies.

Do you even know what unemployment insurance fucking is?

End H1B visas!

During the second industrial revolution this process continued until few farmers were left. Furthermore, mechanized productivity took another leap forward so some of the people who had worked in factories lost jobs before eventually moving into the new jobs being offered in corporate offices. Now in this third industrial revolution (the digital information revolution) technology is killing what's left of manufacturing and beginning to affect corporate office workers. It's a cycle we need to get through before the next boom time. Then again, this industrial revolution has the potential to fundamentally change everything: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/world-without-work/395294/

You're right, that's an enormous part of it. Part of our current problem is that so many replacement jobs are part time service positions that can also be cheaply replaced by kiosks and automation.

Are we headed toward a world where most people don't work because they are superfluous?

It's entirely possible which is what that Atlantic article suggests. The robots have come for the "unskilled" and "less-skilled" jobs first, but don't kid yourself... They will gradually infiltrate every career even the high-paying, skilled ones. A neurosurgeon is a high-skilled job, but once the technology is down pat a machine will perform brain surgery with the type of precision those with gifted hands can only dream about.

No, we have unemployment because the jobs are going overseas and companies are importing hundreds of thousands of people from Mexico, India, and China to force down wages.

Omniku, it reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, where automation had taken over so much labor humans did little but dabble in the arts.

Nobamist- no, but that's a common misconception since it's such a compelling scapegoat. Offshoring is certainly a contributor but it's not the prime driver. Furthermore, offshoring is being accelerated by the third industrial revolution so in a way the digital revolution is often the primary underlying catalyst for the jobs that are going overseas. To put things in perspective, at its peak General Motors employed more people than all five of the current largest tech sector companies combined. If anything is killing US manufacturing it's automation and the digital revolution.

Kywrite - yeah exactly. I thought that too. Asimov was a prescient futurist. Also reminds me of the "utopia" in Arthur C Clarke's "Childhood's End". If you're a fan of Asimov and haven't read that one I highly recommend it!

No, they are necessary in cases like laid off folks (otherwise lots of desperate men will turn to disability or crime, as has happened in so much of rural KY) but we could do it better. If workers owned their unemployment, sick time, and vacation time - if it all came from the same pot - if you paid into it over time and could take what you needed when you needed it - if you could invest it like a 401K - if you got the remainder in a tax-free lump sum on retirement or at age 70 - people would quickly learn to be responsible with nonworking time. It could be treated like a form of life insurance, willed to heirs. It could even generate serious wealth.

But we keep using failed Social Security-era programs that are on life support instead.

No - you are free to not collect welfare.

Unemployment isn't welfare, especially when someone working pays into the system. And they shouldn't be forced to take more job training in order to get a benefit they have worked for

It's a handout. What's the difference?

Political, it's insurance. Your employer pays into it on your behalf by government regulation. It's intended to provide short term for a job transition in case you lose your job. It is quite different than the long term welfare programs.

Amen!

It's not just the poor. I've been laid off and relied on unemployment insurance before.

Highly skilled and educated people can and do find themselves unemployed.

I'm highly skilled and was laid off once too. The unemployment payments really helped. Mandated training would have been stupid and a waste. I have a freaking professional degree.

By "them," you mean laid off software engineers or architects?

It means anybody who need unemployment.

Wow thanks for clearing that up, Pol Pot.

That's how it works in my state. It's also capped at 6 months, though during the Great Recession that cap was extended to a year.

I was unemployed for 11 months that year. Towards the end I was applying for jobs I was overqualified for.

I even created a dumbed down resume that didn't mention my MBA and stripped out a lot of my experience.

Even a menial entry level job would have paid more than unemployment.

Unfortunately, employers aren't dumb. They won't hire people they know will jump ship the first opportunity.

Then only collect the 6% you paid.

If everyone got their normal salary, you'd pay a lot more than 6%. The people who never use unemployment subsidize those that do, and the freeloaders that look for ways to get fired to collect it punish everyone.

Exactly. People apply at Fast food places asking for 25/hr and then tell the unemployment office that you tried this week and didn't get hired.

Everyone pays 6%. And businesses match that so "your money" only paid for half to begin with. You also have to hold the job for 6 months before you can even collect and the company gets a notice that you filed to provide info about why. If you were trying to get fired the state can choose to deny your benefit and the "freeloaders" only get the benefit for 6 months.

So perhaps only if you have no demonstrable skills or training

We just can't stand the waste and fraud. I would rather take care of my own responsibilities. Not hypocrisy, I'll do it myself. You take care of yours. I've seen first-hand, people wait the entire time unemployment is paid, and the week it's over, got a job. Explain that please?

As soon as they get laid off and need it they'll change their tune.

Why should people who are unemployed not receive the benefits they pay into? Why should they not be able to pay their bills because of layoffs? And clearly you've never been laid off, but it takes FAR more than a week to get another job

It's called high school

Yes because every single job in the world requires ONLY a high school education

No, some require more, many in fact. But if you want one of those jobs, you gotta put something in. Want me to pay for your training so you can get a good job?

We already do that with high school, and I think everyone will agree we are all better off with public education

I agree with it. I think high school is enough for the required education. If you want more, you need to have skin in the game? In my opinion. Nothing is free. Ever.

But high school is free, so somethings are free. And most jobs require more than a high school education. If you don't want to "pay" for someone else's job training, then support the raise of the minimum wage, or at least let them get their unemployment benefits without forcing them pay for job training

No, it isn't free at all. It is extremely expensive. We all pay for it. Kids or no kids, private school or home school, everybody pays taxes that fund it!

Bullseye! 🎯

100% agreed.

Exactly. Educated professionals do not need job training, especially when they've been laid off. That's silly.

And it's just an extra cost for the government.

I'd also add actively looking for another job.