K
I'm calling bullsit on 9 skilled tradesman, overall unemployment is 8.5. Love to see a link
Our troubles are over.....
- Thread starter NOVA
- Start date
Skilled tradesmen are always higher than the published rate, since they are usally self-employed, they are not even counted by the statisticians.
You are missing the point though, as those that earn the least have the most competition for the fewest jobs, which is what makes Annie's idea of poor people working second and third jobs so absurd, since so many of them can't even secure primary employment.
Pay attention! The skilled tradesmen are in the middle of the scale. I didn't say they make the least.
I said those at the bottom make the least, 10K and under, have about 30% unemployment.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
No, I'm not on crack. When I worked a low-paying job, left-wingers on the predecessor to this site (FullPolitics.com) poked fun at me on a regular basis. Threedee remembers it well; I'm certain Damocles does as well. In general, elitists are liberals (especially wealthy liberals). That's all.
Assholes inhabbit both sides of the isle. I was talking about this;
All that means is that college graduates *shockingly* are in higher demand in a weak labor market than non-college graduates. The fact still remains that there are over 4 unemployed people per job opening. Again, since you seem incredibly incapable of grasping this fact for such a well educated individual, that means that if every job opening were filled tomorrow with an unemployed person, we'd still have 10 million unemployed people.
There aren't enough jobs. Period.
He was so rude to me I put him on ignore and have kept him there. I don't know who it was that made fun of him, I didnt see it because I have him on ignore. He apologized once to me, then insulted me again, and I was done. It was under his Voltaire name.
Dude, first of all you are talking to Nigel, whom no one could call a low I.Q. dolt, but since you think you are talking to me I will tell you
that despite your grandiose opinion of yourself, I am considerably smarter than you.[/QUOT
Thats the best one I heard all day.....you're not even as smart as Jarod...................................
What profound conclusions.......you must have been up all night studying ...
Who do you imagine will hire those idiots suffering from 30% unemployment.....was there ever a demand for morons....?
You'll just have to continue living in Mommies basement until spring comes....then we'll be looking for street sweepers and yard work engineers.....
There are not enough jobs for everyone who needs to work?.....really ?....no shit Charlie Chan....you've solved another one.....
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I'm on ignore, and yet somehow you continue to groan my posts; obviously you continue to read what I say. When was I "so rude" to you? Was I any more rude to you than you are to conservatives on a daily basis? You are seething with hatred toward anyone with whom you disagree, especially religious people (unless they're liberal religious people, of course). I get along with Dune and essentially everyone else on this site...everyone except you, because you're a fake.
Last edited:
The Navy?
apple0154
MEOW
Assuming there is a shortage of skilled workers maybe an extension of benefits can be tied to people attending courses in order to train the individuals. Maybe a type of apprenticeship program? The company wouldn't have to supply anything other than let the person observe an employeee doing a specific job. Maybe in return the unemployed person can do some low level job one day a week for the company.
There are many solutions. The problem is some folks are against helping. "Why shoud people get free training?" "Why should people be paid to learn?" Instead of truly helping individuals benefits like unemployment are grudgingly given . It's like the stories I'd hear from the occasional tenant, years ago, who lost their job and ended up on welfare. Welfare's main objective was finding ways to disqualify people, not help them. The people were treated with scorn which did nothing but lead to abuse of the system. It became a competition, a battle, between welfare and the people collecting it. For example, rather than welfare suggesting places where people could get free/reduced prices on clothing or specials on food their main objective was to look for ways to disqualify people.
Did you earn any money? Have your living conditions changed; anyone sharing the apartment and helping with the rent? Welfare wasn't interested in helping people. Their job was to look for any reason to deny benefits. Is it any wonder people wouldn't report changes in their circumstances leading to abuses of the system?
It's time to make the priority that of helping people, not simply looking for ways to deny them benefits.
It wasn't a compromise, it was a punt. The Congress said, "Let's get this done now." The Senate wants to go on vacation and punt this to next year.
I agree with the Congress.
Yet an extension of those same benefits without change is what is asked for, and being rejected. I don't think they should pass it without attaching something that can actually change the situation. It's beyond irresponsible to argue that status quo continuance of a short term solution is the only thing that should happen.
I've always been a supporter that if you are on unemployment you should have to do something for it. Train in a new job, for instance. Clean the highways if you refuse to learn. And actually look for a job...
Yeah, we'd have to actually offer training but it at least puts a light at the end of a tunnel.
Some of what you say I could agree with. It's just the reality that hacks me off. Pass the status quo or we'll say you are monsters... It's rubbish. Monstrous is pushing for doing nothing while continuing in the same path that has led us to stagnation.
Any bill that passes the Senate 89-10 is a compromise bill. The problem is that John Boehner can't control his caucus.
By the way, the term "Congress" refers to the House and the Senate. If you mean the House, say the House.
I'm sure you understood what I meant. And a punt is not a compromise, it's a punt.