My Solution to unemployment

[Bastelmutti]

Could we add eliminating self-serve grocery store checkouts? Let people work the registers. I avoid those things at all costs!

[ApatheticNoMore]

Yea I truly don't think creating useless jobs just to create useless jobs is the answer. Now if the job is going to exist anyway then we can say we'd rather not have it outsourced (easier to say than do, although incentives can be created).

What I REALLY want is work-sharing. A 30 hour week or whatever (I have no exact hours I'm aiming for) for EVERYONE. Early retirement accomplishes this over a lifetime, it's less ideal, though not terrible. It means that those of working age will be worked to death, yet they can retire when they hit their 60s or whatever.

It's an improvement but it stinks for all the years they are worked to death (child raising years too for which it might be nice to have more time with family, although I guess the kids can have grandparent time). I truly do believe in the irreplaceable value of now, years of your life, and you aren't getting them back. Sure people with great professions they love my prefer nothing more than to spend these hours working, but they are not by any means the majority (nor will they ever be probably because it's probably tough to love spending 40 hours each work working at Wal-Mart as if it's what you were put on earth to do. One can make the best of it yea, but not love it). 30 hour weeks for all!

I think in effect with all the age discrimination we do have RETIREMENT for lots of people over 50, only it is not paid for, and so they just wonder in terror when the unemployment will run out.

[freein05]

The over 50 unemployed is a major problem. Companies don't want them one reason is higher medical costs and they may not have as many skills or be able to move fast like a young person. So Zig has a good idea.

[Spartana]

Surely you are not as clueless as your post sounds. Not everyone is physically able to harvest oranges. Most people (like myself) are hardly living in luxury. We would would be willing to do any job we could get. Here an administrative assistant makes around $8 or 9 an hour. Try living on that. Better yet (or worse yet) try feeding a family with it.

I meant it in a generalized kind of way as an example of a job that I think many people in America would find beneath them. There are other jobs that are less physical like telemarketing, customer service, fast food order taker and cashier, etc... that many people - at least people I know - would not do. And of course I realize that the elderly and people with injuries or physical disabilities may not be able to do a physical job, just like some people (like me) have disabilities that prevent us from working with the public, talking on the phone, taking orders, doing the call center thing, etc.. And while I agree that it's very difficult for even a single person, let alone a family, to get by on a minimum wage job, I feel that many people are unwilling to do the things needed or make the personal sacrifices needed to live on minimum wage. Like getting a second job, living in a roommate situation - or even with 2 or more people sharing a bedroom, giving up the car a using public transit, eating rice and beans (and beans and rice to quote Dave Ramsey) everyday, give up the cable and internet and cut back on everything you can. That's how I lived most of my life (and still do). That's how my Mom lived when my Dad walked out and left her homeless and penniless and jobless and carless with 3 children to care for. That's how many of the people in my Asian working class neighbor hood choose to live "Walton-style" in large extended family groups with several people sharing bedrooms and pooling their money irregarless of how small their incomes so that they can a better future. But most Americans are unwilling to do those thing. There is a sense of entitlement that people seem to have that I believe was lacking in the depression era people. Now you see working class people feeling that they should have the same things as the middle class, and middleclass people feeling they are entitled to the same things as the wealthy. So even in boom times you see people living far beyond their means on credit to have a nicer house, car, toys, etc... because they want the same things as a higher paid person has and they are unwilling to delay gratification or make lifestyle changes to save the money for those things. So I'm not talking just about trying to retain a sense of wealth while on unemployment, I'm talking about trying to maintain a sense of wealth even in good times when they can't afford it.

[poetry_writer]

I meant it in a generalized kind of way as an example of a job that I think many people in America would find beneath them. There are other jobs that are less physical like telemarketing, customer service, fast food order taker and cashier, etc... that many people - at least people I know - would not do. And of course I realize that the elderly and people with injuries or physical disabilities may not be able to do a physical job, just like some people (like me) have disabilities that prevent us from working with the public, talking on the phone, taking orders, doing the call center thing, etc.. And while I agree that it's very difficult for even a single person, let alone a family, to get by on a minimum wage job, I feel that many people are unwilling to do the things needed or make the personal sacrifices needed to live on minimum wage. Like getting a second job, living in a roommate situation - or even with 2 or more people sharing a bedroom, giving up the car a using public transit, eating rice and beans (and beans and rice to quote Dave Ramsey) everyday, give up the cable and internet and cut back on everything you can. That's how I lived most of my life (and still do). That's how my Mom lived when my Dad walked out and left her homeless and penniless and jobless and carless with 3 children to care for. That's how many of the people in my Asian working class neighbor hood choose to live "Walton-style" in large extended family groups with several people sharing bedrooms and pooling their money irregarless of how small their incomes so that they can a better future. But most Americans are unwilling to do those thing. There is a sense of entitlement that people seem to have that I believe was lacking in the depression era people. Now you see working class people feeling that they should have the same things as the middle class, and middleclass people feeling they are entitled to the same things as the wealthy. So even in boom times you see people living far beyond their means on credit to have a nicer house, car, toys, etc... because they want the same things as a higher paid person has and they are unwilling to delay gratification or make lifestyle changes to save the money for those things. So I'm not talking just about trying to retain a sense of wealth while on unemployment, I'm talking about trying to maintain a sense of wealth even in good times when they can't afford it.

I know many many people who would do any job they are physically able to do. Obviously our society will always have its share of "you owe me" folks. But the many of unemployed people in America looking daily for work dont turn down jobs because its beneath them. Many simply do not understand that there are very few jobs to apply for in any field. I know families who have lost their homes, cars and just about everything.

[Spartana]

I know many many people who would do any job they are physically able to do. Obviously our society will always have its share of "you owe me" folks. But the many of unemployed people in America looking daily for work dont turn down jobs because its beneath them. Many simply do not understand that there are very few jobs to apply for in any field. I know families who have lost their homes, cars and just about everything.

I agree 100%. I sadly know many people in the same boat. I personally think it'll get worse before it gets better.

[Weston]

I like these ideas by James K. Galbraith who teaches at the LBJ School at UT -

In the United States, the financial crisis has left the country with 11 million fewer jobs than Americans need now. No matter how aggressive the policy, we are not going to find 11 million new jobs soon. So common sense suggests we should make some decisions about who should have the first crack: older people, who have already worked three or four decades at hard jobs? Or younger people, many just out of school, with fresh skills and ambitions?

The answer is obvious. Older people who would like to retire and would do so if they could afford it should get some help. The right step is to reduce, not increase, the full-benefits retirement age. As a rough cut, why not enact a three-year window during which the age for receiving full Social Security benefits would drop to 62 -- providing a voluntary, one-time, grab-it-now bonus for leaving work? Let them go home! With a secure pension and medical care, they will be happier. Young people who need work will be happier. And there will also be more jobs. With pension security, older people will consume services until the end of their lives. They will become, each and every one, an employer.


Peace

My problem with this is that Professor Gailbraith is making an enormous assumption.

Specifically, his entire theory rests on the premise that a US employee who retires early will automatically be replaced by another American worker.

I can envision any number of scenarios where an employer keeps a worker on for reasons such as loyalty, fear of an age discrimination suit, workforce morale, not wishing to expend the time, effort or money to properly train a replacement etc. If that worker retires the employer often has a wide range of options besides replacing them with another American such as offshoring, reduction in workforce or automation. If an employer has no choice but to go through the time, effort and expense of replacing a worker (in this case an early retiree) they will in many instances look to the cheapest route.

I'm not saying they will always go in that direction. However, since so many jobs no longer need a human being physically on the premises there is a big unaddressed factor that could potentially impact this theory.

[mm1970]

I know many many people who would do any job they are physically able to do. Obviously our society will always have its share of "you owe me" folks. But the many of unemployed people in America looking daily for work dont turn down jobs because its beneath them. Many simply do not understand that there are very few jobs to apply for in any field. I know families who have lost their homes, cars and just about everything.

A lot of it is simple economics. With unemployment lasting as long as it does...for most people I know, unemployment pays more than a part time job paying minimum wage.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Even if it's about status, if there is some kind of time tradeoff between getting a full-time low paying job and spending all day applying for a more skilled job one has training or experience in then I can see people rationally choosing the latter. It's about not throwing away years of good qualifications.

Now if there are so few job posting that you can apply for the few jobs that exist in the evenings or whatever and have the energy, nothing wrong with taking the low paying job. One could argue: if you don't take a job in your field immediately and just take the low paying one you can always go back into your field later. Look I WISH things worked that way (and if I was sure of it, I'd probably deliberately take a year off for schooling and exploration because I can afford it financially), but in reality there are all kind of scary stories about employers not wanting you back if you've been out of the field even for a year or so. So yea you weigh things: present money, future prospects and future money, and ha sometimes just your sanity (it may be better to get a part-time job in anything just to get out of the house!).