The Employment to Population Ratio

that's like saying you want to reduce the number of liberal voters as quickly as possible. Liberals have subverted our democracy!

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

What no one knows here is how many Americans actually require government assistance for the long term? If we're honest, observing many Americans today, they simply are not physically or mentally capable of being employed...how many are in this group? Many other Americans do not live in areas that provide employment. And, fact is the private sector, in any location and/or across the nation, it is not required to provide a job for every job seeker. Even with supposed 'low' unemployment rates we still have tens of millions of Americans unemployed. IMO government either needs to provide assistance to this group of people or provide tangible solutions for them...like subsidized housing or healthcare or affordable public transit. No amount of politics will make this issue go away...

 

actually federal and state govt spends $7 trillion a year on these people. What planet have you been on that you were not aware of this?. More importantly, benefits are now so generous that anti-science liberals have actually reversed evolution with poor people breeding more than rich people.

 

Hang on a second, I must be diligently seeking a job?
Sounds a bit like slavery to me.

None of your business what I am doing.

 

Only if you expect assistance be provided resulting from the lack of a job.

I agree totally, as long as I'm not BEING REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT to fund what you're doing or not doing.

 

There is ALWAYS work to be found somewhere; how often do you see those who enter the country illegally crossing the border returning home?
That should indicate there exists but two solutions to ones problem, traveling a greater distance to find/obtain employment OR moving to where more employment opportunities exist until one, or more can be found.
Nor should it! At least, NOT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL of government.

 

especially if we allow supply to equal demand as we do for millions of products.

 

There may be jobs available but people are not qualified. Millions are not even qualified to work any job! What percentage of the US population lives in rural areas outside of the employment centers? How many towns in the US have less than 1000 population and what jobs are they creating?

Regarding people who come to the US for work; many come here because their home areas provide ZERO opportunity. It's not an easy road for them once they arrive here and not all find employment that will ever provide them with a US median income...

 

I disagree, there are always jobs available that ANYONE can do, and remain unfilled because few if any are willing to do them and the pay is low. If there are no jobs where you live, the options are but two, travel a distance to find and obtain employment and retain your residence or after finding and obtaining employment move closer to where it is found. Population of towns and cities should rise and/or fall as a result of the availability of the employment means they provide people to remain. Look at Detroit.
So it is obvious that opportunities to find employment in the U.S. are ALWAYS greater than ZERO. The problem with many unemployed American citizens is the belief that they are entitled to a median income level. Setting ones goals too high more often than not is certain to result in failure.

 

What the government requires of you is between you and your government.
No one else.

I pay unemployment protection to the govt. If I get unemployed, they owe me a pay out. That's my money back, not your money. The government gets the use of it in the meantime.
Who is assisting who here?


If I am to take an equal share of government spending, then I am not a net taxpayer.
But like most people, I don't use an equal share of tax revenue's.
People in government employment use up most of that.

Quite a lot of people on benefits are rightly pissed off with the amount they receive. They feel they are getting ripped off too.
One size doesn't fit all.

 

Are you and I talking about the same thing?

 

Unemployed benefit also goes the other way. It helps qualified people maximise effectiveness of their job search. They're not forced into any job. They can wait until they find the job suited to their skills set. If they are forced into employment earlier, you can expect underemployment efficiency to go through the roof.

 

Aspects of it but from a different perspective.

In your eyes you as a net taxpayer are paying for the benefits of non workers.
But I as a net taxpayer have pre-paid for my own benefits. It's an insurance scheme.

It's none of your business if and what I claim. You aren't paying for it. I am.





Your government and mine run deficits.
We aren't paying to assist welfare claimants at all.

The (vast bulk of) money doesn't go to the poor, it goes to the rich. And it is not enough for them, they want more.

 

Who is your post a response to, me or another?

 

Well...you can disagree all you wish but it is a fact that in all locations of the US there are not enough jobs to match everyone wanting a job. How many people can relocate or long-distance commute for lower wages? A person 21 years old in Mayberry making $7/hour at the feed store can and should relocate in order to have more work options...and when they have more work options there will also be more demand on higher skills and education. What about people who are 40-50 years old and older...are they going to relocate and obtain more skills and education? Society simply needs to accept that some percentage of Americans will always need government support/assistance, and there's nothing wrong with means-testing people who ask for long-term support...

 

I'm all for unemployment but against long-term unemployment...anything more than maybe 3 months or maybe 6 months in a very tight employment market. Any government assistance beyond 3-6 months should not be called unemployment but fall into a different category...

 

Improving job search can go beyond the time limits you mention (particularly more high skilled jobs). Overall I find the focus on unemployment to be wrong. We of course want full employment, but we know that 'good jobs' is key and that's missed in the aggregated data

 

Fact is there are probably many MORE jobs than there are people wanting jobs, but there are also a large number of jobs that few people want, and we have no way of producing a true number of those who in reality don't want to have a job if they can avoid having one to live.
The most rational means test to apply is the effort of the person wanting assistance puts forth in an attempt to eliminate the continued need of assistance.

 

Mate there is a gazillion jobs out there, but not many that pay the rent.

If you want to work for less than the cost of living, no problem. Companies everywhere await your charity.

 

Finding a job is a full time job! It's not about emailing 100's of resumes then screwing off the rest of the day. 3-6 months is long enough to secure employment. If people want long-term unemployment then people should pay for long-term unemployment insurance while they are working.

It's not about 'good' jobs since that is quite subjective. It must be about each person achieving 'their' potential...whatever that potential might be...

 

You cannot compare the number of jobs to those unemployed because those jobs are not available in all areas and there are job requirements which the unemployed may or may not have. There will forever and always be some portion of the workforce that cannot obtain employment...

 

'Good jobs' doesn't refer to heterogeneity in preferences (e.g. "I'm a vegetarian so find the butcher's repugnant"). It refers to the objective characteristics of the job: i.e. security, wage and training.

 

But one's potential may not afford them job security, decent wages, and advanced training. Each of us has limitations and without a change to this it relegates us to variable successes...

 

But we also know that low skilled equilibria develop without reference to innate ability levels. They are demand-led, rather than supply-side problems.

 

One of two things must occur, either the jobs must move or the unemployed must move to where they can meet. As to job requirements, it is much more likely the unemployed person will have to move to where jobs he/she is qualified to perform exist than it is for the jobs will move to become available where they exist. While it's undeniably true that there will ALWAYS be some portion of the workforce seeking employment, except for those totally incapable of performing ANY form of labour, it is the responsibility of the individual to exhibit an intent to reduce/eliminate their need of public/private assistance.