- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,316
- Reaction score
- 3,220
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What have people been doing since the time of modern civilization? Suddenly we need to give money to people in this situation? If you are able to work, under 62, and just cant find a job that is tough luck. I could make up categories of people we should sympathize with all day long but that doesnt mean they should be added to government assistance. If you are in your 50's you should have a nice size retirement nest egg anyway. In an emergency situation you could always use that money instead of taxpayer money.
But see, that "nest egg" is what they've been living on while they look for work -- after it's gone, then what?
I find it hard that someone, who is physically able to go to work, can't find a job doing, something, anything, even if it's picking up cans out of the road ditch. Relocate, if they have to, anything.
What have people been doing since the time of modern civilization? Suddenly we need to give money to people in this situation? If you are able to work, under 62, and just cant find a job that is tough luck. I could make up categories of people we should sympathize with all day long but that doesnt mean they should be added to government assistance. If you are in your 50's you should have a nice size retirement nest egg anyway. In an emergency situation you could always use that money instead of taxpayer money.
I find it hard that someone, who is physically able to go to work, can't find a job doing, something, anything, even if it's picking up cans out of the road ditch. Relocate, if they have to, anything.
Over 50? Been unemployed for 1 year or longer?
Many of my friends in that position are just dying on the vine, their only hope to qualify as "disabled" so they can draw SSD.
Wouldn't it be better to admit someone with a less than 5% chance of finding work to the social security rolls without making liars out of them?
What say you? Should there be a permanent benefit to sustain life for an older worker who is chronically unemployable?
But see, that "nest egg" is what they've been living on while they look for work -- after it's gone, then what?
If the state can pay these people to do nothing it can pay them to do a job
Over 50? Been unemployed for 1 year or longer?
Many of my friends in that position are just dying on the vine, their only hope to qualify as "disabled" so they can draw SSD.
Wouldn't it be better to admit someone with a less than 5% chance of finding work to the social security rolls without making liars out of them?
What say you? Should there be a permanent benefit to sustain life for an older worker who is chronically unemployable?
Over 50? Been unemployed for 1 year or longer?
Many of my friends in that position are just dying on the vine, their only hope to qualify as "disabled" so they can draw SSD.
Wouldn't it be better to admit someone with a less than 5% chance of finding work to the social security rolls without making liars out of them?
What say you? Should there be a permanent benefit to sustain life for an older worker who is chronically unemployable?
You're competitng with younger people today. It really does happen.
If the state can pay these people to do nothing it can pay them to do a job
And, if they can do a job, they're not, "chronically unemployable".
They are "unemployable" in that they can't find anyone to hire them.
I think the idea of the government paying them to do something useful has legs. I have a high opinion of the 1930's-style "make work" programs, like the Civilian Conservation Corps.
It's still taking my money and giving it to someone else, because they don't have the gumption to get a job on their own.
Sure, all but the gumption part. But, it really does help all of us to make sure there is no undue suffering. And the better we do it, with the most production possible, and the least pain for any of us, the better.
How do you reduce undue suffering? When I talk to people with operations management background, they all seem to say that the problem with old people is that they can't work except at their own pace. In today's world where businesses have virtually eliminated their operational "frictions", the worker that can turn on a dime for any customer demand is the winner. You can't expect a regular 10-12 hour workday from an old person. Even young people fail with this when competing against cheap outsourcing.
The bottom line: when you turn 36, nature takes away 2 % of your hormones every year, giving you gray hair, wrinkles, loss-of-shape, and death (at the end). It is up to you how you manage your decline. But isn't it a loosing proposition to try to run upwards on this downward escalator? Let's allow old people to reduce their own life expectancy.
That doesn't matter to would-be employers. They take one look at your work history and unless they're desperate (which none of them are right now because of the 3+:1 unemployed/job ratio) they will not hire you. If it's the same profession or a closely related one they might take you but otherwise all of them figure you will cut and run back to your old profession the minute you get the chance.As I pointed out, I outwork 20-something-year-olds everyday.
First of all no one should be working 12 hrs a day ...it should be 8 and following your slly synopsis the world should be run by a logans run attitude...you become worthless at 30 and they just kill ya.....I have no idea where this new national attitude has come from....but I seriously dont like it...and im hoping most of america sees exactly whats going on
Over 50? Been unemployed for 1 year or longer?
Many of my friends in that position are just dying on the vine, their only hope to qualify as "disabled" so they can draw SSD.
Wouldn't it be better to admit someone with a less than 5% chance of finding work to the social security rolls without making liars out of them?
What say you? Should there be a permanent benefit to sustain life for an older worker who is chronically unemployable?
When Mexicans stop paying coyotes to leave their own country and stop risking their lives sneaking across the desert to come here for work then and only then will I take the supposition that you can't find a job here seriously.
I find it hard that someone, who is physically able to go to work, can't find a job doing, something, anything, even if it's picking up cans out of the road ditch. Relocate, if they have to, anything.
What have people been doing since the time of modern civilization? Suddenly we need to give money to people in this situation? If you are able to work, under 62, and just cant find a job that is tough luck. I could make up categories of people we should sympathize with all day long but that doesnt mean they should be added to government assistance. If you are in your 50's you should have a nice size retirement nest egg anyway. In an emergency situation you could always use that money instead of taxpayer money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?