Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's obvious that the proposal is nothing to do with reducing unemployment, especially of low qualified people. That creates the impression that the purpose is something else.

Perhaps the purpose is to increase the qualifications of the "low qualified people"?

Isn't that the reasoning behind improving school standards, increasing the affordability of college (via student loans) and work-training programs?

Why assume some malicious purpose? (Aside from the fact that it's a Republican proposal)

So, is the proposal that the money saved by suspending welfare to people without a high school diploma will be spent on remedial education for people without high school diplomas?

Unemployment for those who have college degrees is at an all-time high. Adding another ten million to the number of college graduates is not going to make the unemployment for college graduates go away.

Frazzled wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Whats wrong with saying: dude like you're uneducated, step it up? If you're unemployed and can't find a job you should be doing that anyway. Its time honored Frazzled tradition.

Do you teach them for free? Schooling costs money, I think the teachers want to eat too for some reason. Unless the adult education classes are state funded, I find it of dubious logic to believe that someone unemployed, and requiring unemployment assistance, will have the money to enroll in classes.

Usually GED classes are in fact state funded. I know my neighbor's kid had free classes to do so.

Fair enough then. Make it so.

Kilkrazy wrote:So, is the proposal that the money saved by suspending welfare to people without a high school diploma will be spent on remedial education for people without high school diplomas?

The remedial education is already available.

On a side note. 1 in 4 High Schoolers do not graduate with a degree in the US.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:So, is the proposal that the money saved by suspending welfare to people without a high school diploma will be spent on remedial education for people without high school diplomas?

The remedial education is already available.

Yet seems not to be working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:On a side note. 1 in 4 High Schoolers do not graduate with a degree in the US.

Presumably you mean 3/4 high school graduates go on to higher education and get degrees.

Easy E wrote:On a side note. 1 in 4 High Schoolers do not graduate with a degree in the US.

That is odd becuase the research doesn't show it being anywhere near 25%. It is still higher than it should be but that is quite an exaggerated number.

Perhaps, I was recalling a statistic related specifically to latinos?

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

However, after review, I see even that has declined to just 17.6%. Overall it is 8.1%.

My apologies.

Melissia wrote:Unemployment for those who have college degrees is at an all-time high. Adding another ten million to the number of college graduates is not going to make the unemployment for college graduates go away.

But in addition to increasing education, you also get the benefit of kicking the unemployment can down the road. By sending kids to college you get 4 years to try to create a job for them.

4 years = another election and possibly a different president to blame. It's a political win-win.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:So, is the proposal that the money saved by suspending welfare to people without a high school diploma will be spent on remedial education for people without high school diplomas?

The remedial education is already available.

Yet seems not to be working.

Correction: seems not to be widely used.

Presumably it 'works' (providing remedial education) sufficiently well.

Since enough people aren't using the system that is in their best interest to use, we can incentivize people to use the system.

I do have a problem with this, but it's not the problem other people have.

d-usa wrote:4 years = another election and possibly a different president to blame. It's a political win-win.

True, but then it also might be (however unlikely) a Republican president to blame at that point. None of the candidates having put forth a serious job proposal that actually gets talked about yet...

But politicians never think about the future. If they can kick a can down the road, they will do so 86.54% of the time.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:So, is the proposal that the money saved by suspending welfare to people without a high school diploma will be spent on remedial education for people without high school diplomas?

The remedial education is already available.

Yet seems not to be working.

Correction: seems not to be widely used.

Who would have thought the least educated would also have low levels of political efficacy as well?

biccat wrote:I do have a problem with this, but it's not the problem other people have.

Then what is your problem with it?

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:I do have a problem with this, but it's not the problem other people have.

Then what is your problem with it?

As for the bill itself, I have a problem with extending unemployment benefits. We're at the point where large number of people have been on unemployment for up to 2 years. I think the 27 weeks states provide is sufficient. One solution would be to move these people to the "welfare" category. Yeah, it sucks, but lets stop pretending that this is a temporary problem and work on dealing with the underlying economic issues.

More generally, I have a problem with the government using legislation as either a carrot or a stick to change incentives for people to get an education or not. If people think it's in their best financial interest to get a GED (or similar) they should do so, they don't need the government 'stick' to help them along.

Melissia wrote:Unemployment for those who have college degrees is at an all-time high. Adding another ten million to the number of college graduates is not going to make the unemployment for college graduates go away.

There's a world of difference between a college degree and a GED.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:So, is the proposal that the money saved by suspending welfare to people without a high school diploma will be spent on remedial education for people without high school diplomas?

The remedial education is already available.

Yet seems not to be working.

Maybe thats kind of the point?

Easy E wrote:On a side note. 1 in 4 High Schoolers do not graduate with a degree in the US.

Presumably you mean 3/4 high school graduates go on to higher education and get degrees.

I think he means 25% of US high school students do not graduate.

biccat wrote:
Federal unemployment compensation is not funded by employers or employees and instead comes out of the general fund, and therefore isn't 'insurance.'

It is, at least ostensibly, funded by FUTA, unless we're talking about veterans, disaster victims, and federal employees.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Unemployment for college educated is 4 %. It rises dramatically thereafter. I think that makes the issue clear. Improve yourself.

Sure, but why are we denying unemployment to day laborers when we grant it to the college educated? What makes their jobs different from those of the college educated?

i seem to have some agreement with this... its interesting enough to be worth some debate

biccat wrote:
Since enough people aren't using the system that is in their best interest to use...

It is? Is this like the argument that you can only get a good job if you go to college?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Since enough people aren't using the system that is in their best interest to use...

It is? Is this like the argument that you can only get a good job if you go to college?

I suppose I should have said "apparent" best interest. If you're unemployed and don't have a HS degree or a GED, it is presumably in your interest to use free programs that are available to you in order to better yourself.

However, you're right that I shouldn't have assumed that people are acting irrationally.

I'm also assuming that the reason for creating free GED programs at all is to lower their marginal cost.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Unemployment for those who have college degrees is at an all-time high. Adding another ten million to the number of college graduates is not going to make the unemployment for college graduates go away.

There's a world of difference between a college degree and a GED.

I know, and that's not what I was referring to.

Honestly a high school degree/GED is pretty much worthless. I haven't once had an employer ask me if I had one. They wanted to know if I had COLLEGE degrees, not a high school diploma.

And half the time they count college degrees against you cause then you're "overqualified"...

biccat wrote:
I suppose I should have said "apparent" best interest. If you're unemployed and don't have a HS degree or a GED, it is presumably in your interest to use free programs that are available to you in order to better yourself.

That's probably true, but I don't see why people should be disqualified from unemployment benefits due to this. They have, after all, held gainful employment for a period of time sufficient to qualify for unemployment benefits, implying that they have some form of marketable skills, and at least some knowledge of how to market them.

biccat wrote:
However, you're right that I shouldn't have assumed that people are acting irrationally.

I assume you meant "rationally".

However, that doesn't really escape my objection, which centers on considering a particular set of behaviors to be rational in a very general context, rather than looking at what is rational in a particular context.

The single mother of two who works, but doesn't work towards her GED, isn't necessarily making an irrational choice.

I can rationally prefer X over Y even if lots of other people think I should prefer Y.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:However, you're right that I shouldn't have assumed that people are acting irrationally.

I assume you meant "rationally".

No, I meant "irrationally."

Assuming that procuring a GED is in someone's best interest when they are not in the process of procuring that GED is assuming that they are not acting rationally. The problem with this argument, as you've pointed out, is "I can rationally prefer X over Y even if lots of other people think I should prefer Y."

So it was wrong of me to assume that the people not getting a GED (who might do so now) are acting irrationally.

biccat wrote:As for the bill itself, I have a problem with extending unemployment benefits. We're at the point where large number of people have been on unemployment for up to 2 years. I think the 27 weeks states provide is sufficient. One solution would be to move these people to the "welfare" category. Yeah, it sucks, but lets stop pretending that this is a temporary problem and work on dealing with the underlying economic issues.

I actually agree with this sentiment.

With more unemployed people than openings, making some unemployed people more qualified is just going to increase competition, not net unemployment. there are a few industries with hyper-specific labor shortages, but there aren't 10 million of those jobs.

I'd rather offer older workers, which have the least chance of getting a new job, some form of early retirment. Get them on the dole and focus on younger workers.

Still, I feel that this particular effort is kind of bizarre. I mean, whatever, I have no problem asking people to do something in exchange for a check. If that's what we feel is important, than I guess knock yourself out. It just strikes me as more of way to look like you're serious about cutting spending without really doing anything meaningful.

I am sure the Me generation would love a chance to to do that. It would obliterate social security of course, but we always knew they would do that.

Frazzled wrote:I am sure the Me generation would love a chance to to do that. It would obliterate social security of course, but we always knew they would do that.

If your generation didn't want the young people who have to live the consequences of your fiscal irresponsibility to make tough economic decisions like this, perhaps your generation should not have driven the country to the point of insolvency?

Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am sure the Me generation would love a chance to to do that. It would obliterate social security of course, but we always knew they would do that.

If your generation didn't want the young people who have to live the consequences of your fiscal irresponsibility to make tough economic decisions like this, perhaps your generation should not have driven the country to the point of insolvency?

Whats this 'your generation' crap?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594WLzzb3JI

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am sure the Me generation would love a chance to to do that. It would obliterate social security of course, but we always knew they would do that.

If your generation didn't want the young people who have to live the consequences of your fiscal irresponsibility to make tough economic decisions like this, perhaps your generation should not have driven the country to the point of insolvency?

Whats this 'your generation' crap?

Aren't you a baby boomer? Truthfully I know you're older, but not precisely.

Frazzled wrote:Yes, yes Republicans are evil. Yes I know.


I like it. Here's the important part:

Those reforms include shortening the length of time jobless workers can collect benefits and a provision that would require anyone collecting them to have a high school diploma or be enrolled in an adult education program working toward a General Educational Development, or GED, certificate.

Now see, reading that part, I have no problems with it. All that says is, if you want to receive your unemployment check, finished your diploma, which really, isnt that hard to do, my niece is nearly finished completing hers, and as much as I love the kid, shes as dumb as a bag of sand. So yea, Id be all for it, if thats all it takes. Lose your job? Well get these checks for free, while you finish your diploma. Dont see anything wrong with that