General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow I would solve the job problem. I would introduce a totally new program
and modify an existing one, and put some restriction on higher ed.
First the restriction on ed: put a freeze on all admissions for five yrs.
Modify Soc Sec retirement age down to 50YRs.
Now my new program is: require all hiring be done through a jobs broker. (a new kind of union). You pay a fee and they neg a salary/wage, benefits etc. Broker firms would be limited to 10 per state and would ensure employees are qualified for the position and meet legal requirements.
These brokers would signal needs to higher ed, strike a balance of terror between corporations and employees, and fine tune the job market.
If only I were king!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
CK_John
(10,005 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Not to mention that you would force most colleges to the brink of bankruptcy, if not beyond.
Then you would force people to pay to get a job(maybe), and also force students to follow a career path not of their own choosing.
I'm glad you're not king, and hopefully you are nowhere near the levers of power, ever.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)needed has outstripped the size of the population. We will need a lottery for higher ed or some form of rationing.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Rationing? So under your proposals, you would be denying intelligent, well qualified people their chance at higher ed! Why?
Rather than trying to solve the problem by condemning people to McJobs for life, why not return the Student Loan program and the grant programs to the pre-Reagan days? Why not actually fund higher education nationwide? Hell, why not follow the example of many countries and provide higher education free for students? In this day and age, when more and more jobs require higher education, you are wanting to limit students' ability to attain such education. That is insane, and counterproductive to advancing our society as a whole.
Also, if you rationed higher ed, you would be putting a lot of colleges and universities out of business. All those people thrown out of work. All that knowledge wasted. Geez, have you really thought this through.
As far as jobs go, rather than cutting peoples' ability to get a job, why not try basic Keynsian economics? A real jobs creation program, prime the pump to get the economy going? Not a program where people struggling to find a job, people struggling to pay the rent have to lay out even more cash in order to get a job.
Frankly your proposals read like a RW wet dream, cut back on the number of educated people in this country, force them into low paying McJobs, and control their access to employment.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)1% of the country who control 40% of its wealth? Or on the 10% of the country who control 80% of its wealth?
Jeesh. I'm with MadHound upthread.
postulater
(5,075 posts)Sounds like a great place to start a political career by learning how to be legally bribed.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)that license 10 per state and sets the rate of fees also.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Your proposals just better and better, not.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)will come workable fixes.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Solutions that don't involve rationing higher education, forcing people to pay for jobs, and driving institutions of higher education out business, all the while making higher ed affordable once again, and revitalizing the jobs market. All workable fixes, all solutions that have worked time and again in the past.
What have you offered? Condemning young people to a lifetime of McJobs, no higher education, and having to pay to work.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)needed below the size of the population. Current students are paying 40,000 a yr and no guarantee of a job, let alone a job that will payoff SalieMay loans.
We need drastic solutions not just keep things the same. I see the GOP is working to do away with public ed completely and only having fee pay school for their offspring. Pre kindergarden cost 30,000 a yr in NYC, that is the future unless changes are made.
Agree or disagee I'm trying to do my part.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Technical advances mean that you need people with advanced degrees, not being shut out of college as you propose.
Yes, there is a movement afoot to do away with public education, a bipartisan movement at that. Your proposal to limit the number of students who can get higher education is simply an extension of that movement. Worse yet, you want to have people PAY in order to get a job.
These aren't solutions, these are simply piling on more problems. I suggest that you rethink your "solutions". They will wreck this country.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Food prep, janitorial, cleaning sewers, painting, stocking and cashiering, painting, landscaping, etc.?
It seems like people use these jobs, or the threats of ending up with these jobs, as an insult. But they are necessary and honorable jobs, even if they leave you dirty, sweating, and tired.
When I read stuff about "McJobs" the way it is frequently used not only here, but many places, it pisses me off. While the intent may be to insult a flawed system, more than anything, it denigrates the people who have those jobs and work them to the best of their abilities.
So, whadda you think? How can we avoid starving and living in filth if no one has a McJob? How do we get real, necessary tasks done if we are all busy with those nice clean "respectable" jobs of making PowerPoints and going to meetings?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I've worked plenty of them myself. They are a necessary part of our society, they do put food on the table, but they are not a way to advance yourself. Furthermore, most of them have serious, adverse health consequences that pile up over time. If this is the path you wish to follow(and there are a few distinct advantages to it) fine.
What I object to in the OP's "solution" is that generations would blanketly be forced into McJobs, with little or no chance of advancing themselves, and with no voice in the matter. So that kid coming out of high school with a passion for medicine and a good idea on how to cure cancer, that kid, along with millions of others, would be forced to forego that dream, a loss for him, a loss for all of us.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
kentuck
(111,051 posts)I would change the way credit card payments are made. They should not be treated like mortgages on a home. If you have paid off the principal on all your purchases, then your balance would be zero. Your credit card would be paid off. This would put billions of dollars into the economy almost instantly. This would be a great stimulus for creating new jobs because people would be buying a lot more stuff.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I haven't paid interest on my credit cards in years.
Not only that but I get reward points for free stuff.
kentuck
(111,051 posts)
Some people should be so lucky to pay off their credit cards every month. That is not the reality, unfortunately.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Mitt would never tell you that though because it's how rich people make money.
Yep if you want to figure out why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer debt is a big factor because you PAY FOR MONEY.
kentuck
(111,051 posts)... poor people should not have borrowed money they could not afford to pay back and the big banks should not have given them credit cards knowing they did not have the means to pay for them. Credit cards became a substitute for pay raises.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)when you have money, nobody can take advantage of your desperation for the very basics in life --food, shelter, health care, clothing.
you have those things.
when you're poor, you have to maintain sustenance often without the resources to do so.
so vultures like pay-day lenders, in the absence of a proper safety net (which works in other countries!) provide for a cost.
it isn't about debt. it's about encouraging exploitation of America's most deprived and vulnerable by those who are wealthy.
it's an old game the the rich usually win.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I've put gasoline and groceries on a credit card just to get by to the next payday. Needed it to get to work so I could keep the job. Paid doctors and pharmacies with a credit card to get healthy, so I wouldn't miss work and lose pay. Car died, no money, took on debt for a car, so that I could work to get money to pay off my credit cards.
Debt is a trap for many people as they need to borrow money just to be able to work and make money. Sometimes when you are lucky you can climb out. But with just a little bit of bad timing and bad luck, this becomes a lifelong treadmill of misery.
It's like a modern form of slavery or serfdom. All for the benefit of being able to maintain a very small super-rich class in lives of unimaginable excess and luxury. And then they think they earned it.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Debt = poor.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)why is this so foreign a concept to you?
are you completely clueless to the reality of poverty, a reality that is so easy to see in this country unless you protect yourself from seeing it?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Or by charity. People will find the barest of necessities available if they need them. Yes it will be at a level that is pretty miserable but you can't expect much if you are given something.
My grandparents came to work on a plantation so I have roots in what would be considered poverty I am sure. But in two generations we have done decently well, enough to pay income taxes at least.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Most people haven't had income that keeps up with the rising cost of life in general because their salaries have stagnated for the last 20 years or they've lost their jobs. Credit cards have been necessary just to keep up. But I'm sure you have all kinds of wisdom about how people should make ends meet.
dkf
(37,305 posts)And if anyone thinks they are then no wonder they are messed up.
The older generations knew how to live within their means and without credit cards. That is a life skill that has been lost.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)and they usually did it with one income in the family. What changed is not the character of people as you infer, but the fact that the greed of corporations like banks realized that when women started to go to work it meant they could raise the value of homes and get longer mortgages with larger interest rates. Then it forced families to have two incomes in order to be able to afford what one income used to.
The fact that you have enough doesn't mean most of the rest of us do. People kept expecting their incomes to keep up with the cost of living, but then the corporations decided they needed to make bigger profits while cutting salaries or never bothering to raise them.
Credit cards and equity became the only way to make ends meet.
I'm happy for you that you have all that character like the older people did though.
dkf
(37,305 posts)With 10 kids they had to suck it up. I doubt that was the good life, with meat rationed to 3 pieces each, on the occasions they had any.
My parents didn't have much to spare when we were growing up. My dad got an "allowance" of $20 every two weeks to buy lunch for himself and pay our $0.25 daily lunch for 3 kids and a weekly pie we would bring over to my grandparents house every week.
But every generation has done a little better. My grandparents got their intermediate school educations, my parents graduated from college with help from their families, and we all got our degrees also with help from our parents. We went to the state university so it was affordable and we got out with no loans, just part time i
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Along with the Bill of Rights.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)State higher ed is being replaced with phony online universities and will beg for oversight to stay viable. We will need some new laws but mostly new thinking.
bhikkhu
(10,711 posts)...as your solution would impose a whole new set of worse problems.
mythology
(9,527 posts)thankfully you'll never be king. Not one of those ideas is even remotely good.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Then you'd really fix things.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Your fix for higher education is bullshit. Here's how you fix it. You make it free for everyone. Tax the rich and end the wars to pay for it. Also, just so the rich can't hide their taxes in the Caymans you outlaw it and make the penalty very high. I'm thinking some prison time and very high fines, maybe having 50% of their total wealth taken from them would teach them to pay their taxes and stop acting so much like parasites.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)You're right.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)The need for labor is declining and likely will continue to do so. We cannot simply educate our way clear of that reality. Yes, advances require a more educated workforce but the efficiencies decrease the required size of the same pool.
In the end, full employment at full time for so many is not realistic which means the entire current economic paradigm will become unworkable in a fashion that even could loosely be compared to broad prosperity.
What we are doing isn't going to work much longer and this is another very crucial reason why.
The system is breaking and cannot be propped up to function under emerging conditions.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)We have to stop thinking of everyone having a job. There are lots of people who would gladly give up work if they could. Ann Romney is one of the lucky ones who gets to do that and that's because she can afford anything she wants while Mitt makes the money.
Lot's of women and men would prefer to be stay at home parents. It was done successfully when I was growing up although it was socially unacceptable for women to work and men not to. The trick now would be to allow those who want careers to have them and those who prefer to stay home to do that too. That would mean that things like houses and cars and other expenses need to come into alignment with one paycheck families again. There's no rational reason for the cost of living to be so high that only the rich can afford leisure time to pursue other interests.
I would gladly stay at home if I could. I'd be able to pursue a career in art, even if I never sold a thing, and I believe it would actually be a contribution to society even if it's in a small way. My job isn't a fulfilling thing. It gets the bills paid and allows me to keep a roof over my head. I would even gladly share my job with others as long as we could all meet our survival needs.
Making our basic needs affordable is the way to change things. I find it very telling that no one ever wants to talk about that. It's as if no one can think of ways to make housing, education and cars affordable without everyone having to slave at a job just to get those things. There would be no need to create more jobs incessantly if these things were affordable. Millions of people would choose to have no job so everyone who wanted one could get one.
There's much more regarding this subject but it would take a book to put it all down.
kentuck
(111,051 posts)to find a way to lower the hours worked and to increase the wages per hours worked. This is the best way to make work available to everyone that wants a job. Otherwise, the entire capitalist system, as we know it, will soon be threatened.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)I'm not sure it would be a good idea to further empower "professional students" who half-ass their education.
Years ago, I was in a free automotive electrical repair program. The number of people there just killing time, not showing up for class, etc. was easily double the number of people who took the class seriously. Perhaps if the people who didn't care about their education were to face a big tuition if they drop out or don't graduate, while graduates get their education for free, then we would have more committed students who are getting the most for our public investment.
aikoaiko
(34,162 posts)"...strike a balance of terror between corporations and employees..."
lunatica
(53,410 posts)And it'll probably get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.
aikoaiko
(34,162 posts)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I personally believe they have a right to it, even if they can't afford it, as long as they make the grades.
There are other reasons besides jobs for getting a higher education, although that's the most important.
Also, costs at universities would skyrocket even more, with few students to pay the costs.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)the biggest employer in the town or state. These large employers IBM, Kodak, large Agra business and others took an interest in design of curriculum and student aid.
Now they have moved labor offshore, higher ed is floundering and no longer have a purpose.
The online scam universities smell the blood in the water and will pick their bones clean in 2 or 3 yrs.
The GOP is more than happy to help to kill off public schools and fill their ed schools with true believers. These are trained to be lawyers whose purpose is to take government jobs and kill off regulations.
Higher Ed has only been widely available since WWII and the GI Bill. Only 6% of the population where lucky enough to get into college prior to 1950.
They were needed then today not so much.
SAT, Med school quotas, pell grants have been effective in rationing ed
while there was a need.
A lottery and a reduction in admissions and cost is what is now needed.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Making you wiser. It is only within the past fifty, sixty years that it has become primarily about jobs.
And here you are, still pushing a lottery, still condemning millions to a life of uneducated ignorance and McJobs.
Why do you want to dumb down the American public?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)broadening one's horizons, going outside one's comfort zone, and learning about different topics of the world. That's why it's called higher learning.
It also teaches people to develop a goal, stick to it, and achieve it over a several year period.
It also helps young people discover particular interests or talents they may not have been exposed to previously.
It also helps prepare young people for a decent-paying, productive job.
One thing a dictator does not want: an educated citizenry. They are harder to fool and control. One of the groups of people that Hitler got rid of early on were the teachers/professors and academics who seemed not to "think right."