9 responses so far ↓

• 1 Steve Tagg // Dec 14, 2009 at 1:27 pm

  Maybe he thinks if there is more unemployment insurance then unemployment will not improve. Actually makes sense.

• 2 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:00 pm

  Since the unemployment rate is derived by the number of people receiving benefits, the unemployment number will not drop until they decide to give up those benefits for a better paying job.

  Since unskilled jobs pay less that the unemployment rate, there is no motivation to seek full-time employment until you are forced to by getting your benefits ended.

  Likewise, I know people earning unemployment benefits while working off-the-book jobs as a second income.

  This is not a novel concept from Mitch. When Clinton passed the welfare reform that required individuals to be seeking employment, training or working to continue their benefits, a huge number of people moved from the welfare to the working rolls.

  I’m sorry, but if you are able-bodied and still unemployed after two years, you either:

  1) Want to stay unemployed because it’s more lucrative

  2) You have refused to relocate where jobs are available

  3) You feel you deserve to be paid more than you are actually worth on the open market

  4) You are lacking job skills and have not upgraded your skill-set to become marketable

  5) You have given up seeking a job, thrown in the towel, and are playing the victim card

• 3 kentondem1 // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:29 pm

  Mark H.

  That H must stand for Hoover.

• 4 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Dec 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  I think everyone absolutely needs a hand, but at what point does the government become and enabler.

  The biggest losses have been unskilled jobs. I hate it, but I’m just being realistic is stating that those decent-paying unskilled jobs are not coming back, even when the economy recovers. There are many reasons and we can point fingers in every direction, but it won’t change the reality.

  It sucks and I think workers in this country have been sold a crappy bill of goods by our politicians, but the quicker people realize they have to adapt the better we are all going to be.

  All of the town halls in the world in Elkhart, Indiana are not going to bring those jobs back to that community.

• 5 le gardien de but // Dec 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm

  Mark–I agree 100% with you; stating facts & trends that many folks have a problem accepting. I grew up in a “mill town”; and those fortunate enough to be working in a unionized factory were essentially upper “middle class”…
  Unfortunately, neither factories nor high paying union jobs coming back any time soon around here…..
  It will take $20/gallon gasoline to make the economic equations (so to speak) favorable to USA manufacturing…

• 6 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Dec 14, 2009 at 4:58 pm

  le gardien,

  They are coming back ever. The only thing that is going to provide long-term job growth in this country is being better educated and better trained than workers in other countries.

  We can blame NAFTA, labor unions, greedy businesses, greater consumer demand for cheaper goods, or immigrant labor, but the fact remains that unskilled labor no longer pays a middle class wage in this country.

  If you can’t find another job tomorrow, doing what you are currently doing, paying a similar wage, you should be looking to make some changes in your situation while still have the luxury to do so.

  The small Midwestern or Southern town which is geographically isolated and was formerly supported by unskilled labor-intensive businesses who moved there to take advantage of lower labor costs, are going to turn into ghost towns because those businesses are not going to reopen.

  If you want to see the future, go the Augusta, GA, Danville, VA, Findlay, OH, Hammond, IN or any of these former fabric or steel mill towns and look around.

• 7 le gardien de but // Dec 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  Mark–we say the same thing….
  I can name more towns from Maine to Georgia…
  But IMHO $20 a gallon gasoline will make manufacturing in USA profitable again…

• 8 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Dec 14, 2009 at 6:02 pm

  I respectfully disagree. The cost to transport the goods from another country, even at $20/gallon, isn’t going to compensate for the higher labor and benefit costs here. Besides, an increase in fuel costs will proportionately impact consumer demand here and while we may have jobs paying 30% more, our costs will subsequently be 30% higher so we would be no further along. Protectionism doesn’t work because we have no leverage over our competitors. What, are we going to throw a tariff on Chinese goods when they own half our debt? Why do you think Obama had to act like a lapdog during his trip to China?

  That’s why this whole “green jobs” BS is just that. Just because we develop a new green technology in the US, doesn’t mean GE or Semens is going to be bound to build it here. They are going to build it where it is cheaper.

  This thought that the Chinese and Koreans can’t build solar panels and fuel cells is ludicrous. Why would “green” manufacturing be any different than traditional manufacturing. In fact, the working populations of Korea and China likely have more technologically-advanced and educated workers than the US currently does.

• 9 johndoe // Dec 14, 2009 at 11:51 pm

  40 years ago we used to say buy Union made/American made now they are all gone,but you for get the consumer was the ones working those jobs.now they don’t have the income to buy the cars are to support the small mom pop businesses. try selling a new car/house to someone working for minimum wage LOL

Leave a Comment