Forum Thread

Senator Sanders supports a Federal Jobs Program

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 26 of 26 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Hey, you said "whatever the government does is paid from taxes."

    By a simple point of logic, the government has to spend its currency first before it can receive any revenue in that currency (from any source, taxes or bond sales). The funds to pay taxes and buy government securities originate with government spending. All government spending is like printing the currency. All government taxation is like unprinting or destroying the currency.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    There should be no question that we need a massive infrastructure program, which would serve as a massive jobs program. That is a no brainer, and even many Republicans realize that. If we had a Republican president, it would have happened five years ago. But Republicans are united in their opposition to Obama on just about everything, except trade policies.

    We also need to address the youth unemployment, particularly in the inner cities. That is also a no brainer.

    All it requires is political will, something that is lacking right now in our discourse.

    There were 8.7 million jobs lost in the first two years of the Great Recession, most all of these due to market conditions, some to automation and quite a bit fewer to trade agreements. We have had a jobs retraining program called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), that largely focused on helping workers retrain who had lost their jobs due to trade. It was discontinued by Republicans in 2015 because of its perceived ineffectiveness relative to the amount of money spent. Some of that criticism is warranted. Many people got retrained for jobs that also went away.

    Yet according to CNN Money, America today has a near record 5.6 million job openings, but Americans as a whole do not have the skills to fill those jobs. We need a comprehensive hard honest look at why we have jobs aplenty but also still have unemployment and under employment...a skills gap. There are lots of proposals on the table by politicians, some of which sound like pandering to me. We need to separate out the political bullshit from the real proposals that can stimulate employment. In that regard, a guaranteed federally funded jobs program could be a big part of it, particularly for young people feeling marginalized by society.

    Schmidt, we learn by doing. In a good economy, a company will take people who have no clue and train them. They hire graduates before they graduate and presumably learn what it is they are going to need to know to do their job. A federally guaranteed 'transitional' job for every American able and willing to work is probably the best sort of job training, anti-poverty, and pro-economic growth reform imaginable. It's very hard to do worse than we are doing now.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    There should be no question that we need a massive infrastructure program, which would serve as a massive jobs program. That is a no brainer, and even many Republicans realize that. If we had a Republican president, it would have happened five years ago. But Republicans are united in their opposition to Obama on just about everything, except trade policies.

    We also need to address the youth unemployment, particularly in the inner cities. That is also a no brainer.

    All it requires is political will, something that is lacking right now in our discourse.

    There were 8.7 million jobs lost in the first two years of the Great Recession, most all of these due to market conditions, some to automation and quite a bit fewer to trade agreements. We have had a jobs retraining program called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), that largely focused on helping workers retrain who had lost their jobs due to trade. It was discontinued by Republicans in 2015 because of its perceived ineffectiveness relative to the amount of money spent. Some of that criticism is warranted. Many people got retrained for jobs that also went away.

    Yet according to CNN Money, America today has a near record 5.6 million job openings, but Americans as a whole do not have the skills to fill those jobs. We need a comprehensive hard honest look at why we have jobs aplenty but also still have unemployment and under employment...a skills gap. There are lots of proposals on the table by politicians, some of which sound like pandering to me. We need to separate out the political bullshit from the real proposals that can stimulate employment. In that regard, a guaranteed federally funded jobs program could be a big part of it, particularly for young people feeling marginalized by society.

    Schmidt, we learn by doing. In a good economy, a company will take people who have no clue and train them. They hire graduates before they graduate and presumably learn what it is they are going to need to know to do their job. A federally guaranteed 'transitional' job for every American able and willing to work is probably the best sort of job training, anti-poverty, and pro-economic growth reform imaginable. It's very hard to do worse than we are doing now.

    Carlitos -- Yes I agree. I was fortunate to work for a company that recognized that its own employees needed to be continually retrained (we called it continuous improvement) right out of school. I graduated in 1968 and soon after graduation I was spending time in short assignments in other departments learning about the company's organizational structure and what everybody did. I also attended schools in that first year outside of the normal work place. Attending specialized schools was a part of our annual routine, but also on-the-job training by working in teams was also a part of it. As you said, people learn by "doing" more than observing. Hands on training is essential whether it be apprenticeships or just one-on-one mentoring by another more skilled employee.

    I mention this because in this technological revolution people can become obsolete in their jobs very quickly unless they are self motivated to continually learn new skills and adapt. Those employees that don't adapt to change become less valued, and will be the first to be let go in a downturn (recession or a bubble busting).

    It's even worse for those people who have been unemployed a long time, particularly those who lost jobs in the Great Recession. Reentering the workforce, they'll find that the job they left is not the same anymore. It will require not only new skills but also mobility to relocate. Many unemployed just do not have the financial resources to make that happen, and this is where the federal government needs to help.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Carlitos Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    There should be no question that we need a massive infrastructure program, which would serve as a massive jobs program. That is a no brainer, and even many Republicans realize that. If we had a Republican president, it would have happened five years ago. But Republicans are united in their opposition to Obama on just about everything, except trade policies.

    We also need to address the youth unemployment, particularly in the inner cities. That is also a no brainer.

    All it requires is political will, something that is lacking right now in our discourse.

    There were 8.7 million jobs lost in the first two years of the Great Recession, most all of these due to market conditions, some to automation and quite a bit fewer to trade agreements. We have had a jobs retraining program called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), that largely focused on helping workers retrain who had lost their jobs due to trade. It was discontinued by Republicans in 2015 because of its perceived ineffectiveness relative to the amount of money spent. Some of that criticism is warranted. Many people got retrained for jobs that also went away.

    Yet according to CNN Money, America today has a near record 5.6 million job openings, but Americans as a whole do not have the skills to fill those jobs. We need a comprehensive hard honest look at why we have jobs aplenty but also still have unemployment and under employment...a skills gap. There are lots of proposals on the table by politicians, some of which sound like pandering to me. We need to separate out the political bullshit from the real proposals that can stimulate employment. In that regard, a guaranteed federally funded jobs program could be a big part of it, particularly for young people feeling marginalized by society.

    Schmidt, we learn by doing. In a good economy, a company will take people who have no clue and train them. They hire graduates before they graduate and presumably learn what it is they are going to need to know to do their job. A federally guaranteed 'transitional' job for every American able and willing to work is probably the best sort of job training, anti-poverty, and pro-economic growth reform imaginable. It's very hard to do worse than we are doing now.

    Carlitos -- Yes I agree. I was fortunate to work for a company that recognized that its own employees needed to be continually retrained (we called it continuous improvement) right out of school. I graduated in 1968 and soon after graduation I was spending time in short assignments in other departments learning about the company's organizational structure and what everybody did. I also attended schools in that first year outside of the normal work place. Attending specialized schools was a part of our annual routine, but also on-the-job training by working in teams was also a part of it. As you said, people learn by "doing" more than observing. Hands on training is essential whether it be apprenticeships or just one-on-one mentoring by another more skilled employee.

    I mention this because in this technological revolution people can become obsolete in their jobs very quickly unless they are self motivated to continually learn new skills and adapt. Those employees that don't, will be the first to be let go in a downturn (recession or a bubble busting). It's even worse for those people who have been unemployed a long time. Reentering the workforce, they'll find that the job they left is not the same anymore. It will require not only new skills but also mobility to relocate. Many unemployed just do not have the financial resources to make that happen, and this is where the federal government needs to help.

    Yes Schmidt; you've got the picture. Indeed now I'm retired, I see certainly the progress in the aviation industry of which I was part of. Cockpit as well guidance/communication/ materials/construction have developed in a huge way. Lucky for me I went through the whole development from analog to digital, as well from riveting to composites in structures. For instance as well the full automatic milling of F16 center sections etc. So I'm glad I was part of it.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I would like to say that there is no school or training in the USA that produces workers that can step in and seamlessly perform a duty or job. In the first place most education views itself as job done and value received by celebrating graduation. A beneficial program would have employers participating in graduation welcoming new hirees. That is not even close to USA reality. At most education here testifies to a student being able to do a certain level of work in a timely dependable style. The greatest contributing factors to unprepared workers are the size, diversity and location of the job market. Then jobs are not evaluated linerally. Certain jobs are sought after and the rest are leftovers. Every pilot wants to be a fighter pilot. Not making it is synonymous with failure. All the lesser jobs in the USA serve a main purpose of warning of the result of lax determination. People are taught on the job.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As one who has interviewed and hired dozens of college graduates, I never had any expectation that any of them had the skills level to hit the ground running. I looked for intellectual curiosity in the young people I interviewed, and I often asked them what they did in their spare time. I also looked for the ability to get along with other people. I looked for enthusiasm and motivation. I looked for honesty.

    I knew that we would train them in the skills necessary to do the job. The college degree was more of a recognition that the person was trainable. When I look back at my engineering career, I take more pride in the good people that I hired than my engineering achievements in the projects that I worked on.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    As one who has interviewed and hired dozens of college graduates, I never had any expectation that any of them had the skills level to hit the ground running. I looked for intellectual curiosity in the young people I interviewed, and I often asked them what they did in their spare time. I also looked for the ability to get along with other people. I looked for enthusiasm and motivation. I looked for honesty.

    I knew that we would train them in the skills necessary to do the job. The college degree was more of a recognition that the person was trainable. When I look back at my engineering career, I take more pride in the good people that I hired than my engineering achievements in the projects that I worked on.

    Another problem in the US is the "uneducated" bosses who don't know human nature; like Trump. It is typical here that no one dares to correct their bosses, because of often the inbred military attitude of "yes" Sir. An other thing is I was welcome in any department to discuss or to improve things. The head engineer often came by to discuss technical and interface solutions. It was more or less a "team" Over in Europe if you are a specialist then you educate your boss as well. Here people will only crawl up the butt of the boss in order to advance. I was the boss for a long time (even here) but could not stand people who did that. I hired plenty of people and had a lot of success. I got awards as the best employee in a company having 13000 employee's and climbed up the "ladder" fast. So I can't complain; got plenty of awards after that.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "All government spending is like printing the currency. All government taxation is like unprinting or destroying the currency."

    Government spending continues the loop.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    As one who has interviewed and hired dozens of college graduates, I never had any expectation that any of them had the skills level to hit the ground running. I looked for intellectual curiosity in the young people I interviewed, and I often asked them what they did in their spare time. I also looked for the ability to get along with other people. I looked for enthusiasm and motivation. I looked for honesty.

    I knew that we would train them in the skills necessary to do the job. The college degree was more of a recognition that the person was trainable. When I look back at my engineering career, I take more pride in the good people that I hired than my engineering achievements in the projects that I worked on.

    Another problem in the US is the "uneducated" bosses who don't know human nature; like Trump. It is typical here that no one dares to correct their bosses, because of often the inbred military attitude of "yes" Sir. An other thing is I was welcome in any department to discuss or to improve things. The head engineer often came by to discuss technical and interface solutions. It was more or less a "team" Over in Europe if you are a specialist then you educate your boss as well. Here people will only crawl up the butt of the boss in order to advance. I was the boss for a long time (even here) but could not stand people who did that. I hired plenty of people and had a lot of success. I got awards as the best employee in a company having 13000 employee's and climbed up the "ladder" fast. So I can't complain; got plenty of awards after that.
    We have a warped system. Company politics outweigh meaningful progress.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    Another problem in the US is the "uneducated" bosses who don't know human nature; like Trump. It is typical here that no one dares to correct their bosses, because of often the inbred military attitude of "yes" Sir. An other thing is I was welcome in any department to discuss or to improve things. The head engineer often came by to discuss technical and interface solutions. It was more or less a "team" Over in Europe if you are a specialist then you educate your boss as well. Here people will only crawl up the butt of the boss in order to advance. I was the boss for a long time (even here) but could not stand people who did that. I hired plenty of people and had a lot of success. I got awards as the best employee in a company having 13000 employee's and climbed up the "ladder" fast. So I can't complain; got plenty of awards after that.

    Dutch -- Yes your perspective is commendable. And your view of the "uneducated" bosses applies not so much to academic skills, but rather knowing about people's strengths and weaknesses. That type of boss that you describe as "typical here" is a part of every culture, but is not the stereotype of all bosses, and certainly not most of the bosses that I worked for.

    There are good bosses and there are bad bosses. Those companies whose culture is more authoritarian rather than egalitarian really need an "all knowing" boss to succeed. However, these type of bosses cannot be all knowing on everything, and those companies that promote that kind of culture where the "boss knows best" and employees learn to suck up to the boss, are the ones that go bankrupt in recessions. They make mistakes.

    Most successful companies in America are not like that. Not all employees in these companies are suited to be "people persons". Yet good companies often promote excellent scientific people up the career ladder into supervisory positions where they often fail. A good management team is one that recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of their employees, and places them in positions where they are the most productive...and then rewards them.

    When I look at candidates for public office at the local, state and federal level, I apply much the same criteria that I did when hiring employees...intellectual curiosity, the ability to get along with others, passion and motivation, and a bit of humility. I never expected to hire the "perfect employee". And I don't expect to find the perfect candidate for office. Those who apply purity tests to every candidate will never be content with anything in life. They will always find something to complain about.

    I try put emotions aside, weigh strengths and weaknesses and make a decision on that basis. In effect I am mentally applying a numerical scorecard of sorts, and putting a weighting factor on each topic. I guess that's my engineering training. It has very little emotion...just cold analyses. My support for Hillary is lacking in emotions...just a wonky issue by issue analysis.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:

    Another problem in the US is the "uneducated" bosses who don't know human nature; like Trump. It is typical here that no one dares to correct their bosses, because of often the inbred military attitude of "yes" Sir. An other thing is I was welcome in any department to discuss or to improve things. The head engineer often came by to discuss technical and interface solutions. It was more or less a "team" Over in Europe if you are a specialist then you educate your boss as well. Here people will only crawl up the butt of the boss in order to advance. I was the boss for a long time (even here) but could not stand people who did that. I hired plenty of people and had a lot of success. I got awards as the best employee in a company having 13000 employee's and climbed up the "ladder" fast. So I can't complain; got plenty of awards after that.

    Dutch -- Yes your perspective is commendable. And your view of the "uneducated" bosses applies not so much to academic skills, but rather knowing about people's strengths and weaknesses. That type of boss that you describe as "typical here" is a part of every culture, but is not the stereotype of all bosses, and certainly not most of the bosses that I worked for.

    There are good bosses and there are bad bosses. Those companies whose culture is more authoritarian rather than egalitarian really need an "all knowing" boss to succeed. However, these type of bosses cannot be all knowing on everything, and those companies that promote that kind of culture where the "boss knows best" and employees learn to suck up to the boss, are the ones that go bankrupt in recessions. They make mistakes.

    Most successful companies in America are not like that. Not all employees in these companies are suited to be "people persons". Yet good companies often promote excellent scientific people up the career ladder into supervisory positions where they often fail. A good management team is one that recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of their employees, and places them in positions where they are the most productive...and then rewards them.

    When I look at candidates for public office at the local, state and federal level, I apply much the same criteria that I did when hiring employees...intellectual curiosity, the ability to get along with others, passion and motivation, and a bit of humility. I never expected to hire the "perfect employee". And I don't expect to find the perfect candidate for office. Those who apply purity tests to every candidate will never be content with anything in life. They will always find something to complain about.

    I try put emotions aside, weigh strengths and weaknesses and make a decision on that basis. In effect I am mentally applying a numerical scorecard of sorts, and putting a weighting factor on each topic. I guess that's my engineering training. It has very little emotion...just cold analyses. My support for Hillary is lacking in emotions...just a wonky issue by issue analysis.

    Yes Schmidt as usual, I like your attitude. Talking about emotions; now I'm retired I got more of them, especially on what I see what is happening here; to name a few: "the elections", "the police shootings", "our stupid wars", "our religious fanatics", "our love for guns", "our greed", "our corruption in just about everything", our 1%, which don't know what to do with their money", "our half ass healthcare", "our 50,000 homeless veterans", "our slums like in Detroit and West VA", "our poor infrastructure", "our meddling in the world" , our provoking wars, "our arrogance still thinking we are number "one""

    So since I have no job to worry about, then these are some things to create "emotions"