Unemployment

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 3:52 AM GMT
    I don't see anything changing much with our national unemployment and it won't change until we change Corporate America. When jobs today require you to work 50+ hours/week, there won't ever be enough jobs for everyone. If Congress would pass laws limiting the work week to 35 hours or less, we could put most unemployed Americans back to work. Such a law would also help reduce stress on American workers, allowing them more personal time for recreation and family, which would also create a healthier environment for all reducing people's need for health care. And the more people we put back to work, the more income taxes the government can collect, reducing our national debt. Such a law would elimimate a lot of problems that are plaguing this country. Such a law is definitely a win win situation for all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 4:12 AM GMT
    America is going to have to rethink it's 40 hour work week. In fact statistics show that actually 63% of Americans work more than 40 hours and 40% exceed 50 hours per week. This has had a negative effect on the health of Americans and we are seeing these negative effects today which has contributed to our national health care crisis.

    http://www.suite101.com/content/does-the-40hour-work-week-need-overhauling-a63851
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 4:37 AM GMT
    jockgymboy saidI don't see anything changing much with our national unemployment and it won't change until we change Corporate America. When jobs today require you to work 50+ hours/week, there won't ever be enough jobs for everyone. If Congress would pass laws limiting the work week to 35 hours or less, we could put most unemployed Americans back to work. Such a law would also help reduce stress on American workers, allowing them more personal time for recreation and family, which would also create a healthier environment for all reducing people's need for health care. And the more people we put back to work, the more income taxes the government can collect, reducing our national debt. Such a law would elimimate a lot of problems that are plaguing this country. Such a law is definitely a win win situation for all.


    Because that worked out so well for France....? Granted, Germany also works fewer hours, but as France shows, oppressive laws that restrict how much people are allowed to work are hardly a solution/panacea for lack of jobs - in fact it's quite the opposite.

    The reason many employers don't want to hire more is the uncertainty and couple to that the fact we haven't even truly dealt with real estate prices and the debt overhang - and simply pushed these issues out. Adding additional regulation and taxes will have the direct opposite effect on jobs that you want (quite similarly to minimum wages - you could dramatically increase jobs if you abolished minimum wage but that is politically unfeasible).
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 31, 2011 4:46 AM GMT
    jockgymboy saidAmerica is going to have to rethink it's 40 hour work week. In fact statistics show that actually 63% of Americans work more than 40 hours and 40% exceed 50 hours per week. This has had a negative effect on the health of Americans and we are seeing these negative effects today which has contributed to our national health care crisis.

    http://www.suite101.com/content/does-the-40hour-work-week-need-overhauling-a63851


    Does your proposed legislation translate to medical professionals, last i counted i work 60 hrs at least.
    let me know , and I will let you inform the fill in people I squeezed in on friday afternoon.

    how would that work if I punched a clock?

    work less more jobs for everyone else? Dont think so.

    Unemployment and underemployment are worse in France and they cook the books.

    They retire people early , and count temporary workers for the ubber vacations full timers take. So Frances unemployment is around 15-20%. With a shorter work week.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 4:51 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    jockgymboy saidI don't see anything changing much with our national unemployment and it won't change until we change Corporate America. When jobs today require you to work 50+ hours/week, there won't ever be enough jobs for everyone. If Congress would pass laws limiting the work week to 35 hours or less, we could put most unemployed Americans back to work. Such a law would also help reduce stress on American workers, allowing them more personal time for recreation and family, which would also create a healthier environment for all reducing people's need for health care. And the more people we put back to work, the more income taxes the government can collect, reducing our national debt. Such a law would elimimate a lot of problems that are plaguing this country. Such a law is definitely a win win situation for all.


    Because that worked out so well for France....? Granted, Germany also works fewer hours, but as France shows, oppressive laws that restrict how much people are allowed to work are hardly a solution/panacea for lack of jobs - in fact it's quite the opposite.

    The reason many employers don't want to hire more is the uncertainty and couple to that the fact we haven't even truly dealt with real estate prices and the debt overhang - and simply pushed these issues out. Adding additional regulation and taxes will have the direct opposite effect on jobs that you want (quite similarly to minimum wages - you could dramatically increase jobs if you abolished minimum wage but that is politically unfeasible).


    But, it would force employers to hire more and with people working less hours, the need for health care would certainly decline. Everyone has to admit that when people are working over 50 and even many 60+ hours/ week, this is going to create major health problems. And as long as employers require that many hours from their employees, we won't ever solve unemployment. The number of hours that people are working today is considerably higher than during the years of economic growth. So either we start making some changes or accept the fact that unemplyment is here to stay along with declining health and all our other problems.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 31, 2011 4:55 AM GMT
    jockgymboy said
    riddler78 said
    jockgymboy saidI don't see anything changing much with our national unemployment and it won't change until we change Corporate America. When jobs today require you to work 50+ hours/week, there won't ever be enough jobs for everyone. If Congress would pass laws limiting the work week to 35 hours or less, we could put most unemployed Americans back to work. Such a law would also help reduce stress on American workers, allowing them more personal time for recreation and family, which would also create a healthier environment for all reducing people's need for health care. And the more people we put back to work, the more income taxes the government can collect, reducing our national debt. Such a law would elimimate a lot of problems that are plaguing this country. Such a law is definitely a win win situation for all.


    Because that worked out so well for France....? Granted, Germany also works fewer hours, but as France shows, oppressive laws that restrict how much people are allowed to work are hardly a solution/panacea for lack of jobs - in fact it's quite the opposite.

    The reason many employers don't want to hire more is the uncertainty and couple to that the fact we haven't even truly dealt with real estate prices and the debt overhang - and simply pushed these issues out. Adding additional regulation and taxes will have the direct opposite effect on jobs that you want (quite similarly to minimum wages - you could dramatically increase jobs if you abolished minimum wage but that is politically unfeasible).


    But, it would force employers to hire more and with people working less hours, the need for health care would certainly decline. Everyone has to admit that when people are working over 50 and even many 60+ hours/ week, this is going to create major health problems. And as long as employers require that many hours from their employees, we won't ever solve unemployment. The number of hours that people are working today is considerably higher than during the years of economic growth. So either we start making some changes or accept the fact that unemplyment is here to stay along with declining health and all our other problems.


    You cannot enact a law to create a company or force it to stay in buisness.

    There are already laws governing part time and full time employment and overtime.

    Simply forcing corporations to do anything is just going to make them hire someone in India to do it cheaper.

    If you believe you are by birthright entitled to a job then I suggest opening your own business. That is the only way you will have continuing employment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 4:59 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    jockgymboy saidI don't see anything changing much with our national unemployment and it won't change until we change Corporate America. When jobs today require you to work 50+ hours/week, there won't ever be enough jobs for everyone. If Congress would pass laws limiting the work week to 35 hours or less, we could put most unemployed Americans back to work. Such a law would also help reduce stress on American workers, allowing them more personal time for recreation and family, which would also create a healthier environment for all reducing people's need for health care. And the more people we put back to work, the more income taxes the government can collect, reducing our national debt. Such a law would elimimate a lot of problems that are plaguing this country. Such a law is definitely a win win situation for all.


    Because that worked out so well for France....? Granted, Germany also works fewer hours, but as France shows, oppressive laws that restrict how much people are allowed to work are hardly a solution/panacea for lack of jobs - in fact it's quite the opposite.

    The reason many employers don't want to hire more is the uncertainty and couple to that the fact we haven't even truly dealt with real estate prices and the debt overhang - and simply pushed these issues out. Adding additional regulation and taxes will have the direct opposite effect on jobs that you want (quite similarly to minimum wages - you could dramatically increase jobs if you abolished minimum wage but that is politically unfeasible).


    Ridiculous straw man argument. What is so "uncertain?" Nothing. Nothing has been more or less certain than it is today.

    Companies aren't hiring because there is no demand because the middle class has been decimated by the same policies you keep trying to sell on here. Until unemployment lessens and average wages begin to rise again (as they have been flat for three decades) the economy won't get better.

    Let's also note that "uncertainty" has not prevented the banks (and other companies) from lavishing enormous bonuses on their employees. That is not the behavior of people who fear uncertainty. It is the behavior of those who have rigged the game and are enjoying the fruits of their hard work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:01 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    jockgymboy saidAmerica is going to have to rethink it's 40 hour work week. In fact statistics show that actually 63% of Americans work more than 40 hours and 40% exceed 50 hours per week. This has had a negative effect on the health of Americans and we are seeing these negative effects today which has contributed to our national health care crisis.

    http://www.suite101.com/content/does-the-40hour-work-week-need-overhauling-a63851


    Does your proposed legislation translate to medical professionals, last i counted i work 60 hrs at least.
    let me know , and I will let you inform the fill in people I squeezed in on friday afternoon.

    how would that work if I punched a clock?

    work less more jobs for everyone else? Dont think so.

    Unemployment and underemployment are worse in France and they cook the books.

    They retire people early , and count temporary workers for the ubber vacations full timers take. So Frances unemployment is around 15-20%. With a shorter work week.


    if you worked 60 hours, you are taking away a half a job away from someone else who has no job icon_sad.gif that's the problem we have created in this county, we have many who are overworked and many who are underworked--it an unbalance that has created many of the problems plauging this country.

    And some want to consider making people work even longer before retirement and then they will wonder why we have more unemployed people. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:09 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    jockgymboy said
    riddler78 said
    jockgymboy saidI don't see anything changing much with our national unemployment and it won't change until we change Corporate America. When jobs today require you to work 50+ hours/week, there won't ever be enough jobs for everyone. If Congress would pass laws limiting the work week to 35 hours or less, we could put most unemployed Americans back to work. Such a law would also help reduce stress on American workers, allowing them more personal time for recreation and family, which would also create a healthier environment for all reducing people's need for health care. And the more people we put back to work, the more income taxes the government can collect, reducing our national debt. Such a law would elimimate a lot of problems that are plaguing this country. Such a law is definitely a win win situation for all.


    Because that worked out so well for France....? Granted, Germany also works fewer hours, but as France shows, oppressive laws that restrict how much people are allowed to work are hardly a solution/panacea for lack of jobs - in fact it's quite the opposite.

    The reason many employers don't want to hire more is the uncertainty and couple to that the fact we haven't even truly dealt with real estate prices and the debt overhang - and simply pushed these issues out. Adding additional regulation and taxes will have the direct opposite effect on jobs that you want (quite similarly to minimum wages - you could dramatically increase jobs if you abolished minimum wage but that is politically unfeasible).


    But, it would force employers to hire more and with people working less hours, the need for health care would certainly decline. Everyone has to admit that when people are working over 50 and even many 60+ hours/ week, this is going to create major health problems. And as long as employers require that many hours from their employees, we won't ever solve unemployment. The number of hours that people are working today is considerably higher than during the years of economic growth. So either we start making some changes or accept the fact that unemplyment is here to stay along with declining health and all our other problems.


    You cannot enact a law to create a company or force it to stay in buisness.

    There are already laws governing part time and full time employment and overtime.

    Simply forcing corporations to do anything is just going to make them hire someone in India to do it cheaper.

    If you believe you are by birthright entitled to a job then I suggest opening your own business. That is the only way you will have continuing employment.


    Such a law wouldn't force anyone to open a business or stay in business, but if they decide to have a business, it would force them to spread the work more equally among all Americans rather than having many overworked with increasing health problems and many underworked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:14 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidThe reason many employers don't want to hire more is the uncertainty.

    This is the usual right-wing nonsense. There is more uncertainty under Republicans, who refuse to actually spell out their silly plans.

    The reason there is unemployment is that there is no demand.

    Simple, but true. Occam's razor, doncha know.
    .


    If people were not allowed to work over 40 hours a week, there would be a huge demand to hire in order to get the work done icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:17 AM GMT
    jp, something tells me they're not going to get it.

    This is also the issue with retiring at 70. If all do it new job opportunities are reduced another five years for young people. A domino effect, right down to the 18 year olds entering the workforce. A traffic jam. Thankfully most that can up here retire when they can. Their jobs become available. The arithmetic is so simple it's mind boggling.

    In all fairness musclemed should give a rough estimate of his earnings to show whether the 60 hour week punitive or not.

    As for a 35 or 40 hour week. That arithmetic is simple too. The companies then employ temps. Lower entry level wages and no benefits. There's an enormous pool available. And they can be worked full time!

    Business has it so rough *dabs eyes with hanky*.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:19 AM GMT
    Who would be willing to pay the cost to train and provide benefits for those extra workers even in the face of no extra profit?

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 31, 2011 5:20 AM GMT
    jockgymboy said
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidThe reason many employers don't want to hire more is the uncertainty.

    This is the usual right-wing nonsense. There is more uncertainty under Republicans, who refuse to actually spell out their silly plans.

    The reason there is unemployment is that there is no demand.

    Simple, but true. Occam's razor, doncha know.
    .


    If people were not allowed to work over 40 hours a week, there would be a huge demand to hire in order to get the work done

    if you worked 60 hours, you are taking away a half a job away from someone else who has no job

    icon_smile.gif


    I am pretty sure within an hour I could teach you to insert a dialysis catheter in some patient neck. And show you how to write dialysis orders.

    Then i guess i can stop at 40 hours?

    What a ridiculous notion. Legislate mediocrity.

    What if someone wants to work more to get ahead?

    Life is a struggle. Get some skills so someone will hire you.
    Better yet be your own boss. See how long the 40 hours works for ya.

    Its been that way before human's . If you think someone owes you a job, you are going to get nowhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:23 AM GMT
    carminea saidWho would be willing to pay the cost to train and provide benefits for those extra workers even in the face of no extra profit?



    There is extra profit. The temps get no benefits unlike the workers putting in longer hours and getting pensionable earnings and said benefits owed and earned vacation time owed. Huge savings.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:25 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    carminea saidWho would be willing to pay the cost to train and provide benefits for those extra workers even in the face of no extra profit?



    There is extra profit. The temps get no benefits unlike the workers putting in longer hours and getting pensionable earnings and said benefits owed and earned vacation time owed. Huge savings.

    -Doug

    I used to work for Walmart. This is what Walmart does. This model will only work for lower end jobs that require little to no training or education-retail/food, etc.

    It will not work for jobs that require 60 hrs a week-this worker will most likely have extensive training and a lot more education than a Walmart worker.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:32 AM GMT
    Well, you'r e treating the OP as though he's specifically talking about your professions whereas his suggestion is broader and would more likely apply to clerical work etc, like call centers for example. Tellers, retail, firms with accounting depts. Everything from janitorial to shipping/recieving and warehouse jobs. Using training is a red herring of sorts because most companies prefer hiring skilled people with experience. Even if those jobs are popularly considered unskilled labor, it requires a skill to drive a forklift.


    -Doug
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 31, 2011 5:35 AM GMT
    carminea said
    meninlove said
    carminea saidWho would be willing to pay the cost to train and provide benefits for those extra workers even in the face of no extra profit?



    There is extra profit. The temps get no benefits unlike the workers putting in longer hours and getting pensionable earnings and said benefits owed and earned vacation time owed. Huge savings.

    -Doug

    I used to work for Walmart. This is what Walmart does. This model will only work for lower end jobs that require little to no training or education-retail/food, etc.

    It will not work for jobs that require 60 hrs a week-this worker will most likely have extensive training and a lot more education than a Walmart worker.



    This is the same logical fallacy over and over.

    Legislate mediocrity. And throw in a pension or 2. Level the playing field, make everything fair.

    The only way that works is on a ant farm or a bee hive.

    In a socialist model, everyone is equally miserable. Life is full of shortages and long government lines. No corporations exist because simply there is nothing to gain. "Because it isnt fair"

    Fair is for fairy-tales. Life isnt fair.

    Opportunity abounds in this country. But it seems at every corner someone is screaming on how unfair things are. When in history has thing ever been more equal?
    If you have the drive and skills anything is possible.

    So doctors, lawyers, engineers, policemen, all have to stop at 40 hours?

    Make a law like that for a call center, they will move it to Mumbai. Clerical worker, fine it will get automated.
    Checker at the grocery store. Put in self checkout.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:37 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    carminea said
    meninlove said
    carminea saidWho would be willing to pay the cost to train and provide benefits for those extra workers even in the face of no extra profit?



    There is extra profit. The temps get no benefits unlike the workers putting in longer hours and getting pensionable earnings and said benefits owed and earned vacation time owed. Huge savings.

    -Doug

    I used to work for Walmart. This is what Walmart does. This model will only work for lower end jobs that require little to no training or education-retail/food, etc.

    It will not work for jobs that require 60 hrs a week-this worker will most likely have extensive training and a lot more education than a Walmart worker.



    This is the same logical fallacy over and over.

    Legislate mediocrity. And throw in a pension or 2. Level the playing field, make everything fair.

    The only way that works is on a ant farm or a bee hive.

    In a socialist model, everyone is equally miserable. Life is full of shortages and long government lines. No corporations exist because simply there is nothing to gain. "Because it isnt fair"

    Fair is for fairy-tales. Life isnt fair.

    Opportunity abounds in this country. But it seems at every corner someone is screaming on how unfair things are. When in history has thing ever been more equal?
    If you have the drive and skills anything is possible.

    So doctors, lawyers, engineers, policemen, all have to stop at 40 hours?



    Not surprisingly they just don't get it. For those of us who actually do hiring...

    "The beatings will continue until morale improves..."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:38 AM GMT
    meninlove saidWell, you'r e treating the OP as though he's specifically talking about your professions whereas his suggestion is broader and would more likely apply to clerical work etc, like call centers for example. Tellers, retail, firms with accounting depts. Everything from janitorial to shipping/recieving and warehouse jobs. Using training is a red herring of sorts because most companies prefer hiring skilled people with experience. Even if those jobs are popularly considered unskilled labor, it requires a skill to drive a forklift.
    -Doug

    Most of those already jobs do conform to "no full-time workers" rule. I only gave Walmart as an example because it is bigger and broader than any other business. All the examples you gave and many more would be found there.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 31, 2011 5:40 AM GMT
    carminea said
    meninlove saidWell, you'r e treating the OP as though he's specifically talking about your professions whereas his suggestion is broader and would more likely apply to clerical work etc, like call centers for example. Tellers, retail, firms with accounting depts. Everything from janitorial to shipping/recieving and warehouse jobs. Using training is a red herring of sorts because most companies prefer hiring skilled people with experience. Even if those jobs are popularly considered unskilled labor, it requires a skill to drive a forklift.
    -Doug

    Most of those already jobs do conform to "no full-time workers" rule. I only gave Walmart as an example because it is bigger and broader than any other business. All the examples you gave and many more would be found there.


    Obviously its just a throwing of ideas and sticking to the wall.

    I guess there is a problem with "overtime"


    Meanwhile most low end jobs are subject to the 40 hour week. I guess the problem is people working more than 40 hours.

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 31, 2011 5:49 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 said
    Not surprisingly they just don't get it. For those of us who actually do hiring...
    "The beatings will continue until morale improves..."

    You hire people in Canada. US labor laws shouldn't matter to you in the slightest, and you really ought to have the good taste to stop lecturing people in another country about what they ought to do.


    Canadians share a common heritage and most values.

    Americans of 100 years ago would shudder at calls for a 40 hour work.

    In fact most trade unions would probably find it interesting as well.

    Most family I know who are union work overtime and love it. Should they give that up? yeah right.

    Put it on the agenda of AFLCIO meeting. No more than 40 hours per week. No overtime ....

    see what happens
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 5:53 AM GMT
    Ok let's use Occam's razor and cut in the other direction. So let's say doctors all moved their offices at their homes and did 120 hours a week. The customer pool hasn't grown.

    Many employers up here found 40 hours a week gave them an alert and well rested employee.

    Now regarding flex-time:

    "Some companies that implemented these programs realized productivity gains and better employee retention rates, while others adopted them as incentives to lure skilled workers in high-demand occupations.

    Read more: Hours of Labor http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Gov-Inc/Hours-of-Labor.html#ixzz1Cabjwc00"

    http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Gov-Inc/Hours-of-Labor.html


    -Doug

    good article

    Thing is, you have all these poor (welfare) and unemployed people. You want them to work, right? So perhaps a law with a kick-back like a lower business tax state and federal could be applied as an incentive to try it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 6:18 AM GMT
    If employees were limited to a shorter work-week, the fixed costs per employee such as training and health care would be required for more employees. Companies would be further motivated to outsource, to India, China, or Caribbean. Result - fewer jobs. The countries with more labor restrictions, either from Government or labor unions in Europe found themselves less competitive.

    The mentality on RJ as with many idealists with little practical business acumen is whenever a problem exists, turn to government.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Jan 31, 2011 6:20 AM GMT
    carminea saidWho would be willing to pay the cost to train and provide benefits for those extra workers even in the face of no extra profit?


    I agree with this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2011 6:23 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidIf employees were limited to a shorter work-week, the fixed costs per employee such as training and health care would be required for more employees. Companies would be further motivated to outsource, to India, China, or Caribbean. Result - fewer jobs. The countries with more labor restrictions, either from Government or labor unions in Europe found themselves less competitive.

    The mentality on RJ as with many idealists with little practical business acumen is whenever a problem exists, turn to government.



    er, temps get no benefits, companies hire people that will cost the minimum of training (they have experience, that's why the resume) and you can work a temp at entry level wages full time. Productivity drops after a certain amount of continuous hours.

    Did you read my link to the business encyclopedia?

    Don't think in extremes. Think looking down the middle. Make it optional with tax incentives for business.

    Your economy is in trouble!