Felfare in Michigan

[dahermit]

Many schools are more than willing to set up payment plans, or give financial aid to anyone who needs it. It might not be Harvard, but it is still school.

Schools give out some scholarships. I know of none that will support a persons and family while he/she gets an education. I know of none with "payment plans". There are some grants available from the government (Pell), but they never cover more than a fraction...besides, thats socialism.
In short, the financial aid dept. of a college arranges for a student to get government loans and grants...they do not finance the aid themselves.
Also, you are not viewing the situation from that of a displaced worker, but a single young male.

I qualified for quite a number of them. A master's degree qualifies you for a number of them as well. List them. My masters, and yours would only qualify you for a specific job.

I recently read in the local paper where my parents live that a homeless kid graduated high school, and got a scholarship to college. If he can do, I feel pretty confident that anyone can do it.

A young male with no Dependants.

I am 24, I have a BA in International Relations and a masters in Defense and Strategic Studies. My job is not relevant.

translation: a kid, likely unemployed, living with mom and dad, but still a good Republican.

I will admit that myself and my family are very well off, but everyday there are countless examples of people putting themselves through college, if you are really broke, there are federal loans that can allow you to attend college as well.

Try being born and growing up on the other side of the tracks with none of the things your parents gave you, and see if you can pull yourself up by your boot straps. Your perspective is young, male, single, and with privileges you inherited from mom and dad. Like I said before, your attitude indicates that your are young, inexperienced, and naive.

 

[dahermit]

The government and unions in those states should focus on retraining those workers.

Retrain them to do what? Until industry identifies the new jobs that they say they are going to create out of the new technologies, government has no established history or resources for training and unions have no model on which to train. The Unions have never been involved in training except for some skilled trades like welders and Machinists...long existing and transportable skill sets. (By the way, I have a master's degree in training in business and industry.)

Also note: Unions are only 7% of the workforce, down from 20% in the sixties...they are not about to take on the task of retraining, it is not their job and they are not likely to start now.

All other training has been by employers as the new jobs are created. For instance, if the large American auto makers had not had their heads up their asses and been aware that sooner or later the SUV would loose favor because of high fuel costs and electric and hybrids would emerge as the car of choice, they could have had them ready to go and have retrained some of their workers to build them. But, they were too fascinated by the high income potential to realize that SUV's were a fashion that would end.

Is he supposed to believe that he can support a family on a minimum wage job?

The good jobs are leaving the minimum wage jobs are staying and there are not enough of either. When these displaced workers started their families, they had better than minimum wage jobs.

 

[Libsmasher]

Retrain them to do what? Until industry identifies the new jobs that they say they are going to create out of the new technologies, government has no established history or resources for training and unions have no model on which to train. The Unions have never been involved in training except for some skilled trades like welders and Machinists...long existing and transportable skill sets. (By the way, I have a master's degree in training in business and industry.)

So the union has no qualifications to retrain people, because it never did what it should have been doing all along for the last 30 years - whose fault is that? White the Titanic was sinking, they were laying on their asses on the deck chair.

Also note: Unions are only 7% of the workforce, down from 20% in the sixties...they are not about to take on the task of retraining, it is not their job and they are not likely to start now.

Sure - NOW, at the bitter end, they are down to 7%. They are down to 7% because they didn't do what they should have done. And only 20% of manufacturing jobs unionized in the 60s? I don't believe that.

All other training has been by employers as the new jobs are created. For instance, if the large American auto makers had not had their heads up their asses and been aware that sooner or later the SUV would loose favor because of high fuel costs and electric and hybrids would emerge as the car of choice, they could have had them ready to go and have retrained some of their workers to build them. But, they were too fascinated by the high income potential to realize that SUV's were a fashion that would end.
The good jobs are leaving the minimum wage jobs are staying and there are not enough of either. When these displaced workers started their families, they had better than minimum wage jobs.

The car makers were making SUVs because that's what consumers wanted. Their budget for retraining is probably severely constrained because they were dragged down by the burden of crushing retiree pension and health benefits incurred in the long gone golden age of US manufacturing. And the workers probably adopted the maxim "If times are good now (with my $100,000 salary with overtime) they'll be good forever."

I've frequently thought that if everyone had had my impoverished and uncertain childhood and teenage life, then they would NEVER take ANYTHING for granted. From the time I started making a decent buck, I saved money like crazy. I know there are good times, and there are bad times.

 

[BigRob]

Schools give out some scholarships. I know of none that will support a persons and family while he/she gets an education. I know of none with "payment plans". There are some grants available from the government (Pell), but they never cover more than a fraction...besides, thats socialism.
In short, the financial aid dept. of a college arranges for a student to get government loans and grants...they do not finance the aid themselves.
Also, you are not viewing the situation from that of a displaced worker, but a single young male

Mr.D pulled it off, why can't you?

translation: a kid, likely unemployed, living with mom and dad, but still a good Republican.

I am not going to get into this with you, but you are welcome to think whatever you want. But no, I am not unemployed, and no I do not live at home.

Try being born and growing up on the other side of the tracks with none of the things your parents gave you, and see if you can pull yourself up by your boot straps. Your perspective is young, male, single, and with privileges you inherited from mom and dad. Like I said before, your attitude indicates that your are young, inexperienced, and naive.

Oh yes, let me apologize for being successful. First of all, I am not single, add to that if you take away everything that my parents gave me, I am still doing quite well, Obama says that I am rich.

So whine all you want about your plight, but it remains your plight. I am not going to bail you out because you are desperately trying to hold on in industries that are long gone.

 

[dahermit]

Mr.D pulled it off, why can't you?

I did. Associates degree in metal processing, a Bachelor's degree in trade technical education, a Master's degree in occupational education (training in business and industry), Teacher Certification in Computer Science (another two years), Certification in Novel Network Administration plus many hours toward Certification in Novel Network Engineer.

So whine all you want about your plight, but it remains your plight. I am not going to bail you out because you are desperately trying to hold on in industries that are long gone.

A very glib answer. But it begs the question: How can this kid not make the rationalizations that would allow him to consider all the aspects that might make what he says inaccurate. And the answer is: He is only a kid...that is why a person has to be 35 years old before they are considered experienced enough to have the wisdom to be president. (Would you quit a good job, sell your house, move to a different area, to take a job that pays far less than what you were making because in two or three years, your job may be eliminated? Foolish! Childish rationalization.

Why do you assume that I am one of the displaced workers that we have been discussing? I am not. I am retired with social security and a pension from the state of Michigan from my years of public teaching. I am not hurting financially, but that does not automatically turn me into a "...let them eat cake..." Republican. By the way, "cake" was not cake as we know it, it was the scrapings from the bakery ovens, burnt, scorched, and thrown out in the streets for the poor (but of course, a 24 year-old could not be expected to know that).

I have enough money to live, and have no desire to become wealthy at this point (65 years old). Nevertheless, I am aware of the plight of others,because it is the right thing to do, and do not rationalize that "the poor bring it upon themselves." If the U.S. has the money to spend 3 Billion a week on a discretionary(we were not attacked by Iraqis, they were Saudis) military adventurism, then certainly there is something that be done by the Government (people), to help with the current recession.

 

[BigRob]

I did. Associates degree in metal processing, a Bachelor's degree in trade technical education, a Master's degree in occupational education (training in business and industry), Teacher Certification in Computer Science (another two years), Certification in Novel Network Administration plus many hours toward Certification in Novel Network Engineer.

When I said "you" it was not intended at you persay, just as a generalization. That said, your story is just one more example of how it can be done.

A very glib answer. But it begs the question: How can this kid not make the rationalizations that would allow him to consider all the aspects that might make what he says inaccurate. And the answer is: He is only a kid...that is why a person has to be 35 years old before they are considered experienced enough to have the wisdom to be president. (Would you quit a good job, sell your house, move to a different area, to take a job that pays far less than what you were making because in two or three years, your job may be eliminated? Foolish! Childish rationalization.

So if it is a 65 year old Republican saying the same thing as me, what are they? Inexperienced?

No, I would not quit my job, sell the house and move because my job might be eliminated. But after my job was eliminted it would become a very real option.

Why do you assume that I am one of the displaced workers that we have been discussing? I am not. I am retired with social security and a pension from the state of Michigan from my years of public teaching. I am not hurting financially, but that does not automatically turn me into a "...let them eat cake..." Republican. By the way, "cake" was not cake as we know it, it was the scrapings from the bakery ovens, burnt, scorched, and thrown out in the streets for the poor (but of course, a 24 year-old could not be expected to know that).

Again, was not targeting you exactly, just the generalization.

I get the Marie Antoinette reference as well as the historical French disaster. I do not have a problem with helping a poor person. I personally give loads of money every year to charities and pretty much everytime I see someone begging on the street I offer to buy them a meal. That said, the problem that I do have, is when the government wants to tell me how I can spend my money.

If I want to go around and give a lot to charities and help people out then great, but if I do not, then I should not have to. I earned the money.

I have enough money to live, and have no desire to become wealthy at this point (65 years old). Nevertheless, I am aware of the plight of others,because it is the right thing to do, and do not rationalize that "the poor bring it upon themselves." If the U.S. has the money to spend 3 Billion a week on a discretionary(we were not attacked by Iraqis, they were Saudis) military adventurism, then certainly there is something that be done by the Government (people), to help with the current recession.

I have never said the "poor bring it on themselves" I really imply that it is not the governments job to save them should they lose their jobs. I have no problem giving money to charities to help people out or helping them out in general, my problem comes when the government tells me that I have no choice but to help them out.

They were not only Saudis for the record, just the majority of them. That said, the most economists that I know (large number) agree that it was not government spending and putting people to work that ended the Great Depression, it was the war. Keynesian economics is dead in my opinion, and I think government pouring money into the economy to try to "help" the problems only prolongs the problems.

 

[top gun]

It has just been announced on the news that there are now the highest number of people on welfare than there have ever been in Michigan. As most people know, Michigan has been harder hit by the current recession than any other state.
It always amazes me(from the conservative viewpoint), that the fewer jobs that there are, that there is in increase of those people who are too lazy to work, where as in good economic times, these same people are willing to work.
Also never considered by conservatives, 80% of those on welfare are children. Yes, our country would be much better without a welfare system. Begs the question: What does the conservatives expect people to do in a place like Michigan where the people have run out of unemployment and there are no jobs to be had? Live in dumpsters, scavenge for discarded food, turn into thieves?

You make a good point that has been studied in depth.

There are without doubt situations where job loss without an adequate social safety net including free education & training programs, day care and yes even some minor cash and food stamp assistance increases crime.

People will do whatever they have to to feed their kids or themselves for that matter.

The key is doing exactly what President Clinton did with Welfare. Don't support them for life. Don't just say from day one fend for yourself.

Step people out of poverty with small basic financial assistance along with all the programs needed to get your act together for free... medical, day care etc. Make it so you don't get the financial assistance unless you do the education or job training program.

It's been concluded that if people have to get up and participate in programs to get the small amount of financial assistance include in the program. They often move on, on their own as soon as the have almost any skills at all. Even minimum wage is as much or more income as the program was.

All this said I can understand the devastation ones must feel if they have a family and were providing for them with a good job and then suddenly it just disappeared. The situation itself almost makes a minimum wage job a waste of time... you all just starve a little slower.

 

[dahermit]

That said, the most economists that I know (large number) agree that it was not government spending and putting people to work that ended the Great Depression, it was the war. Keynesian economics is dead in my opinion, and I think government pouring money into the economy to try to "help" the problems only prolongs the problems.

WPA, CCC, did not end the depression as you say. However, what it did do was to provide income for people that had none, allowing them to survive without Turning on each other for survival. It is debatable just what ended the depression, but consider that the economy was better in 1941, before Pearl Harbor (before the war had started, I know, lend lease, arsenal of democracy, etc.), than you first few years following the crash.

In the realm of human nature, consider that there were huge numbers of what were referred to as "hobos, and bums" in constant railroad transit across the nation looking for work.
The wealthy, instead of viewing them as humans who had fallen on hard times, considered them a threat, sending police to beat them up and drive them out of town...how many "vagrants" (the crime of not having a job.)are arrested today. The equivalent today is the attitude for people on welfare. Attitudes have not changed that much have they?