http://www.nytimes.com/...nt-labor.html?_r=1&hp

Basically the article above states that, some local employers (aka farm owners) are trying to help out the local unemployed peeps by hiring fewer seasonal foreign workers (legit mexicans) to help them harvest their produce. But the problem is, peeps aren't willing to work the $10.50 an hour job because "it's too hard".

This is despite the fact that:

1. The minimum farm labor wage has been raised by $2.50/hour quite recently.
2. The farmers advertised their labor needs in at least 3 states.
3. The Gov. encouraging farmers to employ more local labor to help boost the local economy
____________


This is just a random example I'm using to state the case. But the question is, are people looking hard enough for jobs? Going around the same city/town day after day with no success is like continuously walking into a glass sliding door and expecting to be able cross to the other side without opening it.

I mean, in an economy where getting a job/wage on par with your qualifications is impossible, wouldn't it be reasonable to take jobs that would be below your normal pay grade just to be able to survive without having to depend on Gov. welfare checks?

neato, an employment opportunity? do i need to buy any safety gear? how many hours a day? does it have medical?

"Gov. welfare checks?" Are you serious? I hardly consider unemployment insurance welfare. The fact is UI was created to give WORKERS a backstop so they would not have to take the first .05 /hr job they came across and would have a chance to get a decent paying job like the one they had. The amount of money you get from unemployment is based on your earnings. People EARN UI. It is not welfare, it is something that only insured workers can get. And yes, its there to help everyone by keeping wages at decent livable levels.

"Gov. welfare checks?" Are given to single women living in the city with 16 kids and no job (i know its given to others too but this is one example). There is a HUGE difference between the two. One is trying to find a good job and be a benefit to society. Do you not see the wisdom in a Doctor who has years of college but lost his job due to layoffs waiting to get a job as a DR instead of picking grapes?


There are tonz of examples- cops laid off-and yes there are laid off cops- would you piss away all that training and have them picking apples for change? Look at the big picture and calm yourself down a bit. Or you just might be the next one laid off.

How many of the 14 million unemployed Americans are cops or doctors Deerhunter?

My understanding is that most (or, at least, a significant portion) are from the manufacturing sector. Unskilled or semi-skilled labour.

Though, I think you're bang on target for pointing out that UI is not welfare.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

many commenters on NYT ask "How well would these jobs pay if we didnt' allow foreign workers to take some of them"

to which I ask
"How well would these jobs pay if government welfare did not exist...much less a minimum wage"

These farmers are already paying more than the free market would demand, not less. Now certainly I'm not arguing against a minimum wage or gov't welfare, I'm just pointing out that the wage paid is influenced by a number of factors some pushing it up some pushing it down...

My only question is what kind of living options are given to these people? Working on a farm at 6AM I gotta figure you are living at the farm and eating at the farm every weekday at least. So wage paid only tells part of the story, would have been ncie to hear about how the other part...

Foog i was using those as examples. From a more personal nature, i have a 4 yr BS degree. I have years experience in management. My last employment paid over $27 hr, which is not a lot. Still, i would gladly take a $15 hr job with 40 hrs a week. However, there are not any. And if your saying to move around or relocate for 10/hr that is crazy stupid. First, that would not even pay my student loans. Second, assuming i represent millions, what would that do too the housing market if we all had to sell our houses? No, i am looking and doing all i can to find work, but the bare minimum i can take is different from someone with no education/bills ect.

It would be very bad for our country for all the educated people out of work to take jobs picking fruit. Believe me, i am all for downsizing, i have already done it. You need to understand there is a bare minimum that has to be met for me to meet my obligations. And if we cannot then what is the point of anyone taking student loans to go to college?

Just FYI- almost EVERYONE i know who is 30-45 is out of work. Unless they are in the military. The only ones still working have family ties to ownership. What that means is employers are keeping some guys who have been there for 20 years, and are keeping the low skilled your guys working for cheap, and the most productive higher paid guys are all let go.

We are in a depression. This is just the way it works. Im not worried, i know things will turn around. Im getting by. It does drive me crazy when retarded, sheltered, or hartless bastards like the author of this thread make base statements without thinking.

if everyone you know is out of work, maybe the group you hang around with isn't as skilled/productive as you think they are?

I'll be a fluff and boldly say that not everyone that takes college can be something they desire.

You may enroll college to learn to be a nurse - but you might not end up to be one, because you're not as good as other nurses, or you're not willing to be flexible.

Just because you pay for college, doesn't mean you'll be good at the subject you wasted a few years studying and paying for.

I feel bad for anyone who was laid off because of the economy...

You only have one option now: Figure something else out.

At the end of the day it is up to the individual to find something.

I hope I'm never in that situation because I'm sure it is no fun.

how long does it take somebody to pay back what they collected on unemployment? say, for a month of unemployment.

In Canada the unemployment fund has ran a surplus for years and it tends to get looted ("transferred to general revenues") from time to time.
"For most people, the basic rate for calculating benefits is 55% of the weekly average insurable earnings. Effective January 1, 2011, the maximum yearly insurable earnings is $44,200. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $468 per week."
The length of time you receive them depends on where you are employed and for how long. (see http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/regular.shtml) There is a table based on regional unemployment rate.

To keep things simple, assuming you earn 44,200 after collecting EI then you 1.73% of your earnings into EI.
So you have to work 40/1.73 = 23 months to pay for one month of EI. I note that if you earn more than 44,200 then your contributions to EI max out at what you would have paid if you had earned 44,200. So if I earn 88,400 I would pay 1.73% per month for 6 months and then stop paying for the rest of the year.

Got it?

kinda. knew i was going to need to use a computer to look at it.
um, so you'd get paid $2028 for that month, then pay $63.72 a month? assuming that you make $44,200.
meh, my bad math puts it at 32 months. i'd better boot up a computer.

pretty sure there is no such system in australia
if you're unemployed and looking for work, you get paid the exact same as everyone else who is unemployed and looking for work, regardless of your experience, education or what you were earning prior, and it's not a particularly large amount, especially if you have assets or anything like that
there are insurance providers that sell income insurance, but that's just like house or car insurance, an individual needs to pay regularly just to have it

well, in NJ, we technically pay into it before we use it. i kinda forget though since i haven't had it deducted for 15 years and ain't eligible for unemployment.

Pang your a D-Bag.

UI varies from state to state. You must earn it before you get it and it is based off what you earned. And like any other insurance paid out - you do not pay it back. If your a covered worker then you are able to get it.

lol this title "Lack of jobs" just got a hell of a lot funnier...

its a recession when everyone else is losing their jobs, its a depression when you lose your job!


my company has been downsizing like you wouldnt believe, but its more because of the defense budget cuts that Obama has been killing us with. with out contracts to bid on my company cant make money and pay employees. As it stands now, im the only non PE working at my company for now. all the others have been let go. and i really hope they decide to keep me around for another year until i can take my exam.

You can make 15 an hour working as a server/bar tender. If you can't get a job...odds are you're not skilled and should work on your education.

btw Deerhunter I hear Apple is hiring, perhaps you should check them out

Edit: Sorry I was misinformed. I'm now hearing that they don't have jobs.

"Steve Jobs was born out of wedlock, put up for adoption at birth, dropped out of college, then changed the world. What's your excuse?"

if it doesn't get paid back or your contributions are less than what you collect, then somebody else is paying for it. i kinda classify that as welfare or charity.

this, i was expecting something else from this thread

Do you know what insurance is?

yah. it's that fund that the majority pay into so that the minority can be covered in the event of unfortunate circumstances.

Employers are also required to contribute an amount, which I believe is equal or high than the amount deducted from the paycheque. So it's actually closer to 4% instead of 1.73. Well, that's assuming the employer would have paid the difference to the employee, who would have then paid the govt. But we all know the employee would see none of that difference if the govt stopped forcing EI payments from the employer :P

He's not even buried and already Steve's getting the blame.

Lots of professionals out of work too. Especially folks over 50.

Well people can blame jobs or anyone else for that matter, but to keep it simple if the US had raised the taxes they could have prevented their national debt from going through the roof and creating all of this in the first place

Also cant figure out why they still arent raising the taxes

why not close loopholes that will just be exploited to make a raise in taxes pointless?

It takes a brave government to raise taxes during a recession. In Australia, they are adding new taxes and the government's popularity in the polls tanked. They are even talking of swaping back to the previous prime minister lol.

You logic is flawed. Are homeowners who get hit by a tornado accepting "walfare" when they get paid 90,000 dollars to fix their home? They neither will pay it back, nor have made 90,000 dollars worth of contributions (premiums)... Insurance isn't welfare (that includes unemployment insurance), food stamps are!

they'd be SOL, if somebody else wasn't paying for the repairs, wouldn't they. it's the same as welfare. there is no flaw in my logic, except that the fund might earn interest. where do you think the money comes from? Gringott's Bank For Wizards?

.