Jorj, so basically what we are talking about is paying people off to behave? is that correct? Yes, you are correct to some extent.
We are afraid of cutting people off from their "paycheck" (go into the hood and that's what they call their welfare checks) because they will start breaking the law and threatening our cushy way of life.
Does that sit well with you?
NO!!! However, it appears that we will pick up individuals one of four ways: (1) educate/re-educate/retrain for them to have the skill sets for current jobs, (2) provide jobs for the unemployed, (3) require individuals to do community service or other jobs for their unemployment checks, (4) prison those who commit crimes necessary for their survival (three meals, shelter, medical services, and a relatively safe place to live). Naturally, they give up their freedoms but cost the tax payers around $25,000 +/- annually. It appears that we lose out either way.
And, that does not even including those who are disabled. I just read an article,
"Long-term jobless: How to get Hired," page 16, Kiplinger's Personal Finance, "the long-term unemployed (officially defined as those without a job for 27 weeks or more), who struggle to rise to the top of the candidate pools as their skill degrade or fail to match todays demand," . . . who are not currently working, are blatantly excluded from considered for a job. The EEOC is examining the practice as possible job discrimination. Should the we have such Federal EECO regulations or allow the "free markets" set the standards who get employed even though there may appear to be discrimination? |
