Job Retraining May Fall Short

Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Quote:
Nonetheless, a little-noticed study the Labor Department released several months ago found that the benefits of the biggest federal job training program were “small or nonexistent” for laid-off workers. It showed little difference in earnings and the chances of being rehired between laid-off people who had been retrained and those who had not. In interviews, the authors of the study and other economists cited several reasons that retraining might not be effective. Many workers who have lost their jobs are older and had spent their lives working in one industry. In need of a job right away, many pick relatively short training programs, which often have marginal benefits. Job retraining is also ineffective without job creation, a point made by several economists who have long cautioned against placing too much stock in it. Finally, workers trying to pick a new field cannot predict the future of the labor market, especially in a time of economic upheaval.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/us/06retrain.html?ref=us From the self serving NY Times.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
18,863
Location
Silicon Valley
Let's outsource job retraining to make them more cost effective. Sure you didn't get more effect, but at least it will cost less.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
46,629
Location
New Jersey
The problem is that those on the low-end of the knowledge and earning spectrum will likely always be prone to having issues. Not nice to say, but likely the case. For professionals and folks who are trained, loose their jobs to somebody in India or China, job retraining is a joke. A friend had to go through that - he was a highly trained engineer, and the labor bureau wouldnt let him take a training class for an analytical instrument that a technician one or two ranks below him would need to know to use. Meanwhile they would do searches and the jobs that they would make him submit for were insults to his knowledge and capability.
 

Kestas

Staff member
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
14,037
Location
The Motor City
Train for what?... for other nonexistant jobs? What a joke!! I'm not at all surprised of their findings.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
When you have a mandatory 5% unemployed for an "efficient" economy, there will always be 5% of losers. All the programmes in the world are just s smokescreen, when the real answer is "well it's simply your turn in the gutter".
 

Tempest

Thread starter
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Originally Posted By: Shannow
When you have a mandatory 5% unemployed for an "efficient" economy, there will always be 5% of losers. All the programmes in the world are just s smokescreen, when the real answer is "well it's simply your turn in the gutter".
So what is your idea for 0% unemployment?
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
18,863
Location
Silicon Valley
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
So what is your idea for 0% unemployment?
So what's your idea for world peace? There is none, it is impossible for 0% unemployment.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
9,461
Location
Not Seattle, but close.
 Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The problem is that those on the low-end of the knowledge and earning spectrum will likely always be prone to having issues. Not nice to say, but likely the case. For professionals and folks who are trained, loose their jobs to somebody in India or China, job retraining is a joke. A friend had to go through that - he was a highly trained engineer, and the labor bureau wouldnt let him take a training class for an analytical instrument that a technician one or two ranks below him would need to know to use. Meanwhile they would do searches and the jobs that they would make him submit for were insults to his knowledge and capability.
I'd hope "professionals" and "folks who are trained" could manage to learn the difference between "loose" and "lose".
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
960
Location
Kyiv, Ukraine
 Originally Posted By: PandaBear
There is none, it is impossible for 0% unemployment.
Well, especially when for some to be unemployed already became a profession.
 

Tempest

Thread starter
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Originally Posted By: PandaBear
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
So what is your idea for 0% unemployment?
So what's your idea for world peace? Where the heck did that come from? There is none, it is impossible for 0% unemployment. I agree, and I'm not the one making the assertion, Shannow is.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
11,410
Location
The Sandhills of NewYorkistan
 Originally Posted By: Primus
 Originally Posted By: PandaBear
There is none, it is impossible for 0% unemployment.
Well, especially when for some to be unemployed already became a profession.
Can I get an amen?
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
So what is your idea for 0% unemployment?
Never said that I had one. I just beleive that if it's in the best interests of the market to have an "optimum" level of unemployment to control pressure on wages, then those people who are purposely left out need some sort of safety net.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
It's easy to control unemployment. You grant alien visas during surplus labor demands. You revoke them when that demand recedes. Naturally you actually have to WANT to retain your standard of living for YOUR NATION and not just for those who broker it.
 

Tempest

Thread starter
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
 Quote:
an "optimum" level of unemployment
You have spoken of this multiple times. Can you provide something that you are referencing?
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
Tempest - Wall St. & Co. (FNN/CNBC/and everyone else) puts us in a position where 5% is the ideal level of unemployment. Below it you're in inflationary status ..above it you're in recessionary status. To deny this is really ..well ..it's just not a good showing of "worldliness". Even a simple stroke like myself has picked up on this. Even that number is a fudge factor ..but it's the figure we have to work with. This is why your "kick them to the curb" motif doesn't hold water. What in the heck are you going to do with even more people seeking jobs that aren't there? You keep pointing out the obvious liabilities of managing these inconvenient realities ..but don't describe the liabilities of NOT managing them. What do you think your "intended consequences" are going to look like?? I think you have a hard time admitting that they won't lead to "better" conditions ..just different and falling on different shoulders ..for some.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
1,498
Location
Illinois
 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
What in the heck are you going to do with even more people seeking jobs that aren't there?
Some people are idealists (or more so anyway). Are you going to be the one to tell them? I think it's kind of funny that a certain percentage of many societies refuse to "work". I wonder what that number actually is vs. the number of people who want to work but can't? Determining anything but fictional consequences for fictional scenarios is impossible; determining consequences for possible or likely scenarios is often very prudent. Who's got that number? (I really would be interested.)
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
1,498
Location
Illinois
My God, I've forgotten something! What about the ones who don't have to work (so to speak), and the ones who couldn't or shouldn't work anyway (children perhaps in some contexts). What about the ones who can't work the kind of work they want to work?
 
Top