<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>The danger of structural unemployment</title>
		<description>Discuss The danger of structural unemployment</description>
		<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 05:34:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.oregonbusiness.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/5811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>So true, Lisa</title>
			<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1771</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Having worked for state of Oregon many years, I saw the screens showing benefits for "recipients". It isn't just unemployment! They get Medicaid, housing, food stamps, WIC, cash assistance, childcare. I often thought that they are given every incentive to be idle, and few incentives to work. And yes, the longer out of work, the more frightened or reluctant --- to enter the workforce. I found that to be the case myself when I stayed home with small children for a few years. And I was not poor and receiving benefits. When will the Democrats see what they are doing to the poor? I remember years ago Tom Tancredo speaking to a black audience about this very issue and they gave him a HUGE round of applause. That's because it is the truth. [OSU - Bachelor of Science - Sociology 1986]]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Lei</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:19:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1771</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Get Reading</title>
			<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1768</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Karen why don't you read what I wrote instead of crying foul based on your own erroneous conclusions. I am not blaming the unemployed for their status (initially) but pointing out that the current system of ever expanding unemployment is not working, in more ways than one. Two years of unemployment has unintended consequences beyond the financial implications. Do you think someone with a 99 week gap in employment is appealing to an employer? Do you think job skills might decline after two years of non-use? When an employer looks at a job application or resume, one of the first things noted is any gap in employment, particularly if lengthy. Paying people not to work creates a perverse incentive not to take a 'lesser' job, or tomove to a more economically viable state, or reinvent yourself through school or training. Check the statistics. An amazingly high percentage of unemployed find work just as the benefits run out. Coincidence? I don't think so. It's not so much that people are lazy but a) many erroneously believe THEY paid into the system and therefore are owed the time off with pay. They didn't contribute to unemployment, it is an employer based tax. or b)they have unrealistic expectations that they can easily find a job equivalent to the one they lost and are not willing to take something lesser in status or pay. Unfortunately this economic collapse has dashed many expectations and we all may need to accept that the days of wine and roses are over for the near future. Now Obama has requested even more extensions of unemployment benefits. If this had worked the first two times, why hasn't the needle budged? Maybe it's time to look into a different approach other than sending out checks with no accountability or requirements other than "looking for work."]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Lisa</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1768</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>get real</title>
			<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1767</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The comments posted here remind me of the fictitious "Welfare Mama" characters sold to the public in the Reagan era. Blame the unemployed for losing their jobs, not the unethical business and financial practices that have created this extended economic downturn. Those lazy unemployed should have had their safety net already in the bag, like the financial houses, banks and bailed out businesses. It's their fault they don't have cronies looking out for them in upper echelons of government! Get real. For every unemployed person "in a hammock" there are hundreds looking for work and leveraging any remaining financial assets - or running up scary debt - returning to college for fresh skills. That money comes from somewhere, cleaning out what's left in the retirement account, or from no longer paying the health insurance premiums. Legitimate businesses and business people pay a price, too, when significant and growing numbers are suffering. Investing in the educational programs, including tuitions assistance (make keeping it merit-based) to train a workforce quickly in the skills that are needed would be tax money well invested. And a small $ amount compared to the billions in bail outs spent so far. Where's the downside here? Less crap (like these postings) that abrogate responsibility to society and more skillful business planning are called for from business leaders.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Karen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1767</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>pat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1764</link>
			<description><![CDATA[so is Mr. Price recommending massive retraining programs? In what fields? Where are the jobs? If retraining is the answer, where, and who is going to pay? And once these retrainable folks are retrained, where do they have to move to work? How do they sell the home they are in? The State of Oregon can't and shouldn't try to come up with the money/programs to retrain. I agree with Lisa, the unemployed have gotta wanna.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>pat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:23:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1764</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Extended Unemployment May Add to the Problem</title>
			<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1763</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mr Price did not address the contribution made by the current policy of continuing unemployment benefits month upon month, even year upon year. While no one wants to be on unemployment, it provides a perverse incentive to just hang on until the benefits finally run out. There have been numerous statistics that indicate the unemployed have sudden success in finding a job just before benefits run out...amazing! When benefits run 99 weeks, nearly two years, the reality is that skills grow stale, ambition wanes and the inability to interest employers becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Further, there is an underground economy of unemployed working 'under the table' for cash payments that can augment unemployment benefits. Certainly not every long term unemployed person is gaming the system. This economy has put many a hard working, responsible person out in the street for much longer than anyone anticipated. But continuing to hand out benefits for an extended period may well add to institutionaliz ed unemployment. We should think about some way to credit the jobless who are pursuing skills or training in addition to employment, versus the individual who has mistaken this safety net for a hammock.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Lisa</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:25:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/5811-the-danger-of-structural-unemployment?device=xhtml#comment-1763</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
