On 16 Aug 2012 15:25:11 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 16 Aug 2012 11:27:21 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:


trying something unique - snipping

That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have
been on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever
the initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it,
back in the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they
should be forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at
their unemployment office. If the wages are less than their
unemployment check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe
cover the difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing
anything. That should change. Forcing unearned money on people
isn't good for anyone involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office,
and not the taxpayers.

I'm not familiar with all the laws about unemployment, especially
since they seem to change often in terms of time periods covered. The
problem is not unemployment compensation in general, but the way the
US (in general) fails to generate employment and educational
opportunities,

Absolute nonsense. Everyone is offered an education, some several
times. Because they choose not to participate isn't my problem. It
shouldn't be the (federal) government's either.

True, as well as false. My son-in-law teaches high school math in
Paterson, NJ (read ghetto school). He delights in the observation he is
making a difference there. He also is shown daily the deficiencies of
the local school system (Paterson isn't exactly an example of how to
educate kids), the indifference of parents, as well as the (lack of)
culture among the kids. So, yes, if you are gung-ho to get educated AND
get a committed mentor, you can get educated anywhere in the US. But it
is really tough in some environments.

So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an education?
I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a thing called "charter
schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich Northern state like New Jersey to
learn from the poor South.

especially when the economy turns sour. I think that covering the
difference between previous high wages and the lower wages in current
opportunities has been considered in some places.

That's absurd. Why the hell would I work at a high-stress job if the
government (you) is going to pay me to loaf?

I wasn't loafing, and the high-stress job I had, I eventually ditched.
Before that, though, I saw the high-stress job as a challenge, plus I was
paid enough to live. I was able to buy my first home, and now have
little debt on that home left. On the salary I made last, it would be
really, really tough to buy this house now with just a meager deposit.

Were we talking about *you*? I missed that part. Hell, I'll take a job
greeting at Wallyworld if they'll pay me what I'm making now, complete with
retirement and bennies. I could have stayed home with my wife last weekend
and wouldn't have had to work every night this week. ...AND paid the bills.
Kewl! I may like this Democrat thing. BTW, who pays for it all? John Gault?

But that can get dicey
very fast, especially in the middle income ranges. Example: Your
previous job had generous benefits and pension arrangements, but you
were RIF'ed. There is a new job somewhere else, but at 60% of your
previous wages, with less benefits and pension arrangements. If you
do take that, not only will you have to really limit your expenditures
(including probably selling your house at a moment it isn't
advantageous), but your resume will show that precipitous decrease.
Not good for the next job. Maybe that scenario isn't too important
for farm workers and others, but it is a very important point to a
large portion of currently unemployed middle income people.

If you want a life with no risk (but also with no reward), why did you
move to the US, Han? Freedom to succeed is also the freedom to fail.
You *can't* have one without the other.

I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise from my
Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was good enough
there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD.

Why couldn't you get the same opportunity in Holland?

My alternative was compulsory military service (in 1969, there was a
draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for the
lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded professor at
the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we could live in
Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I took the chance
because it seemed the way to start a career. I was unemployed for a 3
months (long story), but found a job in New York that I stayed with for
34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some point, but was lucky/capable
enough to get going again. So, one thing led to another, and as many, but
not all in similar positions, I stayed in the US, not too far from where
my grandchildren live. My son-in-law and daughter-in-law think we might
the right choice, did and do the right things. Now I got pertussis and
have to overcome that cough ...

I don't need your life's story. OTOH, I don't understand how you can come
here because the opportunities are better and turn around and want everything
that crushed the opportunities where you're from.