I was reading Kevin Sherrington's column in the Dallas Morning News Sportspage today on a particular alumni for UConn and it got me to thinking. First thought was why haven't we heard someone complain before. He does mention a particular moment with University of Texas booster, but overall you don't really hear any complaints about bang for the buck from boosters and alumni in the news. I'm sure the ADs hear it pretty regularly, but in the news it seems to be rare. Eventually I am going to try and tie together two points, one about this money situation and another: are people inherently good?
An aside here, I grew up in Dallas and was around for the demise of SMU and the SWC. The notion of college athletes and money is not an uncommon topic around here. And supposedly this has gone on forever, everyone else does it so my college needs to do it to keep up. There is always talk that "something is going on", but noone really puts a finger on how much and shows proof and widespread abuse. Recently we had the Auburn quarterback situation and that made a bunch of noise, but frankly not much overall has been done as of yet. Some say Auburn may still face some penalties, but who knows.
Lets start with what is suppose to be happening. Young men and women graduate from high school receive scholarships to participate in sports for a college or university. The young men and women receive in value a four year degree and spend their extra curriculur time playing for their respective schools. Originally a pretty straight forward deal. Both the student and the school derive a benefit. As time wore on, athletics and of course especially football became big money makers for some schools. Being able to compete not on the field but in prestige became important to alumni, boosters so it became more important for administrations.
Thinking about this I thought well is the real problem the rules? If you change the rules and let people pay or give "gifts" basically you eliminate the problem. Then where does this land us. Probably with some serious descrepancies in competitive sports at the college level. A few large universities would win out pretty regularly because any kid with ambition would go where they could get value for their efforts. Oh yeah isn't the value in the four year education. Quite frankly it should be. And I am going to come back to this point and are people inherently good in a moment.
The real problem is the education system, not just for athletes, but for our society. Most people don't like hearing this, but we as a society have some serious issues and you can make the point that we are a morally bankrupt society. Or are we? This issue of college athletes and money is a great example of the divide in our country, not of the haves and the have nots( another issue to discuss someday), but of how much of our society can play by rules that benefit the larger whole.
We all love a winner. Winning is great. Ask any athlete or anyone successfull and they will tell you it feels good to be successful. Work hard receive the reward, all in all not a bad way to create expectations. As a society we have now come to the point where winning is too important. No one can gets excited by good play or good effort. Normally rational people can lose it emotionally if their team loses a game even if the loss was a fluke play or something. No credit goes to the fact that the team played well, you can see the effort every minute of the game. A terrible team can win and the win is over blown and then creates a set of expectations that are totally unrealistic. The education I am talking about is the education we give ourselves about the importance of winning.
Lets be real, I like to win, it hurts to lose, and even harder to rationalize losing even if I did everything right. Where did I learn this, is it engrained in my genetics or is it engrained in my pysche from my experiences in life. I am afraid it is in what I have been taught in society. If I am not at the top I am a failure. This seems to be the mantra our society teaches itself. So is this all of our society, no one can escape the inevitable crash and burn from never being able to be the one at the top?
Well here comes the are we inherently good or not thought. Actually if you look at college athletics you see thousands of young men and women who went to school on an atheletic scholarship and end up in regular careers, leave reasonable successful lives and are very happy about it. In fact so much so the NCAA created an advertising campaign around this thought. Many may go on to successful careers in some athletic endeavor, some never leave the glory become coaches somewhere and still try to win, but overall most come out emotionally intact and do well. Some even coach successfully and develop other young men and women to do the same. If you look at the large number of young men and women coming out of college most don't play in the pros so most benefit from the original scholarship they received.
So are we all bad or we all good. The answer is we can all be good, and funny thing it does go back to the rules. It is what we teach ourselves, what values we give ourselves as a society that do make the difference. The rules aren't whether a booster can contribute to the benefit of an individual athlete, the rules are whether we want to give our children the best opportunity to be successful. All of our children. There is way too much concentration of wealth in a small community within our society. This perpetuates the ongoing myth that you aren't anybody if you don't fit into this group. So others wanting to feel this success create their own set of rules to try and level the playing field. In reality the booster may not feel he or she is cheating by encouraging a young person to come to their school. There is no ethical delimna to make this effort. It is what is required to make their school successful. So the rules we need to change are how do we define success. Yes winning can be one of them, but only part of what defines success. Boosters don't sell their soul to the devil when they pay an athlete, but what they are doing is perpuating a system that doesn't benefit the child they are paying.So is this booster inherently bad, not really, they are surviving in our world.
Overall we are inherently good. Most kids do benefit from the scholarship with applied effort. It is the ones that don't benefit from the scholarship that are hurt, even if they win the national title in their sport. Only a few will go on to play pro sports and even a fewer will be successful in the pros. This concentration by our society to hold these people up to the highest level is what causes people to make mistakes. Should boosters be allowed to give money to certain kids to attend their school, well probably not, but you actually can make a good argument for them to be able to. You cannot change anything in a society overnight, but a concentrated effort by schools to put more emphasis on academic success wouldn't hurt us. Is this going to be easy, hell no. Until we learn that success encompasses more than winning a trophy we will continue to hurt ourselves and eventually even though we can be inherently good our actions (even if meant in good thought) will bring down the entire system whether it be college athletics or whatever.
So back to Mr Sherrington's column and what I consider to be more of the problem. He just re states what is already in the news, but never addresses the issue itself. He does give a moral to the story and also mentions having your soul involved hence my reference above. This to me is one reason why we cannot solve problems. Mr Sherrington only discusses what happened not what can be done to address the issue. He mentions that we shouldn't get mixed up with the booster and references a quote, but real solutions?
Yes we are inherently good, but doing good is very difficult. We make it that way. Actually following rules are pretty simple and even creating some decent ones to live by can be done. It is our expectations that we create that make it difficult. So if you want a solution start with having a talk with your child, whether they are two years old or forty two years old. What you learn about how you discuss expectations can change how you think for a long time.
"If you teach your child that only winning matters then you will teach your child to fail."
And finally going back to my first paragraph, really I am surprised we haven't heard more boosters blow up about wasting their money. This may be the tip of the iceberg, hopefully not.
(The quote above sounded familiar to me, but I couldn't find a reference from another source.Used google)
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Everyone should win a million today
It is a nice winter day in Dallas today. Started out in the low twenties, but sunshine and no wind made it a nice crisp morning. It will be in the forties today and fifties tomorrow, outside of true falling snow you cannot have a better winter day. Still much to ramble on about, but today it is just too beautiful but to do anything but be out and about. Could always use some more money to pay the bills etc, but on a day like today it can make you forget your worries.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Quick addition to last post
Seems the problem may be democrats and republicans tend to be complacent about who they choose as candidates, as long as they claim democrat or republican the party supports them in general. Both parties need to shake up their candidate list. Not the best action for change, but something better than what we are getting is better than nothing
Friday, January 14, 2011
Some political ramblings since Senator Hutchinson announced stepping down
I always seem to be running around so I never get a chance to sit down and write a well edited text. Same for today. As mentioned before a thorough reading of these posts past and future will eventually produce some cohesiveness to everything I hope.
Senator Hutchinson announced that she is stepping down as Senator from Texas. This made me sit back and think abit my thoughts on individual politicians. I am not a fan of the democratic or republican party as they now stand. Yet I do understand that this doesn't mean that most to almost all democrats and republicans are bad or evil.You get your individual exceptions that stand out, but overall most individual politicians are trying to survive in the world they live.
So this leads back to the problem, but first a quick comment about Senator Hutchinson. I have never met her, however, she comes across in public well. I think for who she represents and what she has done she has served well. Also it seems she is a genuine person. Yes these are some quick niceties, but I feel they are sincere.
The problem is the system with which she and all other current politicians work. Between the political rancor going on today and the private interests/lobbyist sector no real effective public policy is being produced. The system that democrats and republicans work is now so screwed you cannot get or expect decent public policy. Some may say that this is good. A government that does nothing is the best kind of government. There are days when I tend to agree with this thought, however, at some point things need to get done even at the basic level like roads being built. So we are stuck with some kind of government. The question then becomes how much government can we accept (stand). The issue in the United States is that how do you manage a trimmed down government that meets the needs of over 300 million people.
The first answer is the government doesn't need to meet ALL the needs of its citizen and this is the beauty of what our government is suppose to do.It is suppose to be a government of the people by the people for the people, but not a government that controls the people. This has been lost in our current political system. First a quick aside, remember a political system for example of a two party system of electing people is not the same as the constitutional government. It seems way too many people mix these together. There is nothing in the constitution that says we have to have two parties and they are the Democratic and Republican parties. This is how the political process became over time.
This is where Ms Hutchinson's announcement got me thinking. Both the republican and democratic party will now gear up for the 2012 election to try and win her seat. I don't think any major upheavel is going to occur to sidetrack this process from actually happening. It would be nice if some super popular independent got elected, but even then short of a monstrous amount of independents getting elected not much would really change in Washington.
So where does that lead us that believe that some change needs to occur in the political process? Well nowhere until people realize that democrats and republicans won't change till we make them. And where is this change going to come from, tea party, green party, libertarians, or...well actually those are possibilities, but don't count on it immediately. Tea party has some sway based on some information I read I haven't confirmed and that is they have some pretty heavy hitters financially behind them. I haven't seen a second report of this or gotten any verification so I won't make too much mention, but if true they could actually bring about some change. Unfortunately there views aren't representative of the larger population, but apparently they have the money to make enough noise to sound like they represent a larger group of people than they truly do
Let me go back to my statement about a government controlling the people for a moment and use the example of the health care legislation that recently passed but now the republicans want to repeal. First of all the medical industry in our country is way to bureaucratic without the government getting involved. There needs to be some change. So the democrats tried something and produced a monstous bill that no one in the public can even begin to understand. This would add super amounts of bureacracy over bureacracy. And trying to look at the bill just overburdened with special interest concessions that democrats produced nothing in it is an improvement. It did produce some changes and trys to help people get insurance that currently don't have access, a noble ambition for sure, its just that the bill is completely ineffective. The republicans want to repeal it blindly. Just get rid of it, however, the actual problem will still exist. So in an indirect way both parties are trying to control the medical system in the country. Democrats by trying to create insurance, and republicans by doing nothing and letting the current system be in charge.OR to clarify... Democrats don't want to run the medical system in the country just lay down the rules for people to play by, but they are so cumbersome that they end up having the health care system go through the government by default. The Republicans don't want any part of a solution so they are letting the current system be in charge and it is run by insurance companies, AMA, and other corporate and special interests. In neither case does the government show they are addressing the medical system with the idea of by the people for the people. Both situations put another entity in control of one of our most fundamental needs, health care.
So what to do and what to do now includes the problem and contradiction of our system. Our republican and democratic representatives who are allowing this problem to exist are the ones we are electing to represent us in the concept of by the people for the people. Both parties tend to forget this when trying to decide what to do. Yes this is becoming a circular argument in some ways. And over time I am planning on coming back to this discussion many times to hash out the clarifications and hopefully some practical solutions. I am trying to be positive and not just complain like you hear so much nowadays.
So lets go back to Senator Hutchinson's announcement to finish today up. Still running around so need to get moving. Like I said before the system won't drastically change because one person steps down. A small start might be if more independent conservative and liberals push agendas on the two major parties or push forward with more practical ideas within the republicans and democrats long before we choose the candidates for 2012. This won't change the system, but try and get the system to change to the people. Or we step up and seriously make a bid for electing a large number of independents. Make the special interests and political parties step back and think about who is running this country again. This would be the stronger and more effective way to change the system and preserve the idea of government by the people. One that I would chose, but I could stomach the first idea if it comes to fruition. I have nothing against democrats and republicans on an individual basis, I just don't see them as a group doing anything positive for our country.
In the future I plan to discuss the idea of smaller and effective government along with reminder that our nation is a nation founded on Christian and freedom of religion principles. In a government run by the people the need to protect values and independent thought still need to be the prinicpal value in the government. I do want to discuss small government, but one that upholds the dignity of man and individual rights and that discussion will come often. An example for that will be the discussion of how do we reduce our dependence on welfare without short changing the people who are now currently relying on it for existence. Or how do we make welfare work?
And finally I would like to propose or reinforce something I heard that is a solution to our current health care system. I hate not having something to put forward to discuss as a solution to a problem. This problem is a monster and we really need more serious thought about how to address it. Most of my posts should have some positive idea at least to make you think so today's policy issue is something I want to address, but will need further thought to be productive.
Nice and chilly today, some clouds but a small warming trend in the Dallas area today. Jason Garret has been named head coach of the Cowboys, Dirk is still injured, so sports are a bit slow right now. Stars are becoming hot so you are hearing a bit more about them around the so called water cooler.
Senator Hutchinson announced that she is stepping down as Senator from Texas. This made me sit back and think abit my thoughts on individual politicians. I am not a fan of the democratic or republican party as they now stand. Yet I do understand that this doesn't mean that most to almost all democrats and republicans are bad or evil.You get your individual exceptions that stand out, but overall most individual politicians are trying to survive in the world they live.
So this leads back to the problem, but first a quick comment about Senator Hutchinson. I have never met her, however, she comes across in public well. I think for who she represents and what she has done she has served well. Also it seems she is a genuine person. Yes these are some quick niceties, but I feel they are sincere.
The problem is the system with which she and all other current politicians work. Between the political rancor going on today and the private interests/lobbyist sector no real effective public policy is being produced. The system that democrats and republicans work is now so screwed you cannot get or expect decent public policy. Some may say that this is good. A government that does nothing is the best kind of government. There are days when I tend to agree with this thought, however, at some point things need to get done even at the basic level like roads being built. So we are stuck with some kind of government. The question then becomes how much government can we accept (stand). The issue in the United States is that how do you manage a trimmed down government that meets the needs of over 300 million people.
The first answer is the government doesn't need to meet ALL the needs of its citizen and this is the beauty of what our government is suppose to do.It is suppose to be a government of the people by the people for the people, but not a government that controls the people. This has been lost in our current political system. First a quick aside, remember a political system for example of a two party system of electing people is not the same as the constitutional government. It seems way too many people mix these together. There is nothing in the constitution that says we have to have two parties and they are the Democratic and Republican parties. This is how the political process became over time.
This is where Ms Hutchinson's announcement got me thinking. Both the republican and democratic party will now gear up for the 2012 election to try and win her seat. I don't think any major upheavel is going to occur to sidetrack this process from actually happening. It would be nice if some super popular independent got elected, but even then short of a monstrous amount of independents getting elected not much would really change in Washington.
So where does that lead us that believe that some change needs to occur in the political process? Well nowhere until people realize that democrats and republicans won't change till we make them. And where is this change going to come from, tea party, green party, libertarians, or...well actually those are possibilities, but don't count on it immediately. Tea party has some sway based on some information I read I haven't confirmed and that is they have some pretty heavy hitters financially behind them. I haven't seen a second report of this or gotten any verification so I won't make too much mention, but if true they could actually bring about some change. Unfortunately there views aren't representative of the larger population, but apparently they have the money to make enough noise to sound like they represent a larger group of people than they truly do
Let me go back to my statement about a government controlling the people for a moment and use the example of the health care legislation that recently passed but now the republicans want to repeal. First of all the medical industry in our country is way to bureaucratic without the government getting involved. There needs to be some change. So the democrats tried something and produced a monstous bill that no one in the public can even begin to understand. This would add super amounts of bureacracy over bureacracy. And trying to look at the bill just overburdened with special interest concessions that democrats produced nothing in it is an improvement. It did produce some changes and trys to help people get insurance that currently don't have access, a noble ambition for sure, its just that the bill is completely ineffective. The republicans want to repeal it blindly. Just get rid of it, however, the actual problem will still exist. So in an indirect way both parties are trying to control the medical system in the country. Democrats by trying to create insurance, and republicans by doing nothing and letting the current system be in charge.OR to clarify... Democrats don't want to run the medical system in the country just lay down the rules for people to play by, but they are so cumbersome that they end up having the health care system go through the government by default. The Republicans don't want any part of a solution so they are letting the current system be in charge and it is run by insurance companies, AMA, and other corporate and special interests. In neither case does the government show they are addressing the medical system with the idea of by the people for the people. Both situations put another entity in control of one of our most fundamental needs, health care.
So what to do and what to do now includes the problem and contradiction of our system. Our republican and democratic representatives who are allowing this problem to exist are the ones we are electing to represent us in the concept of by the people for the people. Both parties tend to forget this when trying to decide what to do. Yes this is becoming a circular argument in some ways. And over time I am planning on coming back to this discussion many times to hash out the clarifications and hopefully some practical solutions. I am trying to be positive and not just complain like you hear so much nowadays.
So lets go back to Senator Hutchinson's announcement to finish today up. Still running around so need to get moving. Like I said before the system won't drastically change because one person steps down. A small start might be if more independent conservative and liberals push agendas on the two major parties or push forward with more practical ideas within the republicans and democrats long before we choose the candidates for 2012. This won't change the system, but try and get the system to change to the people. Or we step up and seriously make a bid for electing a large number of independents. Make the special interests and political parties step back and think about who is running this country again. This would be the stronger and more effective way to change the system and preserve the idea of government by the people. One that I would chose, but I could stomach the first idea if it comes to fruition. I have nothing against democrats and republicans on an individual basis, I just don't see them as a group doing anything positive for our country.
In the future I plan to discuss the idea of smaller and effective government along with reminder that our nation is a nation founded on Christian and freedom of religion principles. In a government run by the people the need to protect values and independent thought still need to be the prinicpal value in the government. I do want to discuss small government, but one that upholds the dignity of man and individual rights and that discussion will come often. An example for that will be the discussion of how do we reduce our dependence on welfare without short changing the people who are now currently relying on it for existence. Or how do we make welfare work?
And finally I would like to propose or reinforce something I heard that is a solution to our current health care system. I hate not having something to put forward to discuss as a solution to a problem. This problem is a monster and we really need more serious thought about how to address it. Most of my posts should have some positive idea at least to make you think so today's policy issue is something I want to address, but will need further thought to be productive.
Nice and chilly today, some clouds but a small warming trend in the Dallas area today. Jason Garret has been named head coach of the Cowboys, Dirk is still injured, so sports are a bit slow right now. Stars are becoming hot so you are hearing a bit more about them around the so called water cooler.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Jobs report today and some thoughts
I hope you had a great holiday season. Don't have much time today and it has been awhile. I need to start the post holiday clean up.
The jobs report came out today and showed modest increase in jobs, however, most commentary says not what expected. Analysts are saying shows modest growth for 2011. One article shows unemployment down to 9.4%, but attributes the decline percentage more to people that stopped looking than the addtional jobs for December.
If you have read my original post you know I am attempting to maintain positive statements in my posts. This time though I am going to discuss more policy ideas than anything else, of course with a bit of my normal bashing of Democrats and Republicans. If you check the dates you notice I just started this blog, however, my thoughts on our country's employment situation have been welling up inside my head for two years now. Today I will try and hold this post to two separate aspects of the employment situation over the last two years.
The first discussion is around the unemployment situation and how the both recent Presidents and Congress have handled the situation, however, Mr Bush was on his way out when it all started.To me a great opportunity to change our entire mindset on how we handle any type of crisis was missed.And a great opportunity to start changing how we handle people in need in our country.
Republicans always are saying we need less government and I am in total agreement. Democrats are always creating large bureacracies and programs to handle the needs of the people who get left behind in a capitalistic society. Neither group tries to stop the madness though. We have to accept that if we live a nation that believes both in capitalism and Christian values that we still need to take care of the people who aren't successful in their life and perserve the opportunity for their children to have an opportunity to be successful in our society. Many ways to do this, but for now I am going to use the current/recent unemployment crisis to illustrate some philosophical ideas to combine free market while continuing to maintain opportunity for all.
Now to be honest the following isn't all original ideas, they have been hashed around for decades. One of the reasons I don't accept the Republicans and Democrats in Congress is because they refuse to use good information to make good policy. And good policy would benefit both parties' constituents.
So here goes. The government has been extending unemployment benefits out long past the historic 6 months. I have heard talk about there being some programs for job training etc to help out the unemployed, but haven't seen much. What has happened is President Obama had to make a deal with Congress to extend unemployment benefits longer and give a tax break well to people who really don't need it as much as the middle class. Yes I believe in tax breaks for all, but right now our super wealthy are hoarding money. We need it back in the economy so tax breaks to corporations and small businesses to develop new products and new business is where are tax breaks should have gone, but this is another story,
Back to the unemployment situation. The government from the time it realized there was going to be an unemployment crisis should have changed its mindset on how to handle the problem. And again these thoughts were out there. Most experts were in agreement that unemployment was going to be a multi year problem pretty early on in the recession. Yet you heard time and time again there were jobs just no one qualifed to fill them. I saw this looking for a job, medical profession, IT, and some other industries were all that was posted for months. We needed to create a program where people receiving unemployment would be required to attend specific training classes and do part time apprenticeships. Maybe some aptitude testing would need to be done to match people up, but basically we should have created these programs. Basically people could still look for jobs in the field they wanted, but realistically they need to be retrained if they couldn't find a job. So people may say, but you are forcing them to do something and they are losing their rights. Not really, again they can look for jobs of their choice so if things improve and they get a job then they can get off unemployment and not be required to attend training anymore. Okay some will argue isn't that a waste of training money, yes it is some, but the long run benefits of most people being retrained into an industry they have an aptitude for with some interest, vs receiving unemployment for over a year and not having the ability to rejoin the marketplace outweighs those training losses. The restructuring of the workforce does not take away any rights and the fact that a large majority would benefit from retraining to more marketable skills makes this a much more practical solution to our long term unemployment situation. Again job training etc would be required for all.
This can still be done, but our Congress just isn't into being practical. Think about this: if a person gets laid off and they are between the ages of 40-60, they are in a hard pressed situation. In many cases they were probably in mid management or had been in a skilled position that may not be needed as much as some other positions in our society. They receive unemployment for over a year and have to pay for their bills, take care of family etc without a promising future. Yes they continue to look in fields where they have experience. What happened was there were less jobs as the economy makes the transition out of the recession in their previous field so you have too many applying for the same job. HR people have been overwhelmed with applications so much so they don't know what they have. If we had changed policies from the beginning now you have hundreds of thousands of people being retrained, still receiving the same benefits, possibly some being hired into apprenticeships.to reduce the need for some of the benefits, and come 2011 you get a realistic unemployment drop maybe not down to 6 or 7% yet and maybe some significant underemployment, but the direction is real positive. Most people now are in new industries, some may get to stay in their old fields due to reduced applications for similar jobs, most people accept change if it benefits them, no one's rights were taken away, etc. The problem is that the upfront cost would be higher, but you know what; the old adage you get what you pay for comes into play. And when the economy does pick up their opportunities for advancement increase.
We need to teach our Congress how to think like this, it is our responsibility to hold our Congress to better policy. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican it is your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions. To often we change ships for the sake of change without realizing it really didn't change anything. And I know you know this, so think about this for a bit. When was the last time you wrote your Congressman or woman? Via email or via snail mail, no I am not talking about the mass email barrages some special interest group gets you to do, I am talking about a serious few lines to make a point about practical policy in your own words, but sorry this is another aside from the job issue.
Anyway got to go, still have much in the brain trying to fight its way out, all my points get scattered and short changed because I sit down with other things to do, but I hope you get the gist of the point. Sometimes good policy for our Congress is making decisions based on facts in front of them,. The answers are there they just need to be applied. Over time and many posts I hope to create better clarification. And unfortunately I really didn't get to my second point about the unemployment situation over the last couple of years but real quick here is a paragraph on my thoughts.
I cannot believe how much incompentcy has been put up with by companies. Really it has amazed me that some cleaning house hasn't taken place. Really all you C exs and up. Could you not think about what you have in front of you, over 8 million unemployed and you weren't thinking about some upgrades. I have been unemployed off and on over the last two years trying to find something permanent and I have met some really good recruiters, HR staff, managers, yet I have also seen some serious "what" "really" situations. There have been some real "you have to get be kidding me moments" and here I am looking at myself wondering why am I the one looking for a job.( I am not saying I am a superstar, but I do know I could have done a much better job that what was put in front of me)
Yes you could have retrained me, I have been spending what little money I have going back to a community college to try and get some new skills, (have college degree) to start a new career. I know by talking to many people in that 40-60 age group most are trying some type of hap hazard retraining and yet we cannot get the help we need to move forward. Lot of talent out there being wasted because government is too short sighted and corporations aren't thinking and not just for my situation, but for hundreds of thousands of people it has been really disappointing.
The jobs report came out today and showed modest increase in jobs, however, most commentary says not what expected. Analysts are saying shows modest growth for 2011. One article shows unemployment down to 9.4%, but attributes the decline percentage more to people that stopped looking than the addtional jobs for December.
If you have read my original post you know I am attempting to maintain positive statements in my posts. This time though I am going to discuss more policy ideas than anything else, of course with a bit of my normal bashing of Democrats and Republicans. If you check the dates you notice I just started this blog, however, my thoughts on our country's employment situation have been welling up inside my head for two years now. Today I will try and hold this post to two separate aspects of the employment situation over the last two years.
The first discussion is around the unemployment situation and how the both recent Presidents and Congress have handled the situation, however, Mr Bush was on his way out when it all started.To me a great opportunity to change our entire mindset on how we handle any type of crisis was missed.And a great opportunity to start changing how we handle people in need in our country.
Republicans always are saying we need less government and I am in total agreement. Democrats are always creating large bureacracies and programs to handle the needs of the people who get left behind in a capitalistic society. Neither group tries to stop the madness though. We have to accept that if we live a nation that believes both in capitalism and Christian values that we still need to take care of the people who aren't successful in their life and perserve the opportunity for their children to have an opportunity to be successful in our society. Many ways to do this, but for now I am going to use the current/recent unemployment crisis to illustrate some philosophical ideas to combine free market while continuing to maintain opportunity for all.
Now to be honest the following isn't all original ideas, they have been hashed around for decades. One of the reasons I don't accept the Republicans and Democrats in Congress is because they refuse to use good information to make good policy. And good policy would benefit both parties' constituents.
So here goes. The government has been extending unemployment benefits out long past the historic 6 months. I have heard talk about there being some programs for job training etc to help out the unemployed, but haven't seen much. What has happened is President Obama had to make a deal with Congress to extend unemployment benefits longer and give a tax break well to people who really don't need it as much as the middle class. Yes I believe in tax breaks for all, but right now our super wealthy are hoarding money. We need it back in the economy so tax breaks to corporations and small businesses to develop new products and new business is where are tax breaks should have gone, but this is another story,
Back to the unemployment situation. The government from the time it realized there was going to be an unemployment crisis should have changed its mindset on how to handle the problem. And again these thoughts were out there. Most experts were in agreement that unemployment was going to be a multi year problem pretty early on in the recession. Yet you heard time and time again there were jobs just no one qualifed to fill them. I saw this looking for a job, medical profession, IT, and some other industries were all that was posted for months. We needed to create a program where people receiving unemployment would be required to attend specific training classes and do part time apprenticeships. Maybe some aptitude testing would need to be done to match people up, but basically we should have created these programs. Basically people could still look for jobs in the field they wanted, but realistically they need to be retrained if they couldn't find a job. So people may say, but you are forcing them to do something and they are losing their rights. Not really, again they can look for jobs of their choice so if things improve and they get a job then they can get off unemployment and not be required to attend training anymore. Okay some will argue isn't that a waste of training money, yes it is some, but the long run benefits of most people being retrained into an industry they have an aptitude for with some interest, vs receiving unemployment for over a year and not having the ability to rejoin the marketplace outweighs those training losses. The restructuring of the workforce does not take away any rights and the fact that a large majority would benefit from retraining to more marketable skills makes this a much more practical solution to our long term unemployment situation. Again job training etc would be required for all.
This can still be done, but our Congress just isn't into being practical. Think about this: if a person gets laid off and they are between the ages of 40-60, they are in a hard pressed situation. In many cases they were probably in mid management or had been in a skilled position that may not be needed as much as some other positions in our society. They receive unemployment for over a year and have to pay for their bills, take care of family etc without a promising future. Yes they continue to look in fields where they have experience. What happened was there were less jobs as the economy makes the transition out of the recession in their previous field so you have too many applying for the same job. HR people have been overwhelmed with applications so much so they don't know what they have. If we had changed policies from the beginning now you have hundreds of thousands of people being retrained, still receiving the same benefits, possibly some being hired into apprenticeships.to reduce the need for some of the benefits, and come 2011 you get a realistic unemployment drop maybe not down to 6 or 7% yet and maybe some significant underemployment, but the direction is real positive. Most people now are in new industries, some may get to stay in their old fields due to reduced applications for similar jobs, most people accept change if it benefits them, no one's rights were taken away, etc. The problem is that the upfront cost would be higher, but you know what; the old adage you get what you pay for comes into play. And when the economy does pick up their opportunities for advancement increase.
We need to teach our Congress how to think like this, it is our responsibility to hold our Congress to better policy. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican it is your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions. To often we change ships for the sake of change without realizing it really didn't change anything. And I know you know this, so think about this for a bit. When was the last time you wrote your Congressman or woman? Via email or via snail mail, no I am not talking about the mass email barrages some special interest group gets you to do, I am talking about a serious few lines to make a point about practical policy in your own words, but sorry this is another aside from the job issue.
Anyway got to go, still have much in the brain trying to fight its way out, all my points get scattered and short changed because I sit down with other things to do, but I hope you get the gist of the point. Sometimes good policy for our Congress is making decisions based on facts in front of them,. The answers are there they just need to be applied. Over time and many posts I hope to create better clarification. And unfortunately I really didn't get to my second point about the unemployment situation over the last couple of years but real quick here is a paragraph on my thoughts.
I cannot believe how much incompentcy has been put up with by companies. Really it has amazed me that some cleaning house hasn't taken place. Really all you C exs and up. Could you not think about what you have in front of you, over 8 million unemployed and you weren't thinking about some upgrades. I have been unemployed off and on over the last two years trying to find something permanent and I have met some really good recruiters, HR staff, managers, yet I have also seen some serious "what" "really" situations. There have been some real "you have to get be kidding me moments" and here I am looking at myself wondering why am I the one looking for a job.( I am not saying I am a superstar, but I do know I could have done a much better job that what was put in front of me)
Yes you could have retrained me, I have been spending what little money I have going back to a community college to try and get some new skills, (have college degree) to start a new career. I know by talking to many people in that 40-60 age group most are trying some type of hap hazard retraining and yet we cannot get the help we need to move forward. Lot of talent out there being wasted because government is too short sighted and corporations aren't thinking and not just for my situation, but for hundreds of thousands of people it has been really disappointing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)