wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:01:29 -0400, Harry
wrote:
On 8/14/10 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:24:02 -0400, wrote:
How about you get no more than 3 months of unemployment period.
since there are 5 applicants for every job, how is this going to help
My wife just got cold called to go sell road signs for $70,000 a year
plus expenses and benefits so some people can still find work.
The kid she mentored up from a $10/hr handyman is now working for a
gate company making $50k with benefits.
That may not sound like much money up north or in California but it is
good for SW Florida.
There are still opportunities out there. You just need to expand your
horizons. The job you used top have may be gone but that doesn't mean
all jobs are gone. The gate kid has an accounting degree and a
business degree but he found there is more money in fixing gates. It
beats working in a car wash, where he was when my wife first hired
him.
So you *agree* that unemployment benefits should be reduced to three
months because there are plenty of good jobs available, eh? Or are you
just presenting one of your famous contrarian views?
Probably just the latter ;-)
I would support changing the rules to say that the recipient shows
some evidence that they are looking for work and that they would
accept a change in career, perhaps to the point that they show some
effort to learn another trade. When I knew the computer business as I
knew it was gone I started learning something that wasn't (in my case
I got an electrical inspector's license).
It is stupid to keep paying money to a guy who is sitting home waiting
for the buggie whip plant to reopen.
Like Govt Motors? I agree
--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.