Solving Long Term Unemployment Act (Debating)

[President Tyrion]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Cynic

Slot: Executive Agenda

Administered by: VP Tyrion

Senator Cynic, you have 24 hours to begin advocacy of this bill.

[TNF]

My assumption is that this is, more or less, a 'blank slate' for us to come up with something workable, because at present it is quite vague and in dear need of fleshing out.

Why are we giving preference to one group of unemployed persons over another? Why should only the long-term unemployed be given the opportunity to gain new skills, as opposed to the whole of the unemployed? I understand giving preference in terms of classes to persons who have been unemployed longer, but I don't get why we would necessarily leave out persons who haven't been unemployed for x amount of weeks, or months, or years, or whatever.

I don't think the emphasis on college is worthwhile in this instance. Simply going to college isn't going to give the unemployed a job, as millions of recent graduates who can't find a job can attest. I do think that the emphasis this bill places on reducing the cost of education is great, but I really don't think we can tie that into unemployment reduction, because education alone isn't going to reduce unemployment unless that education leads directly into someone getting a job. Perhaps the solution might be to offer full scholarships for specific degrees and then work with industry to find placements for graduates where they are needed.

As far as those who don't want to go to college goes, I think it might be better to emphasize cooperation with the trade unions, rather than with industry. There are a lot of trades that require apprenticeship trainings in vital areas where the state would be able to direct unemployed people into said trainings and help build up our labor movement.

[Dr. Cynic]

This bill was written in order to alleviate long term unemployment specifically by giving new tools to those who are unemployed long term. If I could take Senator TNF's points one at a time:

1. Because there's no guarantee that short term unemployed would even need to be retrained to a new field. Granted, the six month threshold was something I took from personal experiences within my family. My stepdad was on long term unemployment and because he had no education, the only sort of job he could even get close to was short term menial labor work. After six months he gave up hope on working at what he was good at and applied to learn a new field. If you have a different period of time worth suggesting, I'm open to hearing it.

2. College education is always worthwhile. The opportunity to go to school tuition free can be a tremendous booster, particularly in a competitive marketplace such as this where a degree is ESSENTIAL in order to get ahead in the job market. Again, if you've got better wording for it, I'd be happy to hear it. Again, I could have missed something and I want to make a bill as strong as possible.

3. Well, why not both? Though there's very little a trade union can do to place someone on the job. I mean, I was a member of the Screen Actors Guild for two years. It really didn't get me much in terms of access to employment in my particular field (Though having a SAG card was in other instances, a great blessing). I admit I'm less concerned with the building up of the labor movement than I am of just making sure the unemployed can find employment and that once they've done so, they're treated fairly.

I do concede that the bill is vague and was waiting on GM confirmation to even get a potential cost analysis. It is also somewhat vague because I do want to hear from other Senators so that the bill can come together in such a way as to be passable. I am open to amendments.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's quite simple, usually, there's a reason why LTU are in that situation. Plus, they're also the ones most vulnerable to skills degrading, to the being less attractive to employers and the ones most at risk to homelessness.

It's not saying that someone unemployed for 2 months will have an easier time than those who have been looking for 6+ months, but the data does show it.

I think we need to focus on formal education, vocational education and training.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with the point that Polnut makes and by uplifting them, it will provide a general benefit to the whole economy including boosting demand for the services and goods made by the fields of those in short term unemployment. That will further reduce the time length of their unemployment and raise their wages.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

We should do what we can to help the long term unemployed (which is why I sponsored a bill to encourage employers to hire them) but we can expect this bill will incentivize some people to avoid employment for a time in order to take advantage of the free tuition.

[Dr. Cynic]

We should do what we can to help the long term unemployed (which is why I sponsored a bill to encourage employers to hire them) but we can expect this bill will incentivize some people to avoid employment for a time in order to take advantage of the free tuition.

Well, that risk is run in just about every government program. In this instance especially though, I'm willing to risk such a thing, especially given that most people I know wouldn't willingly stay unemployed that long simply for free college tuition.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

We should do what we can to help the long term unemployed (which is why I sponsored a bill to encourage employers to hire them) but we can expect this bill will incentivize some people to avoid employment for a time in order to take advantage of the free tuition.

Well, that risk is run in just about every government program. In this instance especially though, I'm willing to risk such a thing, especially given that most people I know wouldn't willingly stay unemployed that long simply for free college tuition.

Some government programs run this risk more than others. An advantage of the basic income replacing other programs that we've been doing is that this is reduced and people can take steps to advance themselves without an immediate drop-off in benefits.  I think here vocational training, internships and apprenticeships are the way to go.  There's not as much of a financial reason to stay unemployed then, and it also is a quicker path to employment.

[Dr. Cynic]

We should do what we can to help the long term unemployed (which is why I sponsored a bill to encourage employers to hire them) but we can expect this bill will incentivize some people to avoid employment for a time in order to take advantage of the free tuition.

Well, that risk is run in just about every government program. In this instance especially though, I'm willing to risk such a thing, especially given that most people I know wouldn't willingly stay unemployed that long simply for free college tuition.

Some government programs run this risk more than others. An advantage of the basic income replacing other programs that we've been doing is that this is reduced and people can take steps to advance themselves without an immediate drop-off in benefits.  I think here vocational training, internships and apprenticeships are the way to go.  There's not as much of a financial reason to stay unemployed then, and it also is a quicker path to employment.

Propose an amendment, then.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

We should do what we can to help the long term unemployed (which is why I sponsored a bill to encourage employers to hire them) but we can expect this bill will incentivize some people to avoid employment for a time in order to take advantage of the free tuition.

Well, that risk is run in just about every government program. In this instance especially though, I'm willing to risk such a thing, especially given that most people I know wouldn't willingly stay unemployed that long simply for free college tuition.

Some government programs run this risk more than others. An advantage of the basic income replacing other programs that we've been doing is that this is reduced and people can take steps to advance themselves without an immediate drop-off in benefits.  I think here vocational training, internships and apprenticeships are the way to go.  There's not as much of a financial reason to stay unemployed then, and it also is a quicker path to employment.

Propose an amendment, then.

I will leave it to the members of the Senate to decide what if any amendments to propose.  I just thought it was a point worth considering.

[DemPGH]

A focus on formal education, vocational careers, and also STEM - that's probably the big one. Entrance criteria would have to be met, of course.

It would probably be too costly to open up something like this to all unemployed, and the long term unemployed need the most help. I thought this measure was a good point from which to start to address two problems: long term unemployment and lack of education in some demographics.

[Dr. Cynic]

We should do what we can to help the long term unemployed (which is why I sponsored a bill to encourage employers to hire them) but we can expect this bill will incentivize some people to avoid employment for a time in order to take advantage of the free tuition.

Well, that risk is run in just about every government program. In this instance especially though, I'm willing to risk such a thing, especially given that most people I know wouldn't willingly stay unemployed that long simply for free college tuition.

Some government programs run this risk more than others. An advantage of the basic income replacing other programs that we've been doing is that this is reduced and people can take steps to advance themselves without an immediate drop-off in benefits.  I think here vocational training, internships and apprenticeships are the way to go.  There's not as much of a financial reason to stay unemployed then, and it also is a quicker path to employment.

Propose an amendment, then.

I will leave it to the members of the Senate to decide what if any amendments to propose.  I just thought it was a point worth considering.

Well, you always could. I'm sure someone would have been willing to intro it for you.

A focus on formal education, vocational careers, and also STEM - that's probably the big one. Entrance criteria would have to be met, of course.

It would probably be too costly to open up something like this to all unemployed, and the long term unemployed need the most help. I thought this measure was a good point from which to start to address two problems: long term unemployment and lack of education in some demographics.

Well, to be fair, in the event that the bill fails, I will probably be likely to intro legislation that will simply do away with tuition fees nationally like I did in the Northeast.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Shua, if you would be willing to compose an amendment, I will introduce it for you. I think you are right that there is a concern with what you suggest. I can try to compose something later, but there is a lag time for I cannot compose and introduce all at once, but only at  distance from one another (with a dangerous road in between).

[Dr. Cynic]

Shua, if you would be willing to compose an amendment, I will introduce it for you. I think you are right that there is a concern with what you suggest. I can try to compose something later, but there is a lag time for I cannot compose and introduce all at once, but only at  distance from one another (with a dangerous road in between).

I would like to point out too, Senator, that I'm more than willing to listen to amendments, but I don't want to see the bill gutted and its intent destroyed.

[Cranberry]

I guess I support this bill as a sensible measure to combat long term unemployment.
I gues however to support one point by TNF at the beginning; that we should maybe put an emphasis on specific studies, in cooperation with the industry and employers in general. Maybe not just using those scholarships for those specific studies; but just put an emphasis on it.

[Dr. Cynic]

I guess I support this bill as a sensible measure to combat long term unemployment.
I gues however to support one point by TNF at the beginning; that we should maybe put an emphasis on specific studies, in cooperation with the industry and employers in general. Maybe not just using those scholarships for those specific studies; but just put an emphasis on it.

Maybe we can just do that in another bill then if this bill has no amendments offered towards it?

[Cranberry]

I guess I support this bill as a sensible measure to combat long term unemployment.
I gues however to support one point by TNF at the beginning; that we should maybe put an emphasis on specific studies, in cooperation with the industry and employers in general. Maybe not just using those scholarships for those specific studies; but just put an emphasis on it.

Maybe we can just do that in another bill then if this bill has no amendments offered towards it?

I don't know; I could offer an amendment if you want...

[Dr. Cynic]

I guess I support this bill as a sensible measure to combat long term unemployment.
I gues however to support one point by TNF at the beginning; that we should maybe put an emphasis on specific studies, in cooperation with the industry and employers in general. Maybe not just using those scholarships for those specific studies; but just put an emphasis on it.

Maybe we can just do that in another bill then if this bill has no amendments offered towards it?

I don't know; I could offer an amendment if you want...

Be my guest, Senator

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This?

[TNF]

Could we possibly be more specific? Not to nitpick, but the skills that we need to develop are fairly specific ones that go along with the shift toward a more service-oriented economic model. So perhaps we should place an emphasis on those fields we know we need explicitly: nursing and health care workers, all kinds of infrastructure workers, etc.

[Dr. Cynic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This?

Friendly.

Could we possibly be more specific? Not to nitpick, but the skills that we need to develop are fairly specific ones that go along with the shift toward a more service-oriented economic model. So perhaps we should place an emphasis on those fields we know we need explicitly: nursing and health care workers, all kinds of infrastructure workers, etc.

I'm not 100% sure we should actually be specific with something like this, simply because it could just be terribly limiting. The government could always encourage that path, but I don't know if we actually should be that specific in the bill.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We need to be much much much more specific.

I'll put up some options once this amendment has been dealt with.

[Lumine]

The amendment has been declared friendly, Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Definitely more specific, as to what is in demand, how that is determined and thus what degrees/certifications are covered by this and what are not.

Keep in mind that we consider the labor situation in each field and how much of an influx can be sustained before a problem of too many workers in that field is created.

[Dr. Cynic]

Definitely more specific, as to what is in demand, how that is determined and thus what degrees/certifications are covered by this and what are not.

Keep in mind that we consider the labor situation in each field and how much of an influx can be sustained before a problem of too many workers in that field is created.

I still think it needs as much flexibility as possible given that would it be at all helpful to have only specific jobs to train these workers for and then, as you say, we have a sustained problem of more workers than the field can hold.