Posted on 11/24/2009 4:54:05 AM PST by NRG1973
BS.
Programs like this - in my experience - are usually the last to go. Partly because they provide a "feeder system" of employees that are a known quantity, are familiar with the business, and are pre-trained.
Mostly, though, the company gets solid, junior-level contributors on the cheap. And more often than not, they're are willing to take on - or too dumb/motivated/whatever to say "no" to - lousy hours and bad assignments.
I dunno, I'm in the South, too, and the unemployment rate here is awful. Employment ain't so hot, either - I know several dozen people, in addition to myself and the 200-odd people that I work with - who have taken paycuts or benefit cuts, or reduced hours.
What the hell, I've still got a job. But things here where I am, at least, are pretty tight.
I'd add, though, that the subject of this article isn't helping himself much. Currently unemployed, unable to hold down a job, and with (I'm assuming) a felony drug possession conviction hanging over his head....I'd not hire him.
Decisions have consequences. Imagine that.
The way I explain it (in simplified form) to people who don’t understand the concept of price floors goes like this:
Suppose you are a business owner and you can afford to pay $20/hour for unskilled labor. With minimum wage at $5/hour, you can afford to give 4 people jobs, each being better off than not being employed. Plus, it gives you the ability to produce more, opening the possibility of both production and job growth in the future. Then, the government tells you that you must now pay each employee $8/hour.
You now have two options, but both require cutting at least one person. You can choose to take a hit, increase your labor overhead by 20%, pay $24/hour and lay off one person only. This option relies mostly upon your benevolence (as the evil capitalist). A businessman would only choose this option if his return on labor is greater than the 20% cost of labor, which is unlikely.
The second option requires you to lay off two people. By doing this you save 20% of you labor overhead, but lose the most amount of production/service capability. You require your remaining employees to become more productive, which may or may not be possible.
In both scenarios, everyone loses after the government gets involved. Production capability is decreased, overall wage payment decreases, and income tax revenue decreases, both on personal and business income. The government is stupid.
I think this young man should give the US Army a chance. He would have three solid meals a day, a place to live and work for pay. He can receive additional education but most of all he could look at himself in the mirror and realize he CAN do all the things he thinks he cannot. There is a whole world out there just waiting for him if he will go and check it out. And...on top of all these benefits...he could take pride knowing he was wearing the uniform of his country while doing the most important job he could ever want. Fighting for his and our freedoms. I hope he will consider the Army, meet a young woman, raise a family, be happy and thank God for his opportunities while never looking back. Always go forward to the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.