Jobs creation question

[MadinMo]

I'm mostly a lurker, and rarely participate in threads, and even more rarely post. But I hope you can explain something to me. Why in all the jobs creation hype is there nothing about a program similar to the CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) of the late 1970s? I directly benefited from a CETA job in 1979 and to this day I am still employed with the skills I learned with that job. Even if it pays minimum wage to begin, how would this not benefit both the employer and employee? TIA

[catabryna]

1. I also directly benefited from CETA...

and, like you, I used the skills I obtained at a young age to make a pretty darn good career for myself, before I decided to stay home with my kid.

It was a great program.

[NightWatcher]

2. "they" dont want to create actual jobs, just give their buddies tax cuts

they'll call it "job creation" but they have no interest in helping poor, unemployed people.

If we were under attack from killer tomatoes from outer space, they'd pass the "Stop the Killer Tomatoes Act" which would entail giving a tax cut to businesses that said they would try to stop the killer tomatoes without really ever doing so.

They are "addressing" a legit problem, joblessness, by co-opting it into a BS policy of more tax cuts. What's that, it's hot outside?- Tax cut for the rich will solve that.

[MadinMo]

3. Love the killer tomatoes comparison!

LOL!

I guess I am having a hard time convincing myself that there really is no desire to help the unemployed. Denial denial denial..... I must learn to overcome that.

[Ineeda]

4. Like this?

<snip> The White House is particularly interested in a Georgia program that allows jobless workers receiving unemployment insurance to train for jobs at participating businesses, at no cost to the employer. The president is likely to include a version of this program in his jobs package.... <snip> Under the Georgia Works program, workers continue to collect unemployment benefits, plus a small stipend to cover transportation and other expenses. After eight weeks of training, the company may hire the person, or not. It can amount to a free tryout. The president called it a "smart program" at a town-hall meeting last week in Atkinson, Ill. "You're essentially earning a salary and getting your foot in the door into that company," he said. The concept resembles welfare-to-work programs of the 1990s, where welfare recipients were encouraged and in some cases required to work in exchange for benefits.

Much more at link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904279004576522672985879268.html

[MadinMo]

5. YES!

Exactly like that. Keeping my fingers crossed he mentions it, and then actually includes it in his jobs program.

[Ineeda]

7. There are some here on DU who are

equating this plan to slave labor. He can't win, you know?

[Claudia Jones]

10. I wish you were kidding

I don't know that anyone "equated" this plan to "slave labor." The program, however, clearly benefits businesses far more than it does unemployed workers, and it also reinforces the right wing themes about welfare and unemployment. That cannot be good. Also, you say he can't win." I assume you mean Obama, and would point out that this is not all about Obama.

[Ineeda]

11. I'm not kidding at all.

Go ahead and do a search (yesterday, IIRC) there was at least one thread overwhelmingly saying that. And regarding President Obama, the OP specifically expressed his/her hopes for adding this option to 'job creation.' Isn't that what this president will be attempting to address tonight?

[Claudia Jones]

12. I know

I know you are not kidding.

[NightWatcher]

6. beats the other Georgia plan of sending people on UI to work at the farms where they ran off the

immigrant farm workers

[sad sally]

8. Hopefully the President's plan will have ways to avoid some of the pitfalls of the Georgia plan

The program has received mixed reviews from unemployment advocates and economists though. Some question whether it really helps the jobless return to work, while others are concerned about the quality of training participants receive.

Also, the state has had to dramatically scale back the program as officials seek the money needed to continue it. Georgia Works' financial troubles began last fall when the labor department increased the stipend to $600, from $300, and opened it up to anyone without a job, not only those receiving benefits. That expansion essentially drained the programs of funds within a few months, forcing officials to cut back the stipend to $240 and restrict it once again to those getting unemployment checks.

Now, the unemployment funds used to pay the stipend must go to paying the interest on the state's loan from the federal government to cover benefits. So the department has basically stopped marketing it. There are only 19 trainees currently enrolled, down from 950 a year ago.

Since the inception of Georgia Works in 2003, more than 23,000 participants have completed training programs at more than 16,500 employers. A quarter of them were hired at the firm by the end of the eight weeks, while nearly 60% were employed somewhere within three months of completing the program, state labor officials said.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/29/news/economy/georgia_jobs/index.htm?du

[zipplewrath]

9. No, like this

"Full time jobs were provided for a period of 12 to 24 months in public agencies or private not for profit organizations. The intent was to impart a marketable skill that would allow participants to move to an unsubsidized job. It was an extension of the Works Progress Administration program from the 1930s"

12 to 24 MONTHS, not 8 WEEKS.

CETA was a GREAT program and a boone to nonprofits. A tremendous number of highly skilled social workers, counselors, and addiction treatment workers came out of that program, amongst others. It is hard even RUNNING those programs today because of the costs of training qualified people.