Solving Long Term Unemployment Act (Debating)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[Dr. Cynic]

To an extent, TNF is correct. Long-term unemployed are overwhelmingly without university education. The answer is not to assume they need one, or want one. A lot of it comes down to re-training and up-skilling. That includes re-certification for tradespeople.

If you would like to write the amendment for that, I'd accept it and then I'll write a bill abolishing tuition fees separately. I think maybe that's the best way to go now.

[Dr. Cynic]

No one has proposed an amendment for me, yet. I don't exactly know how you guys want to handle it, so please do so. I'd like not to see this defeated over something that trivial.

[Dr. Cynic]

No one has proposed an amendment for me, yet. I don't exactly know how you guys want to handle it, so please do so. I'd like not to see this defeated over something that trivial.

It's not my job anymore to do anything, I'm just going to eat my fast food and smile, but yes, I do hope someone introduces an amendment because this can be salvaged.

Well, you could always send it to me and I'd intro it myself. The point I was making is other Senators have said the same thing and I'd like to see what you guys had in mind at least.

[Dr. Cynic]

I've got a proposed bill that will abolish tuition fees for Atlasian students nationwide. I assume these loans can be used for other expenses which aren't covered in the bill I have proposed. This also helps with re-certifications.

Amendment is friendly.

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm not going to let this bill only apply to cooperatives, because there simply aren't enough of them for this bill to put a dent in the problem. If you want to add them in tandem, that's fine. If not, then for this reason, then the amendment is unfriendly.

[Dr. Cynic]

Could Senator TNF please provide a definition of 'cooperative enterprises'?

As defined in the Cooperative Development Act of 2014:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not going to let this bill only apply to cooperatives, because there simply aren't enough of them for this bill to put a dent in the problem. If you want to add them in tandem, that's fine. If not, then for this reason, then the amendment is unfriendly.

...That's the point. Limiting aid to cooperatives would encourage the formation of more of them.

I'm fine with adding cooperatives to the bill, but I'm not limiting the bill to only them. Unfriendly, as I said, which is a shame.

[Dr. Cynic]

Nay

Propose an amendment, Nix. I'm open to hearing them.

[Dr. Cynic]

Cynic, I'm hesitant for a couple of reasons.

First, we already offer substantial tax incentives for hiring the long-term unemployed
(Long-term Unemployment Relief Act) and for businesses that locate in economically distressed communities (Establishment of Social and Economic Development Zones Bill).

In addition, we run several dozen job training programs that have existed since before Atlasia's establishment a decade ago. According to a 2011 GAO report, there were 44 federal job training programs in 2003.

Second, I have doubts about the effectiveness of offering a no-interest loan to someone who has been unemployed for more than six months. People don't always have a good sense of what training they need to become employable. If someone takes the loan and spends months in training but still cannot find work, they'll be worse off than they were before we intervened.

Well, it's pretty clear that more aid is necessary based on the employment numbers we've seen. This bill was designed to help with education and bring about new training for the long term unemployed in particular. The hope is, that this bill, will be able to kickstart both training and re-educating workers who have been struggling to find employment. With the current programs, my hope is that this bill can help fix some of the problems not covered in the other legislation.

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm ready to move this for a final vote.

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

I will be reintroducing this legislation if it's defeated, just so you guys know.