The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[NobodyHere]

It's a desire not to give tax dollars to those who don't need it. Also I don't think that retired veterans are as nearly as helpless as you're making them out to be. Unemployment for newly retired veterans are similar(albeit slightly higher) to civilians of a similar age group.

If you're concerned about veteran unemployment then you should be looking to help the young veterans whose unemployment is much higher than civilian equivalents.

As for Smoke Jumpers I don't know much about them, what benefits they get, employment outlook etc... so I won't comment yet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Pension changes should be phased in at least so they're not done to the detriment of people who have planned their careers and lives around them.

This. A thousand million times this.
(a position that I hold on pretty much all retirement/pension promises public or private)

[molson]

I'm not sure how much money ending military pensions would save v. say, what it costs to spend a day occupying Iraq, so it just seems like a weird place to draw the line. And that might lead to a greater reliance on civilian private contractors, since it'd be more difficult to retain qualified government employees. (And generally, people who don't like military spending don't life private influence in military, or say prisons, even more).

Edit: I think about military employment the same way I think about most other government employment at any level - a smaller amount of highly educated, highly qualified employees is the way to go, and you can only get that by offering decent pay and benefits. You get what you pay for, and on the scale of government waste, paying good people good money isn't one of our nation's critical budget problems.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This. A thousand million times this.
(a position that I hold on pretty much all retirement/pension promises public or private)

Yes indeed.

Fuck - we agree on this.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yes indeed.

Fuck - we agree on this.

And the saving grace here for possible amendment is that it was bi-partisan, so if a change comes at least it won't need to be a bloody, knock-down, drag-out fight to the death between R's and D's.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure how much money ending military pensions would save v. say, what it costs to spend a day occupying Iraq, so it just seems like a weird place to draw the line. And that might lead to a greater reliance on civilian private contractors, since it'd be more difficult to retain qualified government employees. (And generally, people who don't like military spending don't life private influence in military, or say prisons, even more).

Edit: I think about military employment the same way I think about most other government employment at any level - a smaller amount of highly educated, highly qualified employees is the way to go, and you can only get that by offering decent pay and benefits. You get what you pay for, and on the scale of government waste, paying good people good money isn't one of our nation's critical budget problems.

I personally think people serving in the military deserve pensions for risking their lives - HOWEVER I also think the US Military is hugely bloated in size, slimming it down to a more reasonable level would save a huge amount of money in costs and eventually in a lesser number of future pensions.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It's a desire not to give tax dollars to those who don't need it. Also I don't think that retired veterans are as nearly as helpless as you're making them out to be. Unemployment for newly retired veterans are similar(albeit slightly higher) to civilians of a similar age group.

If you're concerned about veteran unemployment then you should be looking to help the young veterans whose unemployment is much higher than civilian equivalents.

The idea behind 'pensions' for veterans is that they have spent 'x' years training in areas which while vital for the military might be next to useless in a civilian role - I mean how many jobs require you to be able to assassinate someone from a mile away for instance

As such the pension is a compensation for the earning power they have sacrificed by being in the military (ie. if they hadn't signed up they might be 20 years into a career with far more current earning power presently).

This is why I think pensions for veterans are fair - its the size of the US military machine which is causing them to be a larger cost than is incurred by most western countries who have been winding down the size of their militaries for decades now.

PS - As with Jon and others I believe if a promise has been made to people on Pensions then it should be upheld, to do otherwise is frankly conning people and should be illegal.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I personally think people serving in the military deserve pensions for risking their lives - HOWEVER I also think the US Military is hugely bloated in size, slimming it down to a more reasonable level would save a huge amount of money in costs and eventually in a lesser number of future pensions.

Ultimately though -- how many actually risk their lives? This is not to diminish the commitment they make but we've started throwing around the term "hero" pretty casually lately and the pomp and circumstance built around the military of late seems fairly overbearing to me.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by rowech

Ultimately though -- how many actually risk their lives? This is not to diminish the commitment they make but we've started throwing around the term "hero" pretty casually lately and the pomp and circumstance built around the military of late seems fairly overbearing to me.

I don't view all people in the military as being heroes - I grew up in a military family and am well aware that not all of them are 'heroes'.

HOWEVER all of them have sacrificed their earning potential by specializing in military functions* and its this difference which is what their pension compensates them for.

*There is 'some' cross over in certain positions obviously, but not all and even where there is cross over there is a huge difference in approach between military and civilian setups.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The idea behind 'pensions' for veterans is that they have spent 'x' years training in areas which while vital for the military might be next to useless in a civilian role - I mean how many jobs require you to be able to assassinate someone from a mile away for instance

As such the pension is a compensation for the earning power they have sacrificed by being in the military (ie. if they hadn't signed up they might be 20 years into a career with far more current earning power presently).

This is why I think pensions for veterans are fair - its the size of the US military machine which is causing them to be a larger cost than is incurred by most western countries who have been winding down the size of their militaries for decades now.

PS - As with Jon and others I believe if a promise has been made to people on Pensions then it should be upheld, to do otherwise is frankly conning people and should be illegal.

You won't find a bigger supporter of ending a lot of the United States overseas adventures than myself. That said I have to agree with the typical hawk response to the third paragraph. Most western countries don't have a huge military because the United States does all their dirty work for them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I don't view all people in the military as being heroes - I grew up in a military family and am well aware that not all of them are 'heroes'.

HOWEVER all of them have sacrificed their earning potential by specializing in military functions* and its this difference which is what their pension compensates them for.

*There is 'some' cross over in certain positions obviously, but not all and even where there is cross over there is a huge difference in approach between military and civilian setups.

Anecdotally, I have a roommate and friend who was a nuclear chemist in the navy and has had a successful private sector career after getting out because of, not in spite of, the training and job experience he got there. Or my brother-in-law who was a doctor, same thing.

Couldn't you also say the same as the bolded for any profession in some sort of civil service (or any profession for that matter)? Being a postal worker or teacher or firefighter have a range of crossover skills - some translate better or worse to other careers. However, we don't treat them in a special way.

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Couldn't you also say the same as the bolded for any profession in some sort of civil service (or any profession for that matter)? Being a postal worker or teacher or firefighter have a range of crossover skills - some translate better or worse to other careers. However, we don't treat them in a special way.

Thats a fair point - but one of the reasons I tend to treat servicemen differently is that often the pay (esp. in the lower ranks) isn't what I'd consider competitive in comparison to the private sector.

(this may differ over here to back in the UK - but pay for UK soldiers is fairly low considering the risk of harm)

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Anecdotally, I have a roommate and friend who was a nuclear chemist in the navy and has had a successful private sector career after getting out because of, not in spite of, the training and job experience he got there. Or my brother-in-law who was a doctor, same thing.

Couldn't you also say the same as the bolded for any profession in some sort of civil service (or any profession for that matter)? Being a postal worker or teacher or firefighter have a range of crossover skills - some translate better or worse to other careers. However, we don't treat them in a special way.

SI

Firefighters definitely draw early pensions. Plenty of other government employees do too, but police and firefighters have their own seperate deals and younger retirement ages. Plenty continue to work, but requiring firefighters, police, and military to work until they're 65 to get the same retirement benefits as someone with a desk job seems a little silly. I'm really surprised this is such a controversial thing at fofc.

Edit: it's also not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to find good people for these jobs. Jobs which are pretty important. Strong compensation packages (more salary than benefits) strengthening the applicant pool is a pretty decent investment, imo.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Firefighters definitely draw early pensions. Plenty of other government employees do too, but police and firefighters have their own seperate deals and younger retirement ages. Plenty continue to work, but requiring firefighters, police, and military to work until they're 65 to get the same retirement benefits as someone with a desk job seems a little silly. I'm really surprised this is such a controversial thing at fofc.

What's the dividing line that you're using to say "early pension is fair/good"? I was taking issue with the argument that it's because they can't cross train or do other jobs? I thought that was what the GI Bill was for. Never mind that there are good jobs in the military that can train you for future jobs. But like other companies or fields, there are bad jobs, too. If you're a grunt at HP or GE, you're not getting the same level of training as a higher level engineer. One could make the same argument in the military (glibly "the world needs ditch diggers, too").

Or is there another line we're talking about? Is it that it's a physically demanding job? Why not construction workers or factory workers, too? Is it that it's in service to country? How about other civil service? What is the combination of factors that makes military specially qualified for a pension at 20 years regardless of age whereas almost every other job uses a combination of service time and age?

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Thats a fair point - but one of the reasons I tend to treat servicemen differently is that often the pay (esp. in the lower ranks) isn't what I'd consider competitive in comparison to the private sector.

(this may differ over here to back in the UK - but pay for UK soldiers is fairly low considering the risk of harm)

What jobs pay better than the military for someone coming out of high school? Especially when you consider health benefits, GI Bill etc...

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

What jobs pay better than the military for someone coming out of high school? Especially when you consider health benefits, GI Bill etc...

UK soldiers get £14,349 as their basic pay initially - so pretty much any job which isn't minimum wage really (bearing in mind health benefits etc. in the UK is moot as everyone has access to health care anyway).

Minimum wage is presently £6.31/hour which is roughly £12,000 per annum taking a basic 38 hour working week - so soldiers are paid a little above minimum wage initially back home.

(if you have details of what soldiers in the US are paid by all means let me know - as I indicated my comments are based on UK pay scales for soldiers as thats what I'm familiar with)

[NobodyHere]

The basic pay for an E-1 (which is the lowest enlisted rank in any service) is $1532/month. In the Air Force if you're unmarried you'll be living in base dorms and eating at no cost to you at the local chow hall.

After about 3 years you'll be an E-4 and moving out of the dorms. Which then you will be earning $2216/month in basic pay. You'll be getting $352 for food and a variable amount for housing based on where you live. For example where I live it would be $783 (which is lower than most places). The last two are tax free btw.

So add it all up and you're earning about $40,000/year plus benefits. Not bad for someone 3 years out of high school.

[Galaxy]

Slighty off-topic about our health care system and decisions in general, but a case over a California teen that the surgeons/hospital declared brain-dead on December 12th is being ordered by a judge to keep her on a ventilator for another week.

Judge tells Calif. hospital to keep treating teen - seattlepi.com

I think cases like theses are a big, missing part of our discussion that no one wants to touch in a big way, especially when it comes to Medicare/Medicaid. A big part of it is due to the disproportional costs end-of-life eats up of our health care costs.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

What jobs pay better than the military for someone coming out of high school? Especially when you consider health benefits, GI Bill etc...

room & board.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Slighty off-topic about our health care system and decisions in general, but a case over a California teen that the surgeons/hospital declared brain-dead on December 12th is being ordered by a judge to keep her on a ventilator for another week.

Judge tells Calif. hospital to keep treating teen - seattlepi.com

I think cases like theses are a big, missing part of our discussion that no one wants to touch in a big way, especially when it comes to Medicare/Medicaid. A big part of it is due to the disproportional costs end-of-life eats up of our health care costs.

Yeah, we don't talk about it because our political elders can't have an adult debate publicly without the eventuality of "death panels" coming into the discussion. Sort of like saying somebody has cooties or something...you don't want to be the person that has cooties.

I'm not even convinced that we shouldn't have death panels. Somebody has to decide tough things...why not have an accountable entity to make such decisions.

[miked]

This case is slightly more complicated than that and has nothing to do with the health care debate or end-of-life costs.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by miked

This case is slightly more complicated than that and has nothing to do with the health care debate or end-of-life costs.

Well the "case" may be unrelated, but the relevancy is dependent on the person mentioning it.

I saw it as a corner case where there is potential conflict of interest in who is deciding to pull the plug here. And that suggests (to me anyway) there is inherit need to have a healthcare system (whether ACA or incarnations of it eventually) which actually has methods for such determinations.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by miked

This case is slightly more complicated than that and has nothing to do with the health care debate or end-of-life costs.

The case may not be directly relate,d but it has everything to do with the health care debate and end-of-life costs. Tough decisions will have to be made.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What's the dividing line that you're using to say "early pension is fair/good"? I was taking issue with the argument that it's because they can't cross train or do other jobs? I thought that was what the GI Bill was for. Never mind that there are good jobs in the military that can train you for future jobs. But like other companies or fields, there are bad jobs, too. If you're a grunt at HP or GE, you're not getting the same level of training as a higher level engineer. One could make the same argument in the military (glibly "the world needs ditch diggers, too").

Or is there another line we're talking about? Is it that it's a physically demanding job? Why not construction workers or factory workers, too? Is it that it's in service to country? How about other civil service? What is the combination of factors that makes military specially qualified for a pension at 20 years regardless of age whereas almost every other job uses a combination of service time and age?

SI

Like any employer, the ultimate issue is just offering a salary/benefits package that will assure an applicant pool from which you can find the caliber of people you want. And there's a PR element on top of that where some businesses and governments don't want to be seen as taking advantage of working people. There's no one factor. There are trends though. All across governments, in every state, physically demanding jobs that old people can't do, and require specialized training and skills honed over years or decades, tend to have benefit packages that include some kind of supplemental income or pension after you put in some period of years that tends to be less than government desk jobs. A city or county could just decide to hire only minimum-wage firefighters or police officers with no benefits, and fire them all when they start to get older, but you'd probably be scraping the bottom of the barrel (especially with the influence of unions), your city services would suck, and your constituents wouldn't be happy. You're competing with other cities and towns for good talent too.

Edit: And for how amazing we've apparently collectively established the military's compensation packages are, they're still the only employer I'm aware of that needs to aggressively troll high schools all over the U.S. looking for people. This is not a job for everyone. I sure as hell wasn't going to do it, and I got more than a couple phone calls in high school wanting to tell me all about the benefits.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: And for how amazing we've apparently collectively established the military's compensation packages are, they're still the only employer I'm aware of that needs to aggressively troll high schools all over the U.S. looking for people. This is not a job for everyone. I sure as hell wasn't going to do it, and I got more than a couple phone calls in high school wanting to tell me all about the benefits.

You don't think GE or Microsoft or Chrysler would troll high schools if they were allowed to? They sure as heck do it on college campuses. I just always assumed the military could do it because they were allowed privileged access when others weren't. I also think that the average level of education needed for many jobs is college level as opposed to high school standards for many jobs in the military (tho many others require college education).

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You don't think GE or Microsoft or Chrysler would troll high schools if they were allowed to? They sure as heck do it on college campuses. I just always assumed the military could do it because they were allowed privileged access when others weren't. I also think that the average level of education needed for many jobs is college level as opposed to high school standards for many jobs in the military (tho many others require college education).

SI

There's nothing stopping GE and Microsoft and Chrysler from calling you at home, or setting up an off-campus recruiting center in your town. But I think most smart, non-trouble making kids with good grades would prefer a 40-hour per week job with a good salary with a major corporation, or to experience the college lifestyle, then jump immediately into the military lifestyle. And again, only a portion of people who go into the military after high school are going to make it 30-years and draw a full pension. I imagine plenty just want to do the minimum commitment and get help for college to move onto a different career. I can't imagine who they'd get to sign up if they took THAT angle away (are you in favor of eliminating the help with college tuition as well)?

What is your point, ultimately? Just that people in the military are overpaid? That we could get the same bang for our buck by paying less and eliminating pensions? Do you want to impose that immediately or grandfather it in with new recruits?

[molson]

Maybe we should go after teacher's salaries too - does the average $70k+ teacher salary in New York and Massachusetts seem a little high? Do they really "need" that? Starting salaries are lower, maybe we could just fire all teachers when they hit 45 or so to keep costs down? If they can't figure out another career by then, that's on them. (Edit: And the pensions they get! My mother didn't start teaching until she was around 38, and she was eligible for a pension after 10 years of service, but ended up putting in closer to 25 and was able to get close to a maximum benefit. She did have to opt-out of federal social security though, but that's a small price to pay for getting a significant chunk of your full salary in your retirement years)

Teacher Salaries By State | Average Salaries For Teachers | Beginning Salaries For Teachers | Teacher Raises | TeacherPortal.com

[Solecismic]

I see the military as very different from other public sector jobs. You give up a lot of individual freedom when you make that promise to your country. That requires a different form of compensation.

My dad undoubtedly benefited from the GI bill, though he was a 17-year-old at Yale when he volunteered to serve in WWII. While money probably wasn't an issue (back then, you could work in the library or food services and make a huge difference with room/board, and tuition hadn't yet gotten out of hand), it gave him years of responsibility, and when he returned, he changed majors (which upset my grandparents to no end - he was pre-med and went into academia) and did something he loved.

FDR had the famous quote about unions in the public sector. Kennedy was the one who reversed course and set us down this path. We see the end of the path today in many municipalities. The problem is what do you do when you have a negotiating body (local and federal government) that has no incentive to control costs going up against a union that wields a certain amount of power? The result was inevitable. I can't go up to any public-sector retiree and say, "hey... you don't deserve that pension." That's absurd and mean. But the net weight of these deals has broken the budgeting process - we've spent money that our children and grandchildren need.

Can we wave a magic wand and make that debt go away? I don't know. It probably can't be done without greatly reducing the savings of those in the private sector. Either way, the government is breaking a promise made to a large group of people.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I can't go up to any public-sector retiree and say, "hey... you don't deserve that pension." That's absurd and mean. But the net weight of these deals has broken the budgeting process - we've spent money that our children and grandchildren need.

There's smart public pension plans and there's terrible ones. A lot were created in good economic times where that they assumed would continue forever. But many are tied to the economy, not in any financial trouble even in the lean years, and can be a great way to help keep good talent around a little longer from bailing to more lucrative private careers.

Edit: But still, the ultimate loser in the "terrible plan" situation is still the employee themselves - plenty of terrible plans are "remedied" by strong-arming public retirees to accepting just a fraction of their promised retirement benefits - even when they had PAID INTO those plans, just like a 401(k))

[ISiddiqui]

On the military pension thing, I'm not saying its good, but I think some may be overreacting. It's a 1% decrease in the annual Cost of Living Increase. And if you wait until 62 to take it out, you get all that money back (they re-calculate).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

There's nothing stopping GE and Microsoft and Chrysler from calling you at home, or setting up an off-campus recruiting center in your town. But I think most smart, non-trouble making kids with good grades would prefer a 40-hour per week job with a good salary with a major corporation, or to experience the college lifestyle, then jump immediately into the military lifestyle. And again, only a portion of people who go into the military after high school are going to make it 30-years and draw a full pension. I imagine plenty just want to do the minimum commitment and get help for college to move onto a different career. I can't imagine who they'd get to sign up if they took THAT angle away (are you in favor of eliminating the help with college tuition as well)?

What is your point, ultimately? Just that people in the military are overpaid? That we could get the same bang for our buck by paying less and eliminating pensions? Do you want to impose that immediately or grandfather it in with new recruits?

I believe it's 20 years to get a full pension. I find it difficult to keep most pensions financially viable with populations that are living longer and one that can start paying out before age 40 seems almost impossible. (not accusing you of this) I guess I'm also frustrated that it's politically expedient to be ok with cutting pension and benefits for "evil overpaid union workers" when there are a lot of similarities with the military.

Since you asked, I would force the pension structure for any new retirees to look more the few remaining pensions out there: it's age plus service based and realistically, you wouldn't be able to draw it until at least 60 with the option that it might be adjusted upward by a couple of years to adjust for potential shortfalls.

Meanwhile, I think pay and benefits for the military are good as is. The pay plus free room and board (or housing stipend) and a lot of money for college are an excellent benefit package, unmatched for anyone coming out of high school. I know I seriously considered ROTC because of all the money for college but ultimately did not because of the long term commitment (which is funny because now I'd kill for guaranteed employment for 6 years).

And I certainly agree with lots of others, yourself included: we need a smaller military. If we had a smaller force, I wouldn't have as many issues with paying better but, really, we have way too large of a military as is. Fortunately that is starting to be stepped down.

So, basically, keep the education package because that's the real benefit that addresses the perceived training gap and the costs are locked in. But adjust the pension for any future enrollees.

It's still not fair to adjust it for current ones. However, I can almost guarantee you that we will have a huge shift in public sentiment in the next 20 years and it's already started. As towns and counties and eventually states start declaring bankruptcies to get out of their pension obligations, people will be increasingly ok with it because of all the anti-union sentiment. But I expect that if our jingoism is still where it is, there will be even more disconnect between what's ok for the military and what's ok for everyone else.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I believe it's 20 years to get a full pension.

Someone might be able to correct me, but when I googled this the other day, it was 20 years until you became eligible for a minimum pension, which would be about 50% of your base pay. The longer you put in, the more you get (2.5 percent more for each year of active duty after 20 years, up to 75 percent.)

Understanding Military Retirement Pay

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by molson

Someone might be able to correct me, but when I googled this the other day, it was 20 years until you became eligible for a minimum pension, which would be about 50% of your base pay. The longer you put in, the more you get (2.5 percent more for each year of active duty after 20 years, up to 75 percent.)

Understanding Military Retirement Pay

Correct.

Also worth noting, 80% of veterans do not receive a single pension payment. If you server 19 years...you get nothing. That's a HUGE cost savings to the government right there.

While the government advertises the retirement pension as 50% of your salary for life...the reality is it's only your base pay, which is not enough to provide you food or a home, so those are "special pay" or what should be called supplemental pay thay is not calculated in your retirement. So an E-7 (Sergeant First Class, Navy Chief Petty Officer, Master Sereant, Gunnery Sergeant) makes about $80K a year (for the last few years of their career typically), his/her retirement annually is around $20K. Which is probably a bit misleading to 18-year old recruits.

So the retirement system that the military advertises isn't 50% for life for 100% of the vets...which is how the government portrays it to civilians...it's really 25% for life to the 20% of the veterans that qualify.

But hey, if you were "fortunate" enough to make it that far guess what...even that is too much and the US needs to cut back, obviously using the slow-rolling method. "What's 1% here...or 1% there?" ...yeah, we know how this snowball ends up.

Grandfather in everybody, write the "new deal", and get recruits to buy off on that. It's the only way that is fair.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Grandfather in everybody, write the "new deal", and get recruits to buy off on that. It's the only way that is fair.

I think we're all in agreement here

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think we're all in agreement here

SI

Oh yeah, I think we are all in agreement, but our government (bi-partisan government) figured they could slip this one through without much of an issue since military vets drawing retirement are less than 1/2 a % of the population. Stick it to those who complain the quietest, I guess.

[Edward64]

Well crap. I was hoping for better.

Al Qaeda-linked forces capture town of Fallujah in Iraq - World News

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday the situation in western Iraq was "extremely dire" after radical Sunni forces linked with al Qaeda raised their flag in the town of Fallujah - site of two of the bloodiest battles during the Iraq war - and gained control of the city.

Islamist insurgents have also battled tribesmen for control of the Iraqi city of Ramadi.

The fighters brandished their weapons and set police vehicles ablaze on Wednesday, The Associated Press reported. A provincial spokesman said the militants had taken over police stations and military posts in Fallujah and Ramadi after security forces left.

The move is another sign that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has not been able to maintain control of the country since the United States withdrew its troops in 2011, failing to reach an agreement with the Maliki government to leave behind a residual force.

[Edward64]

I think a large number of the long term unemployed will likely stay under/unemployed ... how much longer is long enough? The economy has improved, maybe one more extension (if it can be offset somewhere else) and say this is really it?

Obama Urges Congress to Restore Benefits to the Long-Term Unemployed - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — President Obama, seeking the upper hand with Congress as he heads back from his Hawaiian vacation, insisted Saturday that lawmakers make restoring unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans out of work their “first order of business” in the new year.

An emergency program providing up to 47 weeks of supplemental payments to the long-term unemployed expired last month after Congress did not include an extension in a two-year budget deal passed before it left town for the holidays. Mr. Obama said in his weekly address on Saturday that he would sign legislation renewing the benefits for another three months.

Mr. Obama said that the program helped parents trying to feed children while they looked for work. “And denying families that security is just plain cruel,” the president said in the address, taped before his scheduled Saturday night departure for Washington after two weeks on Oahu. “We’re a better country than that. We don’t abandon our fellow Americans when times get tough; we keep the faith with them until they start that new job.”

Mr. Obama added, “Instead of punishing families who can least afford it, Republicans should make it their New Year’s resolution to do the right thing and restore this vital economic security for their constituents right now.”

Some Republicans, including Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, are open to renewing the benefits as long as the cost can be offset elsewhere. They have complained that Democrats did not offer such a plan before leaving town last month.

Other Republicans have more philosophical objections, arguing that extending benefits beyond the basic program merely consigns jobless workers to the ranks of the perpetually unemployed by removing an incentive to finding work.

[bob]

The problem is a lot of those jobs are never coming back, either due to technological gains or more lean companies. Its a real problem that I have no clue how to solve.

I've been blessed to never have to be on unemployment, so i have a question - are those on unemployment required to do any sort of community service or other work while getting benefits? I suppose this sort of thing could vary state to state, but I think if those on benefits were required to work one day a week cleaning parks, working in animal shelters, whatever, others would be more willing to fund extended unemployment. And don't tell me people can't look for jobs then - no one spends 40 hours a week searching.

[bob]

More on the above - while technology has done a great job of making "low value" jobs irrelevant, business and government leaders have done a piss poor job of training both the displaced as well as the future employees with the skill set required to compete. At no other time has it been possible for two guys in a garage to start a billion dollar empire in next to no time through app development, but so many people are not properly situated to take advantage of this new reality.

I know personal responsibility is huge (trust me, I busted my ass to get through Georgia Tech as a CompE to prepare myself), but i think we need more businesses getting involved. Although they are probably happier paying less money to H-1B visa employees rather than US employees.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by bob

More on the above - while technology has done a great job of making "low value" jobs irrelevant, business and government leaders have done a piss poor job of training both the displaced as well as the future employees with the skill set required to compete. At no other time has it been possible for two guys in a garage to start a billion dollar empire in next to no time through app development, but so many people are not properly situated to take advantage of this new reality.

I know personal responsibility is huge (trust me, I busted my ass to get through Georgia Tech as a CompE to prepare myself), but i think we need more businesses getting involved. Although they are probably happier paying less money to H-1B visa employees rather than US employees.

I may be mistaken but I don't think H-1B folks are the issue. These are largely the tech folks and any US tech person is likely not having issues finding a job.

I think the problem is the non-tech job seekers such as manufacturing, marketing, middle managers, low skill workers etc.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I may be mistaken but I don't think H-1B folks are the issue. These are largely the tech folks and any US tech person is likely not having issues finding a job.

I think the problem is the non-tech job seekers such as manufacturing, marketing, middle managers, low skill workers etc.

My point was companies have little incentive to train non-tech workers to do tech jobs when they can just get cheap h-1b workers.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by bob

My point was companies have little incentive to train non-tech workers to do tech jobs when they can just get cheap h-1b workers.

Yep...though I'd probably say it isn't the "problem" of corporations to solve as much as it is an American problem to address.

We haven't put a pricetag on "retrain non-tech workers to become tech workers" and let corporations compete for that business (won't rant on about "college" here...but suffice to say I find that a Ponzi scheme of costs that are unsustainable for all but perhaps 1% of actual workforce jobs). I think there are many, many jobs that are labelled as "tech" that most skilled labor, factory workers, etc. could do with some reasonable vocational courses.

This takes leadership, direction, and big picture thinking. We haven't mobilized our workforce to solve big problems in so long we've forgotten how to do it, and when to do it, apparently. We put people on the moon, built interstate highways, and built weapons to fight (and win) world wars. And instead of solving the next big problem, we find ourselves fighting over 3% in tax hikes like people saving the fine dinnerware while the titanic sinks and people are drowning. Its disgraceful.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by bob

My point was companies have little incentive to train non-tech workers to do tech jobs when they can just get cheap h-1b workers.

It's not about training, it's about schooling. You can't "train" a programmer, except for some job-specific bits, you need someone to come in with some programming skills already, either from a 4-year degree or a proven record of home programming. You then expect to train them in your particular software setup, but you don't expect to teach them what a "for loop" is.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's not about training, it's about schooling. You can't "train" a programmer, except for some job-specific bits, you need someone to come in with some programming skills already, either from a 4-year degree or a proven record of home programming. You then expect to train them in your particular software setup, but you don't expect to teach them what a "for loop" is.

I actually would 'debate' that with you - I'm a frustrated teacher at heart (that was my original career preference but I didn't have the grades to go into teacher training in the UK) .... as such I've regularly taken on the role of helping people in QA at SI learn the ropes for programming and have several move through the ranks and eventually become full programmers at the studio.

There are HUGE benefits to a company from this approach in my opinion including:
* Visible career progression within the company breeds loyalty and hard work (ie. people know they can be rewarded and build their career within the studio if they work hard).
* They learn exactly* what is required to do the job before they are actually in that position full-time (when you hire a programmer into a studio there is normally a 'lag' before they become fully productive** - with regards to specialized software like FM/FMH this is normally 3-6 months in duration depending on the area they're working in).
* The studio know who they're hiring, that is you've worked with them and know their personalities and work ethics in advance - frankly this is a huge benefit and anyone who wants to become a full programmer at SI knows they have to do things 'right' or there is zero chance of me helping with mentoring them.
* People who come through from other areas of the company have a greater appreciation of those areas than people who come straight out of university and straight into a programming role - I've found this means they're better communicators with these other areas which is a huge benefit at times.

And yes I know we're unusual in this manner - but then our staff turnover rate which is minuscule by industry averages ... we've a LOT of people here who have been with the studio for 5+ years and a fairly scary amount who've been here 10+ (I've been at SI over 15 years now ... when I was first at SI I was considered to be 'young' for someone in a Head of Development/CTO role ... its THAT long ago ).

*The way things usually work is partially them learning in their own time and partially when things are 'quiet' in QA I assign them small 'safe' tasks to undertake with my supervision/monitoring - these are generally tweaks to small/simple existing modules or implementations of a 'slot on' module which is optional to the game and can be left out if everything goes awol. This approach gives them real experience of development and allows both them and the studio to ascertain if the potential role is really something they'll enjoy and thrive at, while they learn more about how to do it.
Incidentally the BIGGEST things I find I have to teach people whether they're being trained up from QA or coming in from university is 'defensive coding' (ie. error trapping so errors are spotted by the program and ALSO don't break it, ie. if recovers cleanly) and memory/pointer handling .... most university courses these days seem to concentrate on Java/C# which leaves people somewhat deficient in this area.
**By this I mean actually able to work in a productive manner without serious handholding from other staff (i.e. them having to ask questions etc.) - I've found studios seriously underestimate this side of things which is why so many tolerate high turnover.

[NobodyHere]

Is SI hiring?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is SI hiring?

I expect you're not being serious - but yes we are presently ... if you go to sigames.com you'll see what positions are open.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Well crap. I was hoping for better.

Completely unsurprised. They've had sectarian violence for generations, they'll continue to have sectarian violence for generations.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Yep...though I'd probably say it isn't the "problem" of corporations to solve as much as it is an American problem to address.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's not about training, it's about schooling. You can't "train" a programmer, except for some job-specific bits, you need someone to come in with some programming skills already, either from a 4-year degree or a proven record of home programming. You then expect to train them in your particular software setup, but you don't expect to teach them what a "for loop" is.

Yes and yes - I couldn't agree more with both, and would say it goes beyond tech jobs as well. When I was hiring people (a lot of people) I really wanted people with broad skills and an ability to learn and adapt quickly.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I actually would 'debate' that with you - I'm a frustrated teacher at heart (that was my original career preference but I didn't have the grades to go into teacher training in the UK) .... as such I've regularly taken on the role of helping people in QA at SI learn the ropes for programming and have several move through the ranks and eventually become full programmers at the studio.

I could see this - you've hired them to a "lesser" position (I put that in quotes intentionally - good QA/QC is worth their weight in gold, I mean "lesser" as in less schooling / training / minimum requirements, but if you've got the right mindset you've got a job for life, and can move up to more senior QA positions), and then spend the time training them. We've had several do the same progression, although it usually involves school on the side, or they went to school, didn't pick it all up, and use QA as a launching point while they learn more.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I could see this - you've hired them to a "lesser" position (I put that in quotes intentionally - good QA/QC is worth their weight in gold, I mean "lesser" as in less schooling / training / minimum requirements, but if you've got the right mindset you've got a job for life, and can move up to more senior QA positions), and then spend the time training them. We've had several do the same progression, although it usually involves school on the side, or they went to school, didn't pick it all up, and use QA as a launching point while they learn more.

Yeah we've had similar combo's previously - ie. some have some programming knowledge, others don't and we have previously paid for people to attend evening classes etc. if they've proved themselves (we're big on helping people improve their skill sets here, in case it amuses anyone I'm presently approved for a digital art course whenever I find the time to take it ).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Yeah we've had similar combo's previously - ie. some have some programming knowledge, others don't and we have previously paid for people to attend evening classes etc. if they've proved themselves (we're big on helping people improve their skill sets here, in case it amuses anyone I'm presently approved for a digital art course whenever I find the time to take it ).

Two of the best software developers I know have very little college training on it. One was an operator on the floor and was mentored by myself and another guy for three years is now a much better programmer than me (even though I have the systems and software engineering degree). Writing software is a lot like translating language. If you understand algorithms and solving problems, learning to code isn't insurmountable.