Layoff Blues
Job retraining failure
The federal government is planning to spend more than $1 billion this year on job retraining programs for Americans suffering layoffs during the recession. But a late 2008 government-funded study found that job retraining might not really work.
The study, commissioned by the Department of Labor and performed by the social science research firm Impaq International, looked at the effects of a 1998 federal job retraining initiative in 12 states, following 160,000 total participants who started with the program from 2003 to 2005. In the short term, earnings prospects for many groups of workers actually got worse after they participated in job retraining, "implying that those who participate in the program experience lower earnings during the first five quarters after program participation as a result of their program participation."
Part of that effect may be due to concentrating on retraining rather than trying to find new jobs, but the assessment of the program's long-term benefits was no brighter. It took two years for the earnings of those who received job retraining to catch up to those of their nonparticipating counterparts. "Perhaps more important," the study said, "the growth in earnings, relative to nonparticipants, slows at that point.…Overall, it appears possible that ultimate gains from participation are small or nonexistent."
Why might the programs be ineffective? Job retraining is irrelevant without job creation, especially job creation in the particular fields for which people are being trained. Predicting where the next employment boom will take place is difficult enough for entrepreneurs. It certainly isn't a specialty of government bureaucrats.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why might the programs be ineffective?
Job retraining failure
?Designer Handbags
cvbv
dfgfhd
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets..
..in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke
fgs
sdgsadasd
is good