TUITION INCREASE - da University of Hawaii system

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1115112901-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Sun, 1 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1114833604-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>>> Of course,[outside forces affect our economy].
>>> Recall it was due to the meltdown of the Japanese
>>> economy. But the state responded in a humane way. It
>>> was also nice to have a huge speical retirement fund
>>> to save spending from the general fund.
>>
>> Wasn't living here back then. How did the State
>> respond in a "humane way:?
>
> early retirement....

That is "humane"? Where they given a "choice" of whether to accept
early
retirement, or not to accept early retirement. Did they give those who
took
early retirement more money than their time in service would have given
them? Did they get as much money by taking early retirement than they
would
have received had they worked there until they were ready to retire?
How
old did you have to be to be made the offer. What about "time in
service"?
Did "all" who took early retirement have a considerable amount of time
"accumulated" in years of service to the State? Can't I make the
argument
that resulted in the highest paid getting the shaft, since the longer
you
work, the likelyhood is the more money you make? Isn't that the same
criticism that is leveled against public corporations when they offer
early
retirement, i.e. they are just trying to get rid of the highest paid
among
them.
>
>>> Of course, if it's a matter of starving to death,
>>> then people will travel that distance [to find new
>>> jobs]. But this is just unemployment-- not a matter
>>> of life or death. We are a civilized society now.
>>>
>> If you are "unemployed" that means you have no source
>> of funds to live on, other than what the Government
>> provides. That only means you can "survive" by
>> sitting on your butt, and doing relatively nothing
>> about your current situation.
>
> You mean unemployment insurance? That's its purpose.
> For example, if there is no construction work, then
> carpenters etc, are laid off. What can the average
> construction worker do to get work when there is none?
> We really should have opportunities for these workers
> to train for other employment in areas where we need
> workers.

No I do not mean unemployment insurance. I am simply making the
statement
that if you remian unemployed for a long enough period of time, and you
are
not willing to make the sacrifice necessary to find a job, then you
will be
in really serious trouble.

Do you know how much you get from unemployment insurance? Could you
survive
on that insurance? I certainly could not, and I have been unemployed.
Also, one should point out that there is a time limit you can collect
unemployment insurance. And if you do not have a job at the end of that
period, you are out of luck, because there is no more money coming in.
>
> For example, there could be free training as computer
> technicians in the evenings while they can be looking
> for work in the computer field and studying during the
> day. IIRC these benefits run out in 6 months, so the
> worker has a real strong motivation to switch fields in
> that time. The training benefits should probably
> continue indefinitely if we would hope that workers can
> continually adapt to a changing economy. It's probably
> not hard for the state to set up cheaper alternative
> certificantion programs with the cooperation of unions
> and business. It's after all, what the educators of the
> DOE and UH are really good at doing.
>
That first of all only applies to those who have the ability to be
retrained
in that field. It also only applies to those who "want to" work as a
computer technician. That at best takes care of a very small
percentage of
the total workforce that may be unemployed in any given period of time.

On Wed, 4 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1115112901-sch@news.lava.net...

>> early retirement....
>
> That is "humane"? Where they given a "choice" of
> whether to accept early retirement, or not to accept
> early retirement. Did they give those who took early
> retirement more money than their time in service
> would have given them?

Isn't it better to retire on a pension and possibly
some severence (in the Fed case in the shipyard IIRC I
heard it was about $25,000), or being laid off and
living on unemployment and savings until you can
retire?

>> You mean unemployment insurance? That's its purpose.
>> For example, if there is no construction work, then
>> carpenters etc, are laid off. What can the average
>> construction worker do to get work when there is
>> none? We really should have opportunities for these
>> workers to train for other employment in areas where
>> we need workers.
>
> No I do not mean unemployment insurance. I am simply
> making the statement that if you remian unemployed
> for a long enough period of time, and you are not
> willing to make the sacrifice necessary to find a
> job, then you will be in really serious trouble.

I think the point is that when there is no work, people
will survive on unemployment no matter how small the
benefit. "Finding new work" is a separate issue--
difficult to do in a nation-wide bad economy.

>> For example, there could be free training as computer
>> technicians in the evenings while they can be looking
>> for work in the computer field and studying during the
>> day. IIRC these benefits run out in 6 months, so the
>> worker has a real strong motivation to switch fields in
>> that time. The training benefits should probably
>> continue indefinitely if we would hope that workers can
>> continually adapt to a changing economy. It's probably
>> not hard for the state to set up cheaper alternative
>> certificantion programs with the cooperation of unions
>> and business. It's after all, what the educators of the
>> DOE and UH are really good at doing.
>>
> That first of all only applies to those who have the
> ability to be retrained in that field. It also only
> applies to those who "want to" work as a computer
> technician. That at best takes care of a very small
> percentage of the total workforce that may be
> unemployed in any given period of time.

That's probably why there should be internships in
these fields for workers to decide how they like it.
For example, for those who do not want to do technical
work, they can be in sales, or training, etc. The
internships will continue their health insurance for
example, so they wont have to go one welfare.

But I suspect that you don't think that unemployed
should get this training or internship opportunities?

Anyway, I think an internship will work especially well
where the employer can try out the employee to see if
he can use his skills and previous experience for a job
with the company that requires on-the-job training.
Most of these jobs are unique and it is hard to set up
training programs for these jobs. In this case, we will
need to depend on the company for this.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1115266200-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Wed, 4 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1115112901-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>>> early retirement....
>>
>> That is "humane"? Where they given a "choice" of
>> whether to accept early retirement, or not to accept
>> early retirement. Did they give those who took early
>> retirement more money than their time in service
>> would have given them?
>
> Isn't it better to retire on a pension and possibly
> some severence (in the Fed case in the shipyard IIRC I
> heard it was about $25,000), or being laid off and
> living on unemployment and savings until you can
> retire?

It is always a tradeoff. Those who would qualify for early retirement
and
have the best benefits from such a program are those who have worked for
them for a long time. They would also be the ones most likely to be the
best paid. They will also be the ones who will most likely have the
hardest
time finding another well paying job. And having taken an early
retirement
offer myself, it does not mean you have enough money to "retire", you
may
still have to find another job in order to survive, as I did. Younger
people generally have not worked long enough to qualify for early
retirement
and young people can more easily find another job if they are laid off.
So,
what is a more "humane" policy?
>
>>> You mean unemployment insurance? That's its purpose.
>>> For example, if there is no construction work, then
>>> carpenters etc, are laid off. What can the average
>>> construction worker do to get work when there is
>>> none? We really should have opportunities for these
>>> workers to train for other employment in areas where
>>> we need workers.
>>
>> No I do not mean unemployment insurance. I am simply
>> making the statement that if you remian unemployed
>> for a long enough period of time, and you are not
>> willing to make the sacrifice necessary to find a
>> job, then you will be in really serious trouble.
>
> I think the point is that when there is no work, people
> will survive on unemployment no matter how small the
> benefit. "Finding new work" is a separate issue--
> difficult to do in a nation-wide bad economy.

You can only "survive" on unemployment as long as you receive
unemployment
insurance. Once it is gone, you have no other means to survive.
>
>>> For example, there could be free training as computer
>>> technicians in the evenings while they can be looking
>>> for work in the computer field and studying during the
>>> day. IIRC these benefits run out in 6 months, so the
>>> worker has a real strong motivation to switch fields in
>>> that time. The training benefits should probably
>>> continue indefinitely if we would hope that workers can
>>> continually adapt to a changing economy. It's probably
>>> not hard for the state to set up cheaper alternative
>>> certificantion programs with the cooperation of unions
>>> and business. It's after all, what the educators of the
>>> DOE and UH are really good at doing.
>>>
>> That first of all only applies to those who have the
>> ability to be retrained in that field. It also only
>> applies to those who "want to" work as a computer
>> technician. That at best takes care of a very small
>> percentage of the total workforce that may be
>> unemployed in any given period of time.
>
> That's probably why there should be internships in
> these fields for workers to decide how they like it.
> For example, for those who do not want to do technical
> work, they can be in sales, or training, etc. The
> internships will continue their health insurance for
> example, so they wont have to go one welfare.

Would you pay an intern to find out if they are willing to do the job,
or
would you prefer to hire someone who is willing and able to do the job?

>
> But I suspect that you don't think that unemployed
> should get this training or internship opportunities?

No, I think that if people want to get training in another field,
whether
they are employed or employed, they should pursue their dreams.

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1115266200-sch@news.lava.net...
>>
>> Isn't it better to retire on a pension and possibly
>> some severence (in the Fed case in the shipyard IIRC
>> I heard it was about $25,000), or being laid off and
>> living on unemployment and savings until you can
>> retire?
>
> It is always a tradeoff. Those who would qualify for
> early retirement and have the best benefits from such
> a program are those who have worked for them for a
> long time. They would also be the ones most likely
> to be the best paid. They will also be the ones who
> will most likely have the hardest time finding
> another well paying job. And having taken an early
> retirement offer myself, it does not mean you have
> enough money to "retire", you may still have to find
> another job in order to survive, as I did. Younger
> people generally have not worked long enough to
> qualify for early retirement and young people can
> more easily find another job if they are laid off.
> So, what is a more "humane" policy?

I think you miss my point. No company is required to
provide it employees early retirement. In fact in many
companies that practice ageism, you're lucky if you can
keep a job with the company until you retire. These
kinds of companies like to lay off the senior and
well-paid people. They're certainly not "humane" in
their layoff policy.

Exceptions are companies with labor unions. But
companies these days can shed their obligations to
their employees retirement fund by moving them to
subsidiaries and then declaring bankruptcy on the
subsidiary. It's easy for them to default on their
union agreements to retired people. At the same time,
the new bankruptcy laws make it harder for the avr
citizen to declare bankruptcy.

>> I think the point is that when there is no work,
>> people will survive on unemployment no matter how
>> small the benefit. "Finding new work" is a separate
>> issue-- difficult to do in a nation-wide bad
>> economy.
>
> You can only "survive" on unemployment as long as you
> receive unemployment insurance. Once it is gone, you
> have no other means to survive.

No that's why people save-- for emergencies. Another
example would be major illness. You spend down your
assets until you can qualify for some govt assistance.
Lucky we have social security.

>> That's probably why there should be internships in
>> these fields for workers to decide how they like it.
>> For example, for those who do not want to do
>> technical work, they can be in sales, or training,
>> etc. The internships will continue their health
>> insurance for example, so they wont have to go one
>> welfare.
>
> Would you pay an intern to find out if they are
> willing to do the job, or would you prefer to hire
> someone who is willing and able to do the job?

Would you prefer to get state tax credits to hire an
experienced and skill person who wants to build some
new skills in the intern position, or would you prefer
to hire some unskill newbie who is willing to take a
low paying internship (which not benefit you in tax
credits since he/she has not been affected by layoffs.
Generally, internships go to unskilled students with no
work esperience). Jerry, you miss the point of the
internship to a more mature laid-off worker.

>> But I suspect that you don't think that unemployed
>> should get this training or internship
>> opportunities?
>
> No, I think that if people want to get training in
> another field, whether they are employed or employed,
> they should pursue their dreams.

We know from experience that this doesn't work with the
unemployed whose jobs have been offshored to foreign
countries, or whose jobs have been made obsolete by new
technology. They shouldn't wait for new jobs in the
same field because it wont happen. "Pursuing dreams" is
quite hard for the laid-off worker and his family
without some assistance.

IIRC I think Hawaii has some monies invested in
unemployed construction workers. I recall that my
neighbor was receiving some computer technician
training. Since then the economy in housing has
improved and he is now again employed in contruction.
He hasn't kept up with the technician training. I
suspect the reason is that he's just too tired when he
gets home. And maybe, he really should have been going
into another field-- like auto mechanics (he likes to
work on his truck). An internship might have been more
inspiring and helpful to him.

--alvin

Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> No I do not mean unemployment insurance. I am simply
>> making the statement that if you remian unemployed
>> for a long enough period of time, and you are not
>> willing to make the sacrifice necessary to find a
>> job, then you will be in really serious trouble.
>
> I think the point is that when there is no work, people
> will survive on unemployment no matter how small the
> benefit. "Finding new work" is a separate issue--
> difficult to do in a nation-wide bad economy.

I think with our current 2.<something>% unemployment rate
here, the "nation-wide bad economy" doesn't really apply
here ...

IMHO even a temporary minimum wage job is better than depleting
one's savings (if any) - not to mention sitting around doing
nothing (they say "engineers don't idle well"). Been there,
done that. Quite a few years back though.

Maren

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Maren Purves wrote:

> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>>
>> I think the point is that when there is no work,
>> people will survive on unemployment no matter how
>> small the benefit. "Finding new work" is a separate
>> issue-- difficult to do in a nation-wide bad
>> economy.
>
> I think with our current 2.<something>% unemployment
> rate here, the "nation-wide bad economy" doesn't
> really apply here ...
>
> IMHO even a temporary minimum wage job is better than
> depleting one's savings (if any) - not to mention
> sitting around doing nothing (they say "engineers
> don't idle well"). Been there, done that. Quite a few
> years back though.

That's your choice. Most construction workers want a
pretty good job. Although many are re-employed I'm
concerned that the 2% unempolyment rate ignores a lot
of workers that have just given up. My other neighbor
in construction for expample, help his wife and kids
deliver the Star Bulletin and Honolulu Advertizer, but
hasn't been able to get a job ever since he was laid
off. He does some work on his families cars and does
something in the shop that he has in his car port. I
don';t think that he is receivng either unemployment
payments or a retirement income, so although he is
unemployed, he is not one the unemployment statistics.

--alvin

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> You "may be" concerned about the 2% unemployment
> rate, but it is still a whole lot better than say a
> 6% unemployment rate. Besides, there are always
> consequences that are associated with a low
> unemployment rate, it is called inflation. Your

I don't have a problem with a zero unemployment rate.

--alvin

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1115498400-sch@news.lava.net...

>> I don't think I have changed my view point at all.
>> It is humane for the state of Hawaii to offer
>> employees early retirement instead of laying them
>> off.
>
> I did not say you did, I said you changed what we
> orignianlly started talking about.

I think we are originally talking about different
things.

>> their treasury. Regarding my neighbor, I think that
>> if he had the chance to do an internship in another
>> area, then he mightr have had to opportunity to
>> switch to another field in greater demand and one
>> which he might like.
>
> Still does not change what I said, The state funded
> someone to get retraining, which the person initially
> took advantage of, only to decide he would not pursue
> that new career, which meant the state spent money on
> this guy for nothing.

Jerry, how can you say this? Two things resulted:

1. Some did complete the program and were able to
switched into a field with more opportunities.

2. The guy learned what he did NOT want to do. That's
just as important as finding out what you want to do.
That's why we have internships.

>> For example, he has good electrical and mechanical
>> abilities as well as construction skills. Working
>> in a hotel he might have found that the job of a
>> technician helping the plant engineer might have
>> been what he would prefer especially since
>> construction work is physically tiring and
>> contractors now have lunas that just inspect and
>> push the workers to work harder and watch for
>> mistakes that they may make. With some experience he
>> could even be the "supt" or plant engineer of the
>> building.
>>
> He "might have" done a whole lot of things, but he
> did not.

It's always difficult to switch fields of work. It has
to feel "right".

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1115655300-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> You "may be" concerned about the 2% unemployment
>> rate, but it is still a whole lot better than say a
>> 6% unemployment rate. Besides, there are always
>> consequences that are associated with a low
>> unemployment rate, it is called inflation. Your
>
> I don't have a problem with a zero unemployment rate.
>
So, does that also mean you are not conerned about very high rates of
inflation, because that is the consequence of a zero umemployment rate.

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1115655302-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1115498400-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>>> I don't think I have changed my view point at all.
>>> It is humane for the state of Hawaii to offer
>>> employees early retirement instead of laying them
>>> off.
>>
>> I did not say you did, I said you changed what we
>> orignianlly started talking about.
>
> I think we are originally talking about different
> things.
>
>>> their treasury. Regarding my neighbor, I think that
>>> if he had the chance to do an internship in another
>>> area, then he mightr have had to opportunity to
>>> switch to another field in greater demand and one
>>> which he might like.
>>
>> Still does not change what I said, The state funded
>> someone to get retraining, which the person initially
>> took advantage of, only to decide he would not pursue
>> that new career, which meant the state spent money on
>> this guy for nothing.
>
> Jerry, how can you say this? Two things resulted:
>
> 1. Some did complete the program and were able to
> switched into a field with more opportunities.

I did not say that no one completed the program and made worked in their
field. I said that for the one example you gave me, the money the state
spent was wasted because the guy never went into that field.
>
> 2. The guy learned what he did NOT want to do. That's
> just as important as finding out what you want to do.
> That's why we have internships.

It still does not change the fact that he never even went into an internship
program, and he never worked in the field that he was re-trained for.
>
>>> For example, he has good electrical and mechanical
>>> abilities as well as construction skills. Working
>>> in a hotel he might have found that the job of a
>>> technician helping the plant engineer might have
>>> been what he would prefer especially since
>>> construction work is physically tiring and
>>> contractors now have lunas that just inspect and
>>> push the workers to work harder and watch for
>>> mistakes that they may make. With some experience he
>>> could even be the "supt" or plant engineer of the
>>> building.
>>>
>> He "might have" done a whole lot of things, but he
>> did not.
>
> It's always difficult to switch fields of work. It has
> to feel "right".
>
So, the bottom line is still the state funded this guys education, and the
guy did not change jobs.