Keeping up with current events is not only about arguing over political party actions. Sometimes, the news must be viewed with a different mindset - somthing like - how can this be beneficial to me?

So here are my observations, I hope it may inspire even one to create a better future of their own.

The Providers’ Council, of Massachusetts elaborates on the competitive grants for wellness programs. While the grants may not completely cover employer costs, the programs themselves provide an opportunity for expansion of nonprofit organizations. The Providers’ Council also lists many new benefits associated with Medicare and several new Health and Human Service Agencies to be established when the law goes into effect.

The Providers’ Council lists a number of new agencies and new programs which need to be developed and sustained, at least in part, at State expense. Furthermore, the bill itself recognizes and requires the establishment of more nonprofit clinics, a state-established nonprofit insurance exchange, the promotion of education of more doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, and all other medical personnel as well as the creation of new wellness programs, and expansions of Medicare services for the elderly. Many of these will be picked up by nonprofits but they will compete for entitlements. So wages which have always been typically lower in the non-profit sector may not seem attractive to those use to making quite a bit more money. But they are good jobs including many at the ‘professional’ level.

So the healthcare bill will provide a great number of new job opportunities – the downside is – they will pay less AND our taxes will have to be raised at both the State and Federal level as taxpayers fund the actual healthcare bill. In other words, everyone who works will be paying taxes so that more people can be employed (more cheaply) while the poor in our country will now have insurance coverage.

NOW is the time, if you are unemployed, to gain experience with non-profit organizations, even if only as a volunteer, or to be reviewing your skills. Perhaps a one or two year educational program is all you need to qualify for many of the new positions.

At the college I attend there is 100% placement rate (already) for people completing an informatics degree. These new graduates are currently first choice over displaced workers in spite of their experience but who are behind in other areas of required knowledge including technology. So many of the jobs that were once only administrative or programming, or other technologies will now require more knowledge of the sciences – biology, medical terminology, physiology and such.

There will also be a greater emphasis placed on “certifications”. For example, becoming certified as a non-profit grant writer can greatly increase employment opportunities. Becoming certified in geriatrics (gerontology) at this time, when the majority of people will be over the age of 55 – may greatly enhance your resume. Returning to school for a certificate (a minor) in Non-profit management and leadership would also provide more opportunity.

So for those who are unemployed, use this time and your unemployment to benefit your future. School loans are available and Federal grants are as well. Some states attach special incentives for those who are on unemployment to continue their education – check it out in your state.

One last comment – The United Way offers low cost educational services, which teach you all about non-profits and even how to sit on a non-profit board. Many of the larger non-profits offer ‘internships’ and often choose to make their interns employees – BUT most internships are attained through your college, you must be enrolled to be considered.

Reference:
(March 23, 2010). What healthcare reform means for nonprofits. Providers’ Council. Retrieved
from http://providers.org/content/what-healthcare-reform-means-nonprofits

ty for the information :)

Since the capital for all the programs you mentioned comes from "stimulus" of various types, the long term result will be a protracted recession and lowered standard of living for all dollar-holders. As the dollar declines here, foreign dollar investors will move to other investments, further escalating the downward cycle here.

This process is well understood by economists and has been observed and documented for more than 100 years. Only the actions that generate capital and productivity will help. Thus far, government programs have only served to hamper this.

I understand the point you are making, which is why I included the blub in the OP about so many of the new jobs being paid for through federal and state entitlements (which is our tax dollars). Also the fact that non-profits (& government) jobs typically pay less than in the private sector.

The job market has been in decline even leading this "recession". We all understand that the reason is that U.S. wages are too high for the kind of consumerism we demand.

We have also long understood that we have been moving away from production/industrialization and into the service industry. We were not prepared for the fast pace of this change so even our 'service' is way overpriced compared to the rest of the world. We also lag behind in providing more contemporary employment solutions. Even the Federal Government has recently put mandates on their agency heads to "get the people out of the office". In other words, if they can work from home - get them set up to do so. This creates a HUGE savings for both individuals and employers, states and federal in areas most poeple don't even consider.

If we are going to make this conversion to a service economy, we need to be competitive and we can't realize this until we have the properly educated people who are willing to work for less.

If enough people HAVE to work for less, we will either get used to less luxery (less consumerism), or companies will have to reduce their pricing.

We have seen many instances of major corporations accepting substantially less profit margin just to keep the business.

We cannot maintain the economic status we have enjoyed for so long if we expect to keep increasing wages at the same pace of those countries that are becoming industrialized. Eventually the nations that are industrializing must close the wage gap which has given our country the status we have long enjoyed.

We can still maintain a very important edge on the rest of the world IF we concentrate on education, technology, science, the medical field and SERVICING those ventures. But we have to scale down - and reducing our wages is a way to realign the economy and hopefully our mass unsustainable consumer habits with the larger global community.

Heavenlyboy - in many threads you have indicated your great interest in 'economy' and 'economics' and have a large reading list which adds to your knowledge of such things.

I have little grasp of economics as a whole - so by all means, please assess my opinion and let me know where it goes astray, specifically if you can, so I can educate myself as well. tnx

One way jobs are created.

When a company starts feeling an economic strain, they will lay off the higher paid workers.

When the strain lifts, they will hire new workers for a fraction of the wage.

I have already seen this happening and those being replaced are men, and their replacements are more highly educated women - who seem to be use to working for less and are happy to have the opportunity to enter management or higher paid positions than the ones they were in.

This is yet another way that wages can be reduced as a whole, in this country.

It is also a great way to equalize women in the workforce.

and who benefits? the ceo's and their crews..

They will always benefit - that's why they're in business. But if the average wage declines, there will be less expendable cash, less consumerism and probably higher consumer demand for more durable products, creating a more competitive market for smaller businesses. Even on less wages people will pay more for a product that will last or can be updated for a fraction of its replacement cost.

So at the moment those major business don't seem to be suffering much, but in the long run they will have to work harder (to please the consumer)while reducing the number of loss leads which will not be as interesting to a conservative and aware consumer.

Well - all that's not bases on any kind of economic, just based on my experience and what little knowledge I have with some wishful thinking thrown in.

That is the point. We have evolved into a debt driven consumption based society that produces nothing and spends all its money on depreciable goods.

Have you ever driven by a large farm and wondered why the house was a falling down mess? It's because the farmer knows that the land and the goods it produces are the asset, not the house sitting in the middle of it. They invest their capital in the equipment that helps them produce more goods. That is the way our economy used to work.

When we began pushing the so called "american dream" of everyone must own their own home, we began the downward cycle we are now presently in. Homes were never considered an appreciating asset.

owning a home can be good if its done for security and not profit

people move around alot more now and INVEST in homes or purchase 'first time homes' with every intention of leaving them


I want to own a home of my own,, but I want it to be suited to my needs and the size of my family or the family I might plan to have.

If you buy something you can afford and don't expect it to gain much in value, buying a house is fine. Unfortunately, the majority of foreclosures that led to this financial meltdown weren't purchased under those pretenses.

Housing prices are still too high. They need to come down another 30-40%. When the prices come down to realistic levels people are in a better position to buy. You don't need risky loans when the prices are equal to what the property is really worth.

Private properties, like any other consumer goods, are worth what the market will bear. The market is greatly dependent on location and not particularly on the property and what sits on it.

An infinate number of events can cause a person/family to loose their home but we don't live in fear of bad outcomes.

I agree with InvictusV that a great deal of care and logic must go into any purchase that creates a large debt for the owner. The debt payment must be at least doubled and the total of that amount should be considered dead (debt) income. In other words if you will owe $700 a month to cover principal, interest, insurance or other incorporated fees, the buyer should expect to SAVE at least that much every month. Why? - for the new roof, water heater, siding, yard equipment, decorating, furniture, appliances, lawn care equipment and products, increases in property taxes, and of course the unexpected interruption in wages.

First time buyers usually don't have a clue and the current standards on which loans are based are so far out of date that they convey a false sense of security to those who enter into the loan agreement.

We really need to get OUT of that mind set that the American dream is home ownership - it's a nightmare of never ending capital outlay.

We have progressively become a mobil society, so what we really need are well constructed, inexpensive, townhomes, condo's and co-ops build closer to urban hubs where mass transit is the norm and bycicles and walking are reasonable. These can be very lovely long-term homes and because of their smaller size, they are easier and less expensive to maintain. If constructed well, they would reduce the environmental impact we create through excesses attributed to homeownership.

I think in our future the trend will be to build energy efficient homes, as I've mentioned above, within or at the edge of urban hubs.
At some point new construction codes will be modified to reflect upates for efficient and alternitive energy use. We may even find that mandates will require older homes to be updated before they can be sold or updated before a new owner takes occupancy (in the future). This happened with the introduction of plumbing and electrical too and the cost can be extensive for an older home.

Sorry, I just realized I'm rambling. Thanks for the posts everyone.

First time buyers who invest over their heads isn't wise investing.

Real Estate is a very lucrative.

My own Mother flipped properties for the last 15 years of her life.

She had a 5th grade education.

By the time she died, she was worth over a million dollars.

I have done a couple tax sale properties and one 4,000.00 investment netted me 20,000.00

I still have the acre and a half, fenced, utilities, corrals and small building I paid 1,600.00 for.

Wise investments are smart because, 99.9% of the time, you can't lose.

they are CEO's and they should benefit... but at the amount they are getting? i remember a few years ago, they were going to fire the ceo of HP she was making 54 million dollars a year and the company was upset that the profits were going down. so in order to fire her, they had to give her a years pays as severance...so they basically gave her 54 million dollars to leave. thats just one example, and thats why i will never buy anything that has Heward Packard on it.
thats why we as consumers should take some responsibility in our actions, and not just blame the president every time we can't afford something... we are just a big a problem as anyone else we can blame. if we don't buy something, the price will come down...

But who are YOU to determine who makes " too much " money??

I will definitely grant you that a CEO getting a " bonus " while the company is failing is absurd at it's very base.

But...the stockholders ( of publicly traded companies ) are the ones who determine whether or not a person is worth what he/she is getting paid. Not you or anyone else. The investors are the people who have a stake in it.

I am sure that Hewlitt Packard will be pleased to know that you won't buy anything with Heward Packard on it. Might cut into their profit margin.

But most people with visions of "the American Dream" are not buying for a short-term or even a future investment. Perhaps a savvy investor may stand to gain up to 99% of the time but as the current situation indicates savvy appearently does not pertain to the Home buyer.

I hope you have continued success with your investments.

You are right in that the market dictates the price. The problem is that the housing bubble was created because the market standards that had held prices and borrowing in check were cast aside.

If the standards for home loans had not been lowered we would have never created a bubble and we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

As in most financial distressed situations, it was manipulation of the market that led to its collapse.

Yes, I do agree.

Like you, I have a personal boycott going on, Walmart. People say they shop there because it's cheaper and if they were buying necessities I would have to agree, but the necessities that Walmart actually offers could fit in nice size neighborhood grocery store. That's not what keeps them in business.

I recently discussed the high prices of the local farmers markets with a customer of mine. I mentioned that I could buy organic for less and even at that I'm limited to how much I can buy. Her comment to be was rather snyde - "Well I say support the individual - not the corporation."

That's a good thought but for the same reason that people prefer Walmart, I prefer organic to Farmers market (limited income). I also try to check out the corporations behind the places I shop and the products I buy.

Corporations are not bad just because the people at the top make a lot of money, there are other things to consider. As you said:

There's a problem with that kind of attitude and that is, it can extend to other areas. Conserve water? Why? no one else does. Recycle, are you kidding, it costs extra to have them pick it up at your curb. Take my dead batteries somewhere for proper disposal, no one does that, they just throw them away. Chill out, I'm only throwing some scraps of paper out the car window, everybody does it. I don't care if some idiot wants to work for a dollar a day, it just makes my those new jeans cheaper for me.

One person can start a grassroots movement that develops into something of international proportions. The actions that support an ethical decision are noticed by others even if some would ridicule the action - and that too is noticed.

Not long ago the makers of Arnold bread bought out Brownberry bakery and they changed one of the recipes of the original Brownberry breads. Individually, so many peaple filed complaints that within 90 days the recipe was changed back even the label was made to look more like the original and it clealy stated - ORIGINAL RECIPE.

Individuals did that, not as a group, not as a consensus. What we do as individuals makes a difference. If nothing else we feel better about ourselves for making a commitment to uphold an ethical choice.

Do you not realize that this part of your post completely contradicts itself?

The fact that a bunch of " individuals " placed complaints turned them INTO a group.

You think if ONE or TWO " individuals " had complained that the company would have cared?

Sheesh.

When Tiger Stadium closed after the 1999 season and the Detroit Tigers moved into Comerica Park, the owner of the team tried to save a few bucks by using the same hot dogs, but boiling them rather than grilling them like they did at Tiger Stadium.

Well..a WHOLE BUNCH of " individuals " basically went into full revolt and boycotted the hot dogs until the owner gave in and put grills in for the hot dogs.

Once there are enough " individuals " doing something, they BECOME a group.

Individuals do basically nothing without forming some kind of group to get things done.