Well I seem to be the only one bringing forth data. So I am not as clueless as you who just want us to believe you because you say it is so.
And by the way, for the sake of argument we can suspend talk about retirements (you were wrong it is ok) I made my point clearly. Let's talk about the Job Banks and their associated costs.
Actually skippy, if you had come to the discussion early you would have seen plenty of data but apparently you think because you publish ONE report and mention a Dartmouth study without a link that somehow is "gold data". It's not.
And you still don't understand the retirement issue. Learn it and get back with us.
Now, let's talk about job banks. First, I think they are misplaced resources but let's ask why they exist.
In your previous job as a Marine, did you ever sit around the barracks just waiting on stuff to do because there was no real work? Yet they wanted to keep you around in case something popped up where you were needed? Do you do crossword puzzles?
One of the reasons job banks were instituted was for the benefit of the company. It allowed the company to have a pool of workers, fully trained and ready to go when a need came up or when demand for X improved. In an era when Detroit was booming, workers would just go across town and work for the competition and factory X would be without employees when they needed to ramp up. Enter the job bank. Guaranteed employees at less costs.
Now, later down the pike that morphed into a different service. Sometimes a factory would have to shut down because steel would be in short supply. Rather than lose employees because there was no work...job bank. Need a quick run to address that new sale, pull folks from the job bank.
It was a nice synergistic system.
Now, with the market truly slowed, the job bank is somewhat anachronistic. That is why the unions agreed to drop them.
Anything else you need to learn about hat Rush forgot to tell you?