60 minutes
-
Public policy whittled down to a proverb.
Steve, your oversimplifications have a challenger.
-
You should watch the segment. It's all people who should have jobs, who want jobs desperately, who have advanced degrees, but the jobs simply are not there. And that they're all reaching the point where they've exhausted their unemployment benefits.
It goes back to the discussion we had a few weeks ago, where you insisted that there are jobs for these people and that they need to be cut off the dole in order to force them to get a job, and I was telling you that it's a simple matter of their being far too few jobs for far too many people who want to do them, and that cutting them off UI just means they're now in even more trouble than they were before, and the economy will suffer as a result, at that means even less purchasing power in the economy than there already is.
-
Public policy whittled down to a proverb.
Steve, your oversimplifications have a challenger.
Public policy whittled down to a proverb.
Steve, your oversimplifications have a challenger.
So what percent of average people do you think would take a demeaning job for the same or less than the unemployment check?
You?
WSS
-
Self employment is working out good for me. I didn't waste much time; as soon as I knew that the business that I was working for was closing I went to work on finding a way to buy the equipment. Found a smaller locations; purchased the phone number and all of the files. Now I am working 18 hours a day.
Not everyone has the same ambition, they have been lulled into excepting that the government will take care of them. hell why not, they bailed out the Banks Chrysler and GM. Why wouldn't they make sure you had food and water and a place to live.
That is the biggest problem with socialism; nobody desires to achieve anything better.
-
Public policy whittled down to a proverb.
Steve, your oversimplifications have a challenger.
So what percent of average people do you think would take a demeaning job for the same or less than the unemployment check?
You?
WSS
So what percent of average people do you think would take a demeaning job for the same or less than the unemployment check?
You?
WSS
Steve, there aren't enough of those jobs either. I never know what you aim to prove with these statements. You always miss the point, and then try to make a point about laziness or graft.
What's your point?
-
So what percent of average people do you think would take a demeaning job for the same or less than the unemployment check?
You?
WSS
Steve, there aren't enough of those jobs either. I never know what you aim to prove with these statements. You always miss the point, and then try to make a point about laziness or graft.
What's your point?
Steve, there aren't enough of those jobs either. I never know what you aim to prove with these statements. You always miss the point, and then try to make a point about laziness or graft.
What's your point?
My point?
That there's another side to the hand wringing over the cruelty of the evil right wingers.
The phony idea that the USA is now a third world country because of "them damn Republicans!!!!!! "
What's yours?
WSS
-
when everyone starts to receive healthcare we are going to be short on doctors along with adjusters for insurance companies.
-
OK Heck.
I watched the segment.
Now......
What's your point?
Yes Heck It sucks being in your fifties and at the top of the pay scale.
It always has.
I know it.
I'm 57 and more and more have to look over my shoulder for some kid living at home who'll come out and play for beer.
But you're the guy playing the class warfare card most often.
Of the Christians you insulted for their lack of compassion, how many do you suppose lost a 200K job and look at 475$ as if it were a bag of UN rice?
But serioulsy, what is your point?
WSS
-
My point is the same as it was before, and what I said it was above.
For the vast majority of Americans, unemployment isn't caused by laziness or an unwillingness to find work. It's caused by a lack of available employment. And that's particularly true today. In fact, it's so right in front of your face it should be obvious. No matter where you go, you see hundreds of people applying for a single job, even if the salary is far below what they're used to earning. You see it all over the country. Because there are far more people who want to work than there are jobs.
Focusing on the idea that some people are lazy and just won't work is a right-wing idea that completely misses the point, not to mention the math, and is just resentful and dumb. And from that you then get the dumb policy idea that's based on it - we need to cut people's unemployment benefits because they're just too lazy to work, and if we give them a kick in the ass they'll be employed as soon as they get hungry. You know, by that business that not only isn't hiring, but just laid off half its work force.
Not understanding what is actually going on leads to bad policy. And you continually refuse to understand what is actually going on because it's far more important to you to make the same old "point" about how some people might take a check over a low wage job.
It's called "missing the forest for the trees."
-
There are all sorts of self-employed consultants, like myself, who are technically
obsolete. I did get an email about a 6 month contract in NYC. But the requirements
include extensive VB and a few other things the stuff I do will convert to.
That's par for the course. And I have several friends who are in the same boat.
One, the president of the user group I used to belong to... lost his job, and ended up
working for his brother in construction. That's not common, to have a good alternative.
None of us can draw unemployment despite Heck's dumb misinformation. And not getting unemployment
doesn't help one find a job at all, in this line of work.
I don't mind extended unemployment. You have to have worked to qualify. It's the lifestyle subculture
permanent dole that is costing billions and billions, and which is creating a worse problem down the line,
as many of those in that subculture have children FOR THE SAKE OF MORE $$$$. The one gal who was one of those,
said she was told to have babies to support her family.
T is right. Teach them to fish. Spend money to support them and send them to college or tech schools.
Yes, Heck, for those who can't work due to physical or mental inabilities... of course they need permanent help.
But the "great society" spending has backfired on societies in Europe as well as here.
It's just plain stupid to say it would work, but not enough of it has been done.
Time to turn back the tide of unearned, undeserved entitlements that created a whole subculture of extreme
dependency to the point of sloth across the subculture's board.
Increasing it for votes... gets you Greece, France, Italy........ not good at all.
-
My point is the same as it was before, and what I said it was above.
For the vast majority of Americans, unemployment isn't caused by laziness or an unwillingness to find work. It's caused by a lack of available employment. And that's particularly true today. In fact, it's so right in front of your face it should be obvious. No matter where you go, you see hundreds of people applying for a single job, even if the salary is far below what they're used to earning. You see it all over the country. Because there are far more people who want to work than there are jobs.
Focusing on the idea that some people are lazy and just won't work is a right-wing idea that completely misses the point, not to mention the math, and is just resentful and dumb. And from that you then get the dumb policy idea that's based on it - we need to cut people's unemployment benefits because they're just too lazy to work, and if we give them a kick in the ass they'll be employed as soon as they get hungry. You know, by that business that not only isn't hiring, but just laid off half its work force.
Not understanding what is actually going on leads to bad policy. And you continually refuse to understand what is actually going on because it's far more important to you to make the same old "point" about how some people might take a check over a low wage job.
It's called "missing the forest for the trees."
My point is the same as it was before, and what I said it was above.
For the vast majority of Americans, unemployment isn't caused by laziness or an unwillingness to find work. It's caused by a lack of available employment. And that's particularly true today. In fact, it's so right in front of your face it should be obvious. No matter where you go, you see hundreds of people applying for a single job, even if the salary is far below what they're used to earning. You see it all over the country. Because there are far more people who want to work than there are jobs.
Focusing on the idea that some people are lazy and just won't work is a right-wing idea that completely misses the point, not to mention the math, and is just resentful and dumb. And from that you then get the dumb policy idea that's based on it - we need to cut people's unemployment benefits because they're just too lazy to work, and if we give them a kick in the ass they'll be employed as soon as they get hungry. You know, by that business that not only isn't hiring, but just laid off half its work force.
Not understanding what is actually going on leads to bad policy. And you continually refuse to understand what is actually going on because it's far more important to you to make the same old "point" about how some people might take a check over a low wage job.
It's called "missing the forest for the trees."
Just one reason you aren't as bright as you keep telling us you are is the fact that you aren't able to see any side but your (or the administration or the lefts) own.
Nowyou may actually think we buy it when you switch thye subject but even that's not too realistic.
And you can't and won't answer a simple question.
When you're cornered "it's more complicated than that."
Lets try again just for laughs.
With 99 weeks of unemployment benefits who in their right mind would take a demeaning job for less than that benefit?
You?
Me?
VT?
Cal?
That doesn't even make you lazy.
Just smart enough not to cut your own throat in hope the good will will be rewarded.
Come on Heck who?
Man up for one second!!
So why not just keep the benefits going for another 99?
Really Heck just until the 55 year old guy can finnd another 200K job?
Do you have anything to offer but blather about how unfeeling everybody but you is?
Ya want sainthood call the Pope.
(btw bright boy re read your remark about "the right" not complaining that Obama doesn't give enough to cash strapped states and try to understand it a second time.)
WSS
-
Oh my lord.
What comes after the part where some people prefer the check to the low-wage job? What's the genius point that you're leading to?
Why are we having this discussion?
You live on the margins of real issues.
-
Oh my lord.
What comes after the part where some people prefer the check to the low-wage job? What's the genius point that you're leading to?
Why are we having this discussion?
You live on the margins of real issues.
Oh my lord.
What comes after the part where some people prefer the check to the low-wage job? What's the genius point that you're leading to?
That you can't respond to with any honesty at all?
I'd say most or almost everybody waits until the last minute to take a shitty job.
So just tell me you think that's a tiny fraction.
Tell me that we need another 99 weeks.
Take a stand.
Why are we having this discussion?
I don't know.
Tell me. You posted the video.
You're angry that I don't commit suicide over the fact that some middle aged people are on the bad side of the tech bubble?
That one of the most expensive areas in the world is having trouble?
Yes Heck it's too bad.
It's the same as it has been for decades.
It was too bad when the rubber shops went down south.
What's your point?
That there's not a huge need for a marketing degree?
You want me to blame somebody? Dop you want to blame somebody? You have a solution or what?
You live on the margins of real issues.
You have no idea what a real issue is beyond your political affiliation.
WSS
-
Steve, there aren't nearly enough of these "shitty" jobs either. Even if the point you were making is relevant, which it isn't. You're not even close to being in this discussion.
Shoot me now.
-
Steve, there aren't nearly enough of these "shitty" jobs either. Even if the point you were making is relevant, which it isn't. You're not even close to being in this discussion.
Shoot me now.
Steve, there aren't nearly enough of these "shitty" jobs either. Even if the point you were making is relevant, which it isn't. You're not even close to being in this discussion.
Shoot me now.
You still won't answer?
What a shocker.
C'mon Heck go for it.
99 more weeks?
BTW discussion?
What discussion?
Sorry did you have a solution?
Or an explaination?
Or anything but grumbling?
WSS
-
How long will you press me on a question that answers itself, but doesn't matter to the discussion we're having?
Yes, Steve, some people will opt to take the check instead of working at Target, and someone else, probably on unemployment themselves, will take the job instead. What's your point? I can't possibly imagine why you think that was worth typing, never mind 10 times.
-
How long will you press me on a question that answers itself, but doesn't matter to the discussion we're having?
Yes, Steve, some people will opt to take the check instead of working at Target, and someone else, probably on unemployment themselves, will take the job instead. What's your point? I can't possibly imagine why you think that was worth typing, never mind 10 times.
How long will you press me on a question that answers itself, but doesn't matter to the discussion we're having?
Yes, Steve, some people will opt to take the check instead of working at Target, and someone else, probably on unemployment themselves, will take the job instead. What's your point? I can't possibly imagine why you think that was worth typing, never mind 10 times.
Then could you imagine why you've refused to put an end to it with an answer even yet?
(Now for a harrumph and nothing else.)
WSS
-
You were pointing out that people prefer the idea of more money and leisure time to less money and leisure time, and then challenging me to admit it that it's true.
Yes, I stand in awe of you.
What was your point?
I think sour milk smells worse than fresh. Why won't you admit that it's true?
-
You were pointing out that people prefer the idea of more money and leisure time to less money and leisure time, and then challenging me to admit it that it's true.
Yes, I stand in awe of you.
What was your point?
I think sour milk smells worse than fresh. Why won't you admit that it's true?
You were pointing out that people prefer the idea of more money and leisure time to less money and leisure time, and then challenging me to admit it that it's true.
Yes, I stand in awe of you.
What was your point?
I think sour milk smells worse than fresh. Why won't you admit that it's true?
Yes I would.
See how easy that was?
Now why do you suppose you can't do it?
WSS
-
Because it's self-evident and a waste of time and irrelevant.
What was your point?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login