Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you explain? Do you feel that this country is not opportunistic?
I am not Mark Zuckerberg, should I apologize.
I work in a very difficult field that has been hit hard by the recession.
I can't reinvent myself every five minutes, too late for me.
People hate poor people due to fear.
Fear it could happen to themselves, that is.
It is astonishing that in times of such economic hardships those who have had a rough time & are now poor, homeless, out of work, etc will be called some of the names that I have heard by fellow Americans.
It is just very sad to me to see how some will actually argue their point when discussing the poor & say things like ' it their own fault', 'they are lazy', 'they should have saved more money', 'they made bad decisions', etc etc etc.....
Maybe things in this country would change if most of these people would focus this anger & blame on the REAL culprits & leave the poor alone.
Some of you outta be ashamed of yourselves.
LOL fair enough. My point was and is that everyone has a choice, and I do mean everyone. Its the consequences of their choice they may find less than satisfying. I stand by the rest of my post as well. Corporate america fears the law suit. Even illegals are suing. How wrong is that???
Well, there we are getting into something else.
I don't have answers to everything. This being said those lawsuits are also a drag on companies and I am not certain that at the end it really helps the common good.
Well, there we are getting into something else.
I don't have answers to everything. This being said those lawsuits are also a drag on companies and I am not certain that at the end it really helps the common good.
But it is a reality. Where I work to terminate someone must be cleared through corporate legal. They scrutinize it every which way it can be before approving.
1 person I know was terminated. After being caught drinking on company property for the third time. Policy clearly states 0 tolerance for drug or alcohol abuse on company property.
Another company theft. man caught trying to steal a 1/2 Milwaukee drill. Cord threaded through his jacket sleeve. Once again a 0 tolerance for theft is the policy and yet it took legal a week to decide. Why? Because they fear the lawsuit. They also fear OSHA. We have guards within guards to protect the tech from themselves. The lawsuit is the motivating factor. Thats why when someone claims to work for a large corporation and express fear if they quit or report I am skeptical. Juries almost always find in favor of the plantiff even when a corporation has done no wrong. The deep pockets mentality pays out big.
Now where someone is held hostage by the job is when they have a good paying job in an area with limited opprotunity. People myself included get used to that nice pay day and our standard of living often reflects this fact. Who wants to go from 70g a year to 25G? Certainly not I.
Anyone can simply quit. What prevents them from doing so?
I am 47 and have quit more than a few jobs in my life that I didn't like. The only consequence is my personal finances could be in trouble. Thats why its best to find another job before quitting.
Todays labor laws are enforced with a vengence. Employers absolutely fear the lawsuit. The bigger the employer the greater their risk.
I happen to work for 1 of the largest corporations in America. Firing someone once they are past their probationary period takes an act of god especially if they are a female or a minority. Its amazing the difference in policy when it comes to a woman v.s a male's reliability. By the way the factory I work in has higher pay and better benefits than our union counterparts in my area.
What all this has to do with why america allegedly hates the poor is beyond me.
Employees don't have more rights than the employer. Don't know where you got the notion, that it's impossible to fire someone. Employers can fall-back on the at-will employment stipulation. This gives the employer the right to fire someone at-will, at any time, for any reason.
If the firing was because of discrimination, or some other illegal reason, then the onus is on the employee, to prove it. And that can take gobs of time and money, spent on lawyers in litigation against a former employer. A former employee, can get stuck with tremendous legal bills, if they lose a case, against a former employer.
The poor can't afford to buy what you are selling. Politicians hate the poor because they don't make campaign contributions yet they expect some help from the government.
Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I partially support all those above as well as many of what unions provide. I just don't like how unions go about providing it. The reality is that in an ideal labor market, we wouldn't need any of those and we wouldn't end up as slave laborers. But it will not be that ideal anytime soon.
Minimum Wage - This causes no harm so I don't see keeping it a problem.
UI - I support it but maybe not in it's current implementation.
Employer-based healthcare - The entire healthcare system is questionable.
SS - I have a love/hate relationship with it.
Medicare - ties in with questionable healthcare system
Child Labor Laws - I have no problems with them.
The poor can't afford to buy what you are selling. Politicians hate the poor because they don't make campaign contributions yet they expect some help from the government.
You're kidding, right?
Democrat politicians LOVE the poor. They continue to promise more & more benefits to the poor, and the poor continue to vote for them in order to get those benefits. If the poor ever actually became NOT poor, democrats wouldn' t know how to buy votes anymore.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. . . . Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it".[2]
PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which became effective July 1, 1997. . . . TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
Plus much more, and many more articles to be found on a google search.
Catchy little title, eh? The RWs favorite phrase, "personal responsibility".
I don't have all afternoon to write a dissertation on how TANF has solved welfare problems. I do suggest you research this issue.
Well said. Again its so discouraging how some posters do not choose to address the trillions spent rebuilding Iraq, Hank Paulson and corrupt Goldman Sachs,but instead attack a woman buying food for her family because she has a manicure and coiffed hair..
It proves that useful discussion to solve problems is trumped by the brainwashed far right...and the reason tv and mass media continues its ever further downward spiral, appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.