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.
Problem in LA is that it's much much bigger than SLC
And also going to be more desirable just based on the weather for the homeless
The other problem , there are no cheap units in LA
There is talk of building more housing for the homeless but the estimate is $400,000
Depending on how mentally sick one is I'm not sure if giving them unrestricted housing is a good one . They could still have a place to live and still go back to street life .
In LA there are social workers begging homeless to apply for housing and programs but many don't even take the offer .
I think it's crazy to spend $400,000 just so the homeless could live in LA since there are many parts of the country where 10 units or houses could be bought for that amount .
There is a lack of basic services in LA for tax payers , if everything was running smoothly and we had a bunch of money then sure , but that's not the reality
They should actually not be on the streets at all assaulting the good people with their insanity and mutterings and aggressive begging and unkempt smelliness and abuse of alcohol. We used to have vagrancy laws where undesirables would be picked up. Now we announce that such urchins have a panoply of rights and deserve dignity and respect, which is absurd. But in this feelings-come-first and Reason-be-damned topsy turvy backward culture that we've constructed, it seems that one's value is inversely rated to one's virtue. And the more decrepit, the louder the demands.
There are something to the tune of 10 bizarre stereotypes in that post (20 if you count the implied ones too).
So you are arguing for smaller government that doesn't interfere in private business, and therefore cannot be lobbied to pick winners and grant favors. Great, let's do that.
No. I'm arguing that the American worker needs to be represented and heard.
Exactly. Of course an employee with a poor work ethic is likely to be replaced by someone who will work to the standards needed. If the employer cannot find the caliber of employees needed, then they might need to pay more.
I would imagine someone with a poor work ethic is likely only to find unhappiness in the workplace.
The problem is there are so many available workers for low wage jobs that employers can easily find good workers and thus does not need to pay more. Just because you have a good work ethic does not mean you will be paid more.
The responsibility of the employer is to pay them the wage that both parties agreed upon. If they're a smart employer, they'll take care of their employees and treat them well, and as a result, their employees will (usually) be loyal and work hard for them. But there is a difference between what employees should strive to do and what they should be legally required to do.
So then if the employer is not pocketing a ton of money, should they be exempted from paying $15 an hour or whatever the "living wage" is determined to be? Or is that only for businesses that are making a ton of money?
If the employer treats the employee poorly, then I agree, the employee isn't responsible for working hard for his employer. In that case, the employee should look for another job, and the employer will suffer the ill effects of high turnover and low morale, which will typically cause his business to suffer.
It doesn't, the employer takes the vast majority of the risk. It is the employer who has to deal with EPA or OSHA inspections, IRS audits, who risks bankruptcy and capital loss, lawsuits, and so on. The employee has far less responsibility.
That is how is should work but some employers do not care about their employees and will pay as little as they possibly can. Employers have to mandated to pay more because they have shown they can not be counted on to be fair thus the government has to step in. If all businesses treated their employees right there would be no reason to interfere. Like I said in my last post there are so many people available for these jobs so the employer does not care if the employee leaves they will just hire someone else.
If there are so many people that can do the job though , whose fault is that?
Is it the employers fault or the individual .
Employers don't legally have to pay computer programs $100,000 + , they could pay them minimum wage legally but they don't .
One bad thing about minimum wage also for an unskilled employee is that it sets an amount that labor is only worth a certain amount .
I think it's a terrible thing really .
And no I don't think people would be working for $1 an hour or something if there weren't minimum wage laws .
And no I don't think people would be working for $1 an hour or something if there weren't minimum wage laws .
I could see that and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. A high school student who wants to get some work experience or who is bored may do that. I personally worked at $50 per week for my first job out of law school while I awaited bar admission. Beat sitting on my can getting bored silly.
Frankly one of the worst things that has happened to college students is the requirement that internships be paid. Many times the educational experience and mentoring is worth its weight in gold. I am not a fan of tampering with the free market, other than to prevent rank exploitation or slavery. And I'm not sure how to do that.
Problem in LA is that it's much much bigger than SLC
And also going to be more desirable just based on the weather for the homeless
The other problem , there are no cheap units in LA
There is talk of building more housing for the homeless but the estimate is $400,000
Depending on how mentally sick one is I'm not sure if giving them unrestricted housing is a good one . They could still have a place to live and still go back to street life .
In LA there are social workers begging homeless to apply for housing and programs but many don't even take the offer .
I think it's crazy to spend $400,000 just so the homeless could live in LA since there are many parts of the country where 10 units or houses could be bought for that amount .
There is a lack of basic services in LA for tax payers , if everything was running smoothly and we had a bunch of money then sure , but that's not the reality
Speaking bluntly, I would gladly pay more taxes to get the homeless out of my sight. If that meant paying for charter buses to send them 100 miles away where we bought cheap units with tax money, I'd be for it. I see no benefit to having them on the street.
I would prefer, though, that we do something humane, like try to get them the rehabilitation and health care they need. I've volunteered with the homeless before and I'd say 3 out of 4 at least are not "with us" - they're messed up in the head somehow. Being on the street probably doesn't help that.
I could see that and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. A high school student who wants to get some work experience or who is bored may do that. I personally worked at $50 per week for my first job out of law school while I awaited bar admission. Beat sitting on my can getting bored silly.
Frankly one of the worst things that has happened to college students is the requirement that internships be paid. Many times the educational experience and mentoring is worth its weight in gold. I am not a fan of tampering with the free market, other than to prevent rank exploitation or slavery. And I'm not sure how to do that.
There actually has been exploitation going on with "more menial work"... folks are getting hired to do "temp to hire" positions, but only to never actually make it to a permanent position. They get let go, and then hire a batch of new workers who they don't have to pay.
For internships, many places are so short staffed that they can't hire interns, even for free. That sounds odd, but some accounts say there isn't enough personnel to properly train the new interns.
Some internships are quite proud to say they pay their interns. Some internships aren't paid, so the would be interns would either need to pass up on the opportunity, or first work summer job just so they can do the internship.
Speaking bluntly, I would gladly pay more taxes to get the homeless out of my sight. If that meant paying for charter buses to send them 100 miles away where we bought cheap units with tax money, I'd be for it. I see no benefit to having them on the street.
I would prefer, though, that we do something humane, like try to get them the rehabilitation and health care they need. I've volunteered with the homeless before and I'd say 3 out of 4 at least are not "with us" - they're messed up in the head somehow. Being on the street probably doesn't help that.
I know a few folks in SoCal who would groan at this. I'm told there are signs or billboards in LA saying "Make your welfare dollars go further! Move to Palmdale or Lancaster!". So long as they're not trying to pawn them off onto neighboring cities, then that's isn't as bad.
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.
