Americans millions of unemployed males.

[voltronforce]

You do realize that the Government does these things called Small Business Loans and Grants Right? They also do Education Loans and Grants and so much more. They don't just hire office workers. You really sound out of it.

 

[Benvolio]

You do realize that the Government does these things called Small Business Loans and Grants Right? They also do Education Loans and Grants and so much more. They don't just hire office workers. You really sound out of it.

The question is whether the government should confiscate more and more and more as the democrats wish or allow some in private hands.

 

[Kulindahr]

These are official figures. What is it that disturbs your sense of misunderstanding?

If the figures are dishonest then provide evidence that supports your allegation. Otherwise your words are meaningless.

There is no simple answer to the question of the long term unemployed other than recognising that labour pay rates is not the only issue that affects employment.

Official figures depend on the definitions behind them. The current definition ignores roughly half the actual unemployed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Stop giving the jobs to immigrants.

Wow -- you are calling for a much larger and more intrusive government!

 

[Kulindahr]

Many illegals come to commit crimes and if ither illegals come in and cannot work, they will turn to crime. It is illegal to hire illegals, but it it illegal to ask them if they are legal. And, no, Obamas goal has been to allow more illegals and hurty then to vote. He skewed the statistics to define anyone turned away at the border as "deported".

(emphasis mine)

Rubbish -- it is REQUIRED to ask if they are legal, in most places. For example, Oregon requires proof of place of birth and documentation of citizenship to get a job. Some businesses around here have been warned that they will be fined more than their total revenues if they are found again to be hiring without requiring and keeping on file proof of citizenship.

 

[Benvolio]

(emphasis mine)

Rubbish -- it is REQUIRED to ask if they are legal, in most places. For example, Oregon requires proof of place of birth and documentation of citizenship to get a job. Some businesses around here have been warned that they will be fined more than their total revenues if they are found again to be hiring without requiring and keeping on file proof of citizenship.

See this: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hat-asked-foreign-workers-if-they-were-legal/

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, Obama did levy a heavy fine against a company for asking the immigration status of illegals. Really. The democrats have made it illegal to discriminate against someone on national origin, and illegal to hire legals, but also illegal to ask them their immigrations status. As you keep telling us, companies hire illegals. So why is Obama vigorous in prosecuting companies who ask but allowing the illegal hiring to continue. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ihJWjwF0IYaRjfq4-WpJBg&bvm=bv.131783435,d.eWE

(emphasis mine)

The article to which you linked shows that what you wrote and I put in bold is false.

Reading comprehension: D-.

 

[Benvolio]

Wow -- you are calling for a much larger and more intrusive government!

No. But it is worth whatever it takes.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is also illegal to discriminate based on citizenship, national origin, or immigration status, and those laws are enforced more than merely hiring illegal immigrants.

Either provide an actual citation of the law in question or admit you are lying.

 

[Kulindahr]

Asking for a green card assumes that they are foreign, and both they and social security can be forged. Asking is dangerous territory. See the company fined for asking in post 29.
Democrats don't want to stop hiring illegals--future democrats--they just want to hurt employers, whom the democrats regard as the enemy.

LOL

Companies here have been fined for accepting forged SS cards. It's so easy to verify those that the owners have been told that if they're caught again, they'll be effectively shut down.

You're deliberately misrepresenting the law, since companies get fined for NOT asking for proof of status.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you some sort of Men's Rights person or Alt Right person or something? Dude if you are unemployed go to a community college and get a certificate or associates degree. This isn't the 1950s where a C average in high school with a diploma will get you a $50,000 a year job

A trade/vocational school is a better bet these days, thanks to the policies of Clinton and Bush that effectively eliminated several million skilled jobs.

 

[Kulindahr]

You understand only half the rule.

You can't discriminate based on immigration status, and the people you employ must have proof of their right to work in the USA using one of several permissable documents.

One? Last time I checked in Oregon, three documents were required, two being birth certificate and valid SS number.

 

[Benvolio]

LOL

Companies here have been fined for accepting forged SS cards. It's so easy to verify those that the owners have been told that if they're caught again, they'll be effectively shut down.

You're deliberately misrepresenting the law, since companies get fined for NOT asking for proof of status.

The Nebraska case involved in the link I gave was fined FOR ASKING for documentation.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-16/whats-real-unemployment-rate-us

"By my reckoning, roughly 60% of the civilian work force is fully employed and 40% are marginally employed (i.e. earning less than $15,000 annually) or unemployed. Since full-time workers even at minimum wage earn close to $15,000 annually, I think it is fair to use that as the cut-off for fully employed. The BLS counts 121 million people as usually work full-time, but given only 100 million workers earn $15,000 or more, this doesn't add up unless we include self-employed people earning very little who are counted as full-time workers."

The above link sheds some light on the real unemployment rate in the USA.

Both immigration and so called "free trade" have had an impact on the American worker, but, the dirty little secret is that it is INTENTIONAL!
Supply side economics was meant to thwart inflation, it was diametrically opposed to demand side or " Keynesian-economics
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-keynesian-economics.htm

The American worker has been intentionally assaulted and ripped off by his own government to prevent inflation, a simple definition of which is "too many dollars chasing too few goods".

The American worker had too much spending power or discretionary spending money, this resulted in the value of the dollar shrinking. This hurt the wealthy because they were the people with the most dollars. Most workers saw regular pay increases and "cola" or cost of living adjustments.

The demand for the worker was high because the demand for the goods that he produced was high, he was valuable and was paid well, he had money and wanted to purchase more, the demand for goods kept rising as did his pay. You see here a cycle, the loser was really the rich guy, he was always trying to find a hedge against inflation, gold was one of his favorites. I remember shipping
hundreds of South African Krugerrands out to people in the '70's.

Reagan came along with his answer, Supply side economics, which basically meant to put money in to the hands of the wealthy and take away the demand side by lowering the need for workers, hence the demand for goods and the need for workers, having an impact of lowering the workers true wages.

This coupled with globalization, which ironically has resulted in a move towards an equitable redistribution of poverty as opposed to the Marxist redistribution of wealth.

So, hell yes, the unemployment rate that we are fed is pure bull shit.

COLAs are part of the problem; they expand income disparity since they are based on percentages. Economically sound COLAs would be a flat figure for everyone.

 

[xbuzzerx]

What all of these twats always refuse to address, answer, or even acknowledge, is that SOMEONE is providing illegal immigrants with jobs. Where is the Republican-faux conservative outrage over business owners giving jobs to someone they know has illegal documents?

As far as the twat that wanted those who have stopped looking for a job "counted" in unemployment, they already are under the U6 and other measurement tools. You know, those same tools we used under GW Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and Ford.

And lastly, the twat at the WSJ was so dishonest in his analysis of "non-working, men, from 26 to 54", only. He used employment RATIOS from 1965 of males from 26 to 54 and multiplied it by our total population gain, to get his "7 million under/unemployed" young males. How many of these young males compared to 1965 are getting advanced degrees, or became stay-at-home dads because their wives are the bread winners because this isn't 1965 anymore? Not to mention the advanced income we have as a country, and perhaps is pursuing a non-tradition job because they are working on writing their book, finishing their artwork, or other laudable goal?

Benvolio's party of choice has always been quietly active in enabling employers to access labor as cheaply as possible. That includes both outsourcing and non-enforcement of social security checks on payrolls.

There are businesses that operate year-round on illegal immigrant labor, and it would not require rocket science to catch them. You could walk into their site of operation any day virtually and catch them doing it.

These businesses also support Ben's party.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nativism has been a problem in this country since before the civil war when the Irish started coming here. Ever see the movie Gangs of New York? Back then there were no rules about immigrates, I wonder why, could it be because they were all white and Christian?

Instead of name calling why not try to figure out hpw immigration effects the US and Americans. The frontier is closed we are not giving away free land. Our manufacturing base is drying up. This is not your beloved 1800s.
You misunderstand supply side economic. Democrats believe in high taxes to confiscate the wealth. But taxes take money out of the economy. In a free enterprise economy, wealth in private hands creates economic growth; people spend it or invest it to make money both of which creates jobs. Money sitting in the bank is loaned to business builders, and that creates jobs. Confiscating private money not so much. All too often governments just spends the money to hire more and more and more office workers. The US now has more working for government than in manufacturing--10 million and growing.

There is no "name calling" in what you quoted.

Once again, you would fail college freshman remedial reading and writing.

Besides that, taxes do not "take money out of the economy", it just relocates it. The only way to take money out of the economy is to burn it. The problem with taxes taking a high portion of income is not that it "takes it out of the economy", but that it renders that income inflexible to market forces.

 

[Kulindahr]

You did not read the WSJ link in the OP. We have more than 7 million young men who have stopped looking and not considered unemployed. The unemployment figures are a lie.

It has been pointed out that the 7 million figure is suspect due to weak methodology. That said, it could be a third of that and still seriously skewing the real picture.

 

[Kulindahr]

The question is whether the government should confiscate more and more and more as the democrats wish or allow some in private hands.

1. Who made that the question?

2. It's only "confiscation" if the money is hoarded. Since the federal government runs at a deficit, today's tax rates hardly count as confiscatory.

3. Given that the present tax structure serves to shift wealth upward to those already wealthy, the question isn't whether to "allow some in private hands", but how to leave it in private hands equitably (taxing all income the same would be a good start).

 

[Kulindahr]

See this: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hat-asked-foreign-workers-if-they-were-legal/

Exactly -- it supports my point. The problem wasn't that they were asking foreign workers if they were legal, it was that they weren't asking ALL their workers.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Nebraska case involved in the link I gave was fined FOR ASKING for documentation.

That's false, according to the article you linked.