Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[Kulindahr]

Obscure year? Hardly that. I was 16 and had just graduated from high school. I worked for one year before going off to college.
It doesn't really matter what the year was. Then as now, minimum wage wasn't designed to be lived on.

Up until the mid seventies, minimum wage could be lived on. But thanks for repeating the lie.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You can never be satisfied, and no matter how well employees are paid it will never be enough.

I've heard this slippery slope before, in regards to what humans will be able to marry before gay people will be satisfied.

 

[Kulindahr]

As always, you missed the point. The new arrivals--a million a year legally -- would absorb all or most of the new employment opportunities which Kulindahr speculates. Since his is only a hypothetical or speculative number it it not possible to be exact, but the point is valid that we cannot project lower unemployment.

So in your view we need immigrants because Americans are too lazy to take jobs that open up.

 

[Kulindahr]

That is correct. If you don't like the pay, don't take the job. There are other jobs out there.

Sure there are -- the ones that 1600 people decided not to apply for when just three dozen jobs became available.

 

[Kulindahr]

So as prices around you, inflation and the cost of living all rise, and you and literally everyone else in your industry or under your employer are in exactly the same situation of having fallen into a perhaps even net-loss income compared to when you first accepted the job, there is no room for any reasonable bargaining for new wages. It is incumbent upon all of those people to simply quit, even if that will cost them their homes or housing or put them completely out of money by the end of a month.

I hope you realize the reason that your party is exiled from real political power.

Unstated in his case is that people who own property are natural masters, and everyone else are natural slaves, whose job it is to die off quietly if the masters don't provide the jobs. They are masters because they have property, and it's having property that confers dignity, not being human. That's the GOP philosophy.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. Discrimination lawsuits are what a company pays for wrongdoing.

You miss his underlying assumption: that corporations can do no wrong, but they have to put up with lawsuits because the little people won't let them enjoy their natural tyranny.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're talking about extremes. There are plenty of jobs available between those extremes.

There aren't, but there would be if the Republicans in Congress would stop blocking legislation that would enable jobs to be created.

 

[Kulindahr]

My party???? For the record, I don't have a party. Even in college, I was what is known as a GDI. Today, I mostly side with the LIbertarians.

But you're no libertarian -- you delight in the existence of mass coercion.

 

[Kulindahr]

Funny how the left attempts to redefine a system with an epithet, then blame others for that epithet. Then again, it's not funny, it's just standard operating procedure for liberal fools.

The term "trickle down" was applied to Reagonomics by one David Stockman. He knew it wouldn't sell that way, so he invented the term "supply side" to hide the truth.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'll wager that you really believe that last bit of idiocy. The only way to really prevent frivolous lawsuits would be to reform the tort system and adopt a 'loser pays' system where, if you file a frivolous suit and lose, you pay all the costs for both sides.

The airwaves are inundated with ads from ambulance chasers who realize full well that rather than fight a claim, insurance companies will throw money at them to make them go away.

Either you didn't read the post or you're trying to change the subject.

 

[Kulindahr]

To be honest this sounds like the bigoted conservative's interpretation of any laws or measures that allow redress for discriminatory practices, regardless of their efficacy or actual practice. And also, again, we find that your concern for racial groups in lower socioeconomic status is applied oh-so-selectively and surgically only in cases where you are opposing programs that are actually aimed at helping people at the very bottom-- whether we're talking about discriminatory workplace practices or a more livable minimum wage.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it received 99,412 private sector workplace discrimination charges during fiscal year 2012, down slightly from the previous year. The year-end data also show that retaliation (37,836), race (33,512), and sex discrimination (30,356), which includes allegations of sexual harassment and pregnancy were the most frequently filed charges.

The most common type of complaint filed is for workplace retaliation, not for "failing to get a promotion due to being a minority" or similarly made-up examples.

Yep. My sister the engineer was involved with looking at employment complaints when she was teaching remedial classes for employees who'd forgotten what little they'd learned in high school. For her company at the time, she concluded that for every complaint made, there were two or three more that should have been made but employees were afraid of employer retribution.

She briefly worked at a corporation where that was not true, because the company had a complaint box on the work floor, and everyone was actually encouraged to drop their complaints in. It was part of the responsibility of supervisors and foremen to address complaints before they got anywhere near the point of being formal. As a result, that company had almost no EEOC issues, had high employee morale, and low absenteeism. Foreign customers who looked over the plant concluded that one reason product quality was high enough for them to consider buying it was that employees were treated so well and were enthusiastic in trying to do well.

 

[Kulindahr]

Federal employment non-discrimination laws were designed to protect people of all races. Subject to applicant qualification (per job specification), an employer’s complement of workers should reasonably reflect the racial characteristics of the recruitment pool from which those workers are selected.

LOL

This reminds me of a certain business near where I once lived, where no blacks were represented though there was a high portion of blacks locally. When some new black leader wanted to investigate them, he got laughed at -- no blacks wanted to work there, because the owner was such an obvious bigot.

 

[Kulindahr]

You believe the rights of the employee should be greater the employer, right? The employee can take a job, refuse a job, refuse a promotion or quit a job for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. Why should the one who creates the job, pays the salary, and gets sued if the employee hurts someone, not have as many rights as the employee?

You leave out one major right that you grant to employers but want to keep from workers: freedom of association. Banding together into a union is an inherent human right.

 

[Kulindahr]

If jobs are important then why do democrats regard employers as the enemy? Why do they persist in imposing more and more burdens upon job creators. You want employers to create jobs, pay salaries and benefits, take the risks BUT at the same time you want them to be subservient to the emoployees and labor bosses. As I have said, the problem with union is that always go oo far. They cannot stop squeezing.
Review the recent threads on this forum about employee-employer relations. The liberals invariably express hostility to the job creators, and a total failure to see anything from the point of the job creator. No liberal ever has a good thing to say about corporations. Alas, that sme degree of hatred permeates the Cpngress and poisons most legislation. Remember it the next time you read of jobs or work being sent out of the country.

What I see from Democrats for the most part is that they want employers to be rational human beings like Henry Ford. You really should look him up; he knew how to scale wages (and CEO income).

 

[xbuzzerx]

Unstated in his case is that people who own property are natural masters, and everyone else are natural slaves, whose job it is to die off quietly if the masters don't provide the jobs. They are masters because they have property, and it's having property that confers dignity, not being human. That's the GOP philosophy.

You miss his underlying assumption: that corporations can do no wrong, but they have to put up with lawsuits because the little people won't let them enjoy their natural tyranny.

In a completely different context this could sound conspiracy theoryish. But the truly frightening part is that I think you're 100% right.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your system of squeezing the employer by the labor bosses and government until the employer is bankrupt is the worst system of all. You can never be satisfied, and no matter how well employees are paid it will never be enough. As it is, the US has the highest median household income, $51,171 in the world with three small exceptions. But your thinking is controlled by wrong stereotypes in which the country consists of 1% Simon Lagrees and 99% desperately poor people without enough to eat, but miraculously getting obese even as they starve. Stop the immigration and let wages rise.

The $50k+ median comes from counting only employed people, it seems, because figures that count all households come in with a number closer to $30k.

And that means that the median US household income today is equal to the minimum wage income back under Eisenhower and Kennedy.

 

[Kulindahr]

In a completely different context this could sound conspiracy theoryish. But the truly frightening part is that I think you're 100% right.

They're just the only underlying rationalizations that could possibly support the arguments made.

 

[Benvolio]

You leave out one major right that you grant to employers but want to keep from workers: freedom of association. Banding together into a union is an inherent human right.

I agree they should be allowed to form unions. But, when the law requires the company to recognize and negotiate in good faith with the unions, it gives unions are too much power, including the power to destroy. It destroys the companys freedom of association. In some states, employees are required to pay dues to the union whether they choose to join or not. The unions and union bosses hate the freedom of association.

 

[Benvolio]

And the police are strongly biased against criminals.

The purpose of the EEOC is to enforce federal laws relating to employment discrimination. If an employer adheres to those laws, the EEOC is biased against the employee who makes a false charge.

The most frequent complaint brought forward by employees during 2013 involved acts of retaliation by the employer.

The majority of EEOC lawsuits filed in 2013 involved discrimination against persons with physical disabilities and gender/pregnant women.



Federal employment non-discrimination laws were designed to protect people of all races. Subject to applicant qualification (per job specification), an employer’s complement of workers should reasonably reflect the racial characteristics of the recruitment pool from which those workers are selected.

Exactly. The EEOC, you and liberals generally regard employers as criminals. I am serious in believing that that bias underlies much of the Federal legislation.
The problems with saying that an employers workers should resemble the recruitment pool are 1. it becomes a system of mandatory affirmative action, as the lack of proportionate representation becomes evidence of discrimination. 2.It is based upon a false assumption, that all groups in America are equally well educated. That is plainly not true. The schools like to blame the taxpayers and the parents, but few would claim that blacks and Hispanics are as well educated as whites and Asians.3.It robs the employer of his right to choose the most qualified person without regard to race etc. 4. It justifies or even mandates discrimination against blacks who continue to suffer the most disadvantage, and whom the law was originally designed to protect. If two minority applicants apply the employer can justify discrimination against the black applicant by hiring the other. If blacks are sufficiently represented, then the employer is under pressure to discriminate in favor of others. 5. The government intentionally imports other minorities, forbidding discrimination against foreign born, so the effect is to push Americans, including minorities, aside.

At one time blacks were effectively frozen out of much of the economy and the anti discrimination laws were needed. But they have evolved into a system which does now does much more harm than good, and the blacks are the biggest victims, with by far the highest percentage of unemployment.

 

[Benvolio]

Up until the mid seventies, minimum wage could be lived on. But thanks for repeating the lie.

So millions of people are starving? Gee, I keep hearing that Americans are getting more and more obese. Or perhaps they are ghosts, since they are not living.