Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[Benvolio]

US household median income in January 2000 was $56,101 and remained essentially stagnant from that point in time until the Great Recession, when it slid to its current level.


Chart: Median household incomes have collapsed since the recession (Washington Post Wonkblog; March 29, 2013)

I hope you recognize that immigration of poor and poorly educated brings down the median, since it increases the number of people in the bottom part. I do not claim that it is solely responsible for the dip in the median, but it is part. If you accept that immigration is largely responsible for the very large number of poor and poorly paid that we have, then you must realize that the median would be much higher but for our policy of massive immigration of poor and poorly educated.
Also, it is important to note that the dip shown in the graph results from higher unemployment rather that the wages of workers being reduced. Unemployment moves people down and brings down the median.
Other sources have the current median much higher.

 

[Benvolio]

No, the article saysl"Back in 2007, median household income was $55,438. That's declined to $51,404 in February 2013. Those numbers are pretax and adjusted for inflation and seasonal factors."
I hope you recognize that immigration of poor and poorly educated brings down the median, since it increases the number of people in the bottom part. I do not claim that it is solely responsible for the dip in the median, but it is part. If you accept that immigration is largely responsible for the very large number of poor and poorly paid that we have, then you must realize that the median would be much higher but for our policy of massive immigration of poor and poorly educated.
Also, it is important to note that the dip shown in the graph results from higher unemployment rather that the wages of workers being reduced. Unemployment moves people down and brings down the median.
Other sources have the current median much higher...........

 

[xbuzzerx]

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.

So you acknowledge the right to unions, so long as employers maintain the power to utterly ignore them and terminate them if they try to insist upon bargaining.

Basically, as long as they serve no purpose and are toothless, you're OK with them.

 

[xbuzzerx]

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.

Weight and nutrition are completely separate things. You can be obese and malnourished from living on fatty low quality cheap foods.

 

[opinterph]

Exactly. The EEOC, you and liberals generally regard employers as criminals.

I thought you might leap into that.

The truth of the matter is that few employees ever file a formal complaint.

There are roughly 136 million (nonfarm) employed persons in the United States and there are roughly 100,000 charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC each year.

100,000 / 136,000,000 = 0.0007 = less than one tenth of one percent.​

saying that an employers workers should resemble the recruitment pool … becomes a system of mandatory affirmative action, as the lack of proportionate representation becomes evidence of discrimination.

It is prima facie evidence, but a closer examination is required to make any definite conclusion. It is also important to recognize that the recruitment pool includes only persons whose knowledge, skills, and abilities qualify them to fulfill the job specifications associated with each of the firm’s respective job positions. Jobs that require specialized KSAs are more likely to require a larger geographic area from which to recruit candidates and fill those positions. On the other hand, a job that requires less specialized KSAs can usually be filled from a smaller subset of persons located closer to the firm’s place of business. I reside in a large metropolitan area. In that situation, matching the racial composition of employees to the recruitment pool is a bit more subjective and perhaps less meaningful – especially in smaller firms.

Another point to consider is that the EEOC is more concerned with employment practices that involve “systematic” attempts and/or methods that result in the exclusion of protected classes than it is concerned with matching an employer’s demographics to the area’s recruitment pool.

Applicants for any job should be evaluated only upon their satisfaction of properly developed job specifications. Let’s say an employer has an opening for a street sweeper. Employers are certainly entitled to hire the most qualified applicant; however, they must limit their selection criteria to KSAs that are properly validated according to the corresponding job analysis. If my skill set includes aircraft maintenance specialist, expert underwater diver, and novice broom operator~ the employer should hire “the other applicant” who is a master broom operator, rather than me. Even though my overall skill level is more broad and specialized – I am not the most qualified applicant for the position of street sweeper. On the other hand, if the employer has openings for 20 street sweepers and the recruitment pool consists of 50 equally qualified applicants of different demographic characteristics that match those of the area recruitment pool, I’d expect the composition of persons hired to also resemble the area.

Some more-sophisticated employers actually evaluate applicant data in a blind pool. Names, ages, sex, race, etc are specifically excluded from the selection pool data of qualified candidates. The data includes only items that are validated selection criteria. In such a design, the identity of the hire is not known until the selection process is completed. That is an example of how to hire the most qualified applicant.

 

[Benvolio]

Weight and nutrition are completely separate things. You can be obese and malnourished from living on fatty low quality cheap foods.

Nonsense..........

 

[xbuzzerx]

Nonsense..........

"Facts, what are those..?"

 

[Benvolio]

I thought you might leap into that.

The truth of the matter is that few employees ever file a formal complaint.

There are roughly 136 million (nonfarm) employed persons in the United States and there are roughly 100,000 charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC each year.

100,000 / 136,000,000 = 0.0007 = less than one tenth of one percent.​

It is prima facie evidence, but a closer examination is required to make any definite conclusion. It is also important to recognize that the recruitment pool includes only persons whose knowledge, skills, and abilities qualify them to fulfill the job specifications associated with each of the firm’s respective job positions. Jobs that require specialized KSAs are more likely to require a larger geographic area from which to recruit candidates and fill those positions. On the other hand, a job that requires less specialized KSAs can usually be filled from a smaller subset of persons located closer to the firm’s place of business. I reside in a large metropolitan area. In that situation, matching the racial composition of employees to the recruitment pool is a bit more subjective and perhaps less meaningful – especially in smaller firms.

Another point to consider is that the EEOC is more concerned with employment practices that involve “systematic” attempts and/or methods that result in the exclusion of protected classes than it is concerned with matching an employer’s demographics to the area’s recruitment pool.

Applicants for any job should be evaluated only upon their satisfaction of properly developed job specifications. Let’s say an employer has an opening for a street sweeper. Employers are certainly entitled to hire the most qualified applicant; however, they must limit their selection criteria to KSAs that are properly validated according to the corresponding job analysis. If my skill set includes aircraft maintenance specialist, expert underwater diver, and novice broom operator~ the employer should hire “the other applicant” who is a master broom operator, rather than me. Even though my overall skill level is more broad and specialized – I am not the most qualified applicant for the position of street sweeper. On the other hand, if the employer has openings for 20 street sweepers and the recruitment pool consists of 50 equally qualified applicants of different demographic characteristics that match those of the area recruitment pool, I’d expect the composition of persons hired to also resemble the area.

Some more-sophisticated employers actually evaluate applicant data in a blind pool. Names, ages, sex, race, etc are specifically excluded from the selection pool data of qualified candidates. The data includes only items that are validated selection criteria. In such a design, the identity of the hire is not known until the selection process is completed. That is an example of how to hire the most qualified applicant.

The result is the hiring is done without meeting the applicant, excluding all but "data" And defined specifications. It is a system designed by beaurocrats who want everything on paper for their review. "The best person for the job" is unimportant to the beaurocrats --only race etc matters. I doubt if you would want to hire a cleaning lady by that process. Just another good reason to send jobs to India.

 

[Benvolio]

"Facts, what are those..?"

There are no facts in your response. If they can afford enough food to get fat, they can afford enough less fatty food to stay thin. Veggies are cheaper than meat. Fast food is more expensive than home cooked.

 

[xbuzzerx]

There are no facts in your response. If they can afford enough food to get fat, they can afford enough less fatty food to stay thin. Veggies are cheaper than meat. Fast food is more expensive than home cooked.

Peanut butter is fattening. Beans are fattening. Greasy/fast foods are fattening. Those are all cheaper than meat and meat is not inexpensive for a family carefully watching their money each month. Breaded/pre-processed frozen meat products are cheaper than fresh meat, too, and more fattening.

If you think eating healthy is cheap maybe you should make a trip to the grocery store yourself instead of sending your personal assistant to do it. In fact, check out how many grocery stores even exist in inner cities.

Your posts consistently fail to reflect a worldview in touch with reality.

 

[Benvolio]

Peanut butter is fattening. Beans are fattening. Greasy/fast foods are fattening. Those are all cheaper than meat and meat is not inexpensive for a family carefully watching their money each month. Breaded/pre-processed frozen meat products are cheaper than fresh meat, too, and more fattening.

If you think eating healthy is cheap maybe you should make a trip to the grocery store yourself instead of sending your personal assistant to do it. In fact, check out how many grocery stores even exist in inner cities.

Your posts consistently fail to reflect a worldview in touch with reality.

Peanut is more expensive than meat. Beans cannot be considered fattening, and they re. Cheap source of complete protein with essentially no fat. The real point is obese people eat lots of food. They could save money by buying healthy food and staying thin.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Peanut is more expensive than meat. Beans cannot be considered fattening, and they re. Cheap source of complete protein with essentially no fat. The real point is obese people eat lots of food. They could save money by buying healthy food and staying thin.

1. Go to store.

2. Check price of peanut butter jar.

3. Check price of fresh meat for 1 person.

 

[Rolyo85]

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.

That's actually a result of poverty - many Americans now eat unhealthy cheap food that makes them fat and ill. So thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Rolyo85]

1. Go to store.

2. Check price of peanut butter jar.

3. Check price of fresh meat for 1 person.

I can't believe this is an actual argument that's being had. Somebody is actually claiming that in America it's cheaper to eat healthy

Benvolio, do you know what Whole Foods or Trader Joe's are?

 

[chrisrobin]

That's actually a result of poverty - many Americans now eat unhealthy cheap food that makes them fat and ill. So thanks for pointing that out.

These indolent blood-suckers should eat more cat food - contain the four basic food groups - and sooo affordable. Furthermore, have any of these parasites ever checked their local dumpsters?

 

[Benvolio]

These indolent blood-suckers should eat more cat food - contain the four basic food groups - and sooo affordable. Furthermore, have any of these parasites ever checked their local dumpsters?

Get serious. It costs more to get and stay fat than to be thin. Duh. If they can only afford fatty foods, eat less of it. This is not rocket science.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Get serious. It costs more to get and stay fat than to be thin. Duh

You clearly don't know anything, whatsoever, about nutrition. Simply cease talking about things when you are literally pulling conclusions out of your rearside.

 

[Benvolio]

You clearly don't know anything, whatsoever, about nutrition. Simply cease talking about things when you are literally pulling conclusions out of your rearside.

I am sure I know as much about nutrition as anyone here. Buying peanut butter, even in your large quantities, hardly makes you an expert.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I am sure I know as much about nutrition as anyone here.

No, you don't, as evidenced by your statement that it costs more to get fat than to eat healthy.

 

[opinterph]

The result is the hiring is done without meeting the applicant, excluding all but "data" And defined specifications.

The pre-employment interview is an integral part of the testing process. In larger organizations, the interviewer is not the same person who makes the selection. In that way, the results of the interview are not biased by personal affinities or other common fallacies associated with personal appeal or preference. All pre-employment interviews should be based upon validated questions that have been pre-established and possible answers assigned a score. In some cases an answer may not have been anticipated; however, there are mechanisms to assign a relative score to such answers after the response is collected. Each recruit should be asked the same set of questions under the same technique of interview. In the end, the employer is left with a reasonable comparison of the interview results from all candidates that can then be compiled to assist in the selection process. If the objective is to hire the person best qualified to fill a position, then blind data is an excellent way to make a comparison.

I understand that most employers take liberties during job interviews by asking inappropriate questions and allowing personal bias to influence decisions. Nonetheless, it is true that the more a firm’s methodology resembles a truly fair approach, the less likely that firm will face a challenge or related litigation. Even if a firm doesn’t wish to expend extra time and resources to ensure and document compliance with the law – the more the employer knows about proper or recommended methods, the less likely he/she is to make a mistake. It’s really not that difficult to be fair.