Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[Benvolio]

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

If you gave it a seconds though-- if you could-- you would realize that eating less of whatever is making you fat will save money. Duh

 

[xbuzzerx]

If you gave it a seconds though-- if you could-- you would realize that eating less of whatever is making you fat will save money. Duh

That doesn't change anything whatsoever about what happens mouthful vs. mouthful of cheap mass produced or pre-processed food vs. higher quality lower fat healthier diets by dollar you're able to spend. It's just an evasion. When was the last year you shopped for yourself in a supermarket? 1982?

 

[Benvolio]

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.

I am apalled at what you think employers should go through to hire.Remember this he next time you wonder why employers send their jobs overseas or failure to hire, or look for technical improvments. Oh! What a tangled web you weave. You confirmed my position. The one who creates the position and pays the salary and benefits, and is liable for the employees acts should be allowed to choose. At will really is best. Remember, with two decades of EEOC we have 14% black unemployment. Your way does not work.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Remember this he next time you wonder why employers send their jobs overseas. Oh! What a tangled web you weave. You unconfirmed my oosition. The one who creates the position and pays the salary and benefits, and is liable for the employees acts should be allowed to choose. Remember, with two decades of EEOC we have 14% black unemployment. Your way des not work.

Ah, so you would like the food industry to operate here as it does in China, with fish raised in algae-overgrown swimming pools packed with chemical antibiotics, imitation beef being sold as real beef and the threat of lead contamination in your food?

That would, after all, relax costs on employers.

 

[Benvolio]

Ah, so you would like the food industry to operate here as it does in China, with fish raised in algae-overgrown swimming pools packed with chemical antibiotics, imitation beef being sold as real beef and the threat of lead contamination in your food?

That would, after all, relax costs on employers.

Butt out. We are discussing hiring employees.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Butt out. We are discussing hiring employees.

Except you come at that issue with the same argument you use everywhere, that all regulations or "pressure" or costs which must be born by employers explains outsourcing.

It's all a red herring anyway, because as I've pointed out to you before, and you've avoided, regulatory costs don't matter when you can pay people in a third world country a small fraction of even the minimum wage in the U.S. So hiding your anti-minority view on hiring policies behind an argument of "see why employers leave the country" is utterly disingenuous.

 

[opinterph]

The one who creates the position and pays the salary and benefits, and is liable for the employees acts should be allowed to choose.

I suppose that “one” is free to choose whether to comply with the law or risk the consequence. There is no reason to hide behind false pretense. OTOH, some people seem to think any action is okay, so long as you don’t get caught.

 

[Benvolio]

I suppose that “one” is free to choose whether to comply with the law or risk the consequence. There is no reason to hide behind false pretense. OTOH, some people seem to think any action is okay, so long as you don’t get caught.

The law is wrong. It is not working. Worse it is counterproductive.

 

[opinterph]

The law is wrong. It is not working. Worse it is counterproductive.

Then you should consider voting for, or otherwise supporting, political candidates who offer more appropriate solutions and who will work to change the law in ways that will make it better.

In the mean time, it is the law.

 

[Benvolio]

Then you should consider voting for, or otherwise supporting, political candidates who offer more appropriate solutions and who will work to change the law in ways that will make it better.

In the mean time, it is the law.

Of course I do. Meantime, if you ever wonder why companies are reluctant to hire, and find ways to reduce employment, or outsource, this is one of the problems. Believe it or not, there are countries where they actually want jobs and job creators. No, seriously.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The law is wrong. It is not working. Worse it is counterproductive.

Did you substantiate this anywhere ... ?

 

[opinterph]

Meantime, if you ever wonder why companies are reluctant to hire, and find ways to reduce employment, or outsource, this is one of the problems. Believe it or not, there are countries where they actually want jobs and job creators. No, seriously.

I have worked with thousands of companies and their proprietors from a number of different countries – sometimes as advocate, sometimes as opponent. The lazy slogans you are repeating are just that.

 

[Benvolio]

Did you substantiate this anywhere ... ?

The law was intended to compel an end to discrimination against blacks, but black unemployment has recently been level at x 14%, which does not include all those who have given up. Now, by protecting everyone, it protects no one. Worse, 75% of black children are born illegitimate, while a full third of of black men spend time in the penitentiary. [here is where you call me names].

 

[Benvolio]

The law was intended to compel an end to discrimination against blacks, but black unemployment has recently been level at x 14%, which does not include all those who have given up. Now, by protecting everyone, it protects no one. Worse, 75% of black children are born illegitimate, while a full third of of black men spend time in the penitentiary. [here is where you call me names]. I have explained below how the anti discrimination laws have the effect of working against blacks, and keeping them at the bottom .

 

[xbuzzerx]

The law was intended to compel an end to discrimination against blacks, but black unemployment has recently been level at x 14%, which does not include all those who have given up. Now, by protecting everyone, it protects no one. Worse, 75% of black children are born illegitimate, while a full third of of black men spend time in the penitentiary. [here is where you call me names].

How does simply pointing at the unemployment level during a very bad economic time "prove" anything about whether or not these policies do any good? I'm sure the white unemployment level has gone up too.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Pound for pound, peanut butter is a lot cheaper than meat -- for the price of one pound of meat, I can get a two-pound jar of peanut butter.

 

[Kulindahr]

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 do the grocery shopping for multiple people, and have been doing so for a long time. I have to agree fully with this.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am apalled at what you think employers should go through to hire.Remember this he next time you wonder why employers send their jobs overseas or failure to hire, or look for technical improvments. Oh! What a tangled web you weave. You confirmed my position. The one who creates the position and pays the salary and benefits, and is liable for the employees acts should be allowed to choose. At will really is best. Remember, with two decades of EEOC we have 14% black unemployment. Your way does not work.

O
M
G

My sister was involved in hiring indirectly, because she taught remedial classes for prospective employees. What Opinterph described is actually a minimum for getting good employees.

 

[Benvolio]

O
M
G

My sister was involved in hiring indirectly, because she taught remedial classes for prospective employees. What Opinterph described is actually a minimum for getting good employees.

It is not a system for hiring good employees. It is a system of mandatory racial discrimination in favor of groups who tend to vote democrat. White males tend to vote Republican, while minorities and to a lessor extent, women vote democrat. So, the democrats have enacted a panoply of laws mandating discrimination in favor of the democrat constituents and against White males. The most extreme was the new banking law mandating the hiring of minorities and women "to the maximum extent possible". They must, thus, avoid hiring white males to the maximum extent possible.

 

[xbuzzerx]

It is not a system for hiring good employees. It is a system of mandatory racial discrimination in favor of groups who tend to vote democrat. White males tend to vote Republican, while minorities and to a lessor extent, women vote democrat. So, the democrats have enacted a panoply of laws mandating discrimination in favor of the democrat constituents and against White males. The most extreme was the new banking law mandating the hiring of minorities and women "to the maximum extent possible". They must, thus, avoid hiring white males to the maximum extent possible.

And since not half a page back you yourself whipped out the black unemployment rate being 14% and pushed it under our nose as something we should all be concerned about, it is now disingenuous of you to turn right around and ask us to say that policies which seek to ensure fair chance to black applicants in the job market is a bad thing.

Besides, Benvolio--- isn't your position that the real pressure and threat to all white American jobs is from immigrants, not from blacks? Which is it?