Forum Thread

Good paying jobs.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 35 1 2 3 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch said:

    "Furthermore"good paying wages" is just an "slogan".

    Dutch, "Good paying jobs" is just a slogan that won the presidency for Trump. Whether by design or by accident it hit a responsive cord with a certain class of financially hurting people. In the last forty years the cost of living has gone up over 500% while wages have gone up 34%. At the same time Trump was preaching "Good paying jobs Hillary was staying the course. But what are good paying jobs? For the masses that means making enough money to afford the necessities of life. The working class can't afford the necessities of life. Over half the people can't come up with $400 in an emergency. The Democratic Party remains silent because addressing the issue calls into question the Democratic presidencies of the last 40 years. Besides all the negatives of an underpaid population crime and violence is getting worse.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Crime and violence are at historical lows in our country.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: Crime and violence are at historical lows in our country.

    Chicago.

    Although at historical low the disturbing news is the second consecutive year of rising.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Chicago.

    Chicago is one city in a nation of 330 million people.

    It is an indisputable fact that crime is way (way way way) down over the past 25 years.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Chicago.

    Chicago is one city in a nation of 330 million people.

    It is an indisputable fact that crime is way (way way way) down over the past 25 years.

    Agree with the lowest crime rate. But crime and violence are on the rise.

    FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

    KEVIN JOHNSON | USA TODAY | 9:55 am EDT September 25, 2017

    google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6...

    "Chcago is one city in a nation of 330 million people."

    Mass shootings are less than 1% of gun deaths. School shootings are even a smaller percentage of the less than 1% of gun deaths by mass shootings.

    Chicago is not an increase in a trending decrease of violence. Chicago is an increase of crime in a national increase of crime from historically low levels.

    As more people are working more for less money and they are being unfairly and increasingly persecuted for drug use I am saying that crime and violence will continue to increase. And increase at an alarming rate. Trump is alienating now and in the future everybody except high income segments.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I'm all for "good paying jobs," but those job openings will be as worthless as a $3 bill if employers can't find employees who are qualified to do the work they're tasked with doing. And automation is only going to make that even more difficult.

    I know this frustrates you to no end, but employers (unless they are a charity) are in business to make a profit. A small number of robots can now do a task that took thousands of humans to complete. Factory lines are now factory lines of robots with a small number of human engineers ensuring smooth operations.

    Giving someone a job simply to put money in their hands could have catastrophic consequences not just for that individual, but for the general population. An unqualified construction worker could put steel reinforcement in the incorrect place and a bridge with fifty automobiles could collapse. I can list dozens and dozens more.

    Not just that, but automation is not going to stop simply because you wish it would. Next up is trucking. There's a very good chance that 3.5 million truck drivers will be out of a job in the next five to ten years.

    That's why I'm becoming more and more in favor of a UBI. The robots are coming whether we like it or not. We can keep digging our heads in the sand and try to convince ourselves that everything will be peaches and cream or we can actually do something about it.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    I'm all for "good paying jobs," but those job openings will be as worthless as a $3 bill if employers can't find employees who are qualified to do the work their tasked with doing. And automation is only going to make that even more difficult.

    I know this frustrates you to no end, but employers (unless they are a charity) are in business to make a profit. A small number of robots can now do a task that took thousands of humans to complete. Factory lines are now factory lines of robots with a small number of human engineers ensuring smooth operations.

    Giving someone a job simply to put money in their hands could have catastrophic consequences not just for that individual, but for the general population. An unqualified construction worker could put steel reinforcement in the incorrect place and a bridge with fifty automobiles could collapse. I can list dozens and dozens more.

    Not just that, but automation is not going to stop simply because you wish it would. Next up is trucking. There's a very good chance that 3.5 million truck drivers will be out of a job in the next five to ten years.

    That's why I'm becoming more and more in favor of a UBI. The robots are coming whether we like it or not. We can keep digging our heads in the sand and try to convince ourselves that everything will be peaches and cream or we can actually do something about it.

    jaredsxtn, First of all, I am not frustrated by anything. I look at everything as either a job to do or a job to figure out how to do. The US has virtually full employment now in spite of no limit or restrictions on robotics. Prosperity will always supply jobs.

    2nd. I'll bet there are very few repitition type jobs that are a direct step into and perform right out of school. There are very few jobs that aren't learned on the job.

    3. Now absorb this and stipulate it. I have never ever advocated simply making up jobs to give people spending money. I have continually stressed reregulation to put money back into making products and services to sell. Go back to the laws that stressed production and discouraged hoarding and stagnating money. Not that it matters but no construction worker determines the size and placement of steel reinforcement. That is all presented on the engineering drawings and plans and conformity is maintained by a foreman or quality control.

    4. Automation will never exceed demand in prosperity. More and more income will promote more and more people to quality and safety and aesthetics and on and on.

    5. Robots are welcome for safety and releasing from monotony. A progressive tax system will always provide work in a prosperous economy. Look at the bright side of a Democratic government that looks out for people. All is possible when human rights takes its place at the head of the payroll department. UBI would not be needed in a progressively prosperous economy. There is no benefit from creating billionaires at the expense of human rights. All the trillions of worldwide dollars tied up in derivatives could be put to work creating jobs and health and prosperity. All the same people would still have all the money and property. The only difference is their money would be creating jobs instead of interest payments.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Dutch said:

    "Furthermore"good paying wages" is just an "slogan".

    Dutch, "Good paying jobs" is just a slogan that won the presidency for Trump. Whether by design or by accident it hit a responsive cord with a certain class of financially hurting people. In the last forty years the cost of living has gone up over 500% while wages have gone up 34%. At the same time Trump was preaching "Good paying jobs Hillary was staying the course. But what are good paying jobs? For the masses that means making enough money to afford the necessities of life. The working class can't afford the necessities of life. Over half the people can't come up with $400 in an emergency. The Democratic Party remains silent because addressing the issue calls into question the Democratic presidencies of the last 40 years. Besides all the negatives of an underpaid population crime and violence is getting worse.

    I kind of have my doubts at a 500% increase in cost of living vs. a 34% increase in wages. And many things, especially electronics, have come down in price.

    The "can't come with $400 in an emergency" slogan is rather weak excuse. Many of the poor suffer from addictions issues and money management skills. For example, tobacco usage is mostly prevalent in the lower classes. Cut out a one-pack-a-day habit, and there's an extra $300 a month. And how about a ruined credit rating, which means no credit cards to help fund a small crisis.

    As well, if we double the income of the poor, many will still have trouble finding that $400 in emergency money. They will find stupid ways to spend that extra money.

    But it's politically incorrect to bring up these points.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "As well, if we double the income of the poor, many will still have trouble finding that $400 in emergency money. They will find stupid ways to spend that extra money."

    Doubling the income of the poor will still keep them poor and unable to afford the necessities of life. No doubt they still will be living paycheck to paycheck and unable to come up with $400 in an emergency.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The US has a critical shortage of qualified workers/applicants. Unemployment is down to 3-4%, which probably means people in inner city areas are suffering the most, economic depression, lack of opportunities to better themselves. America needs to bring back vocational schools and businesses need to bring back OJT programs.

    "Unemployment May Be Dropping, But It's Still Twice As High For Blacks"

    npr.org/2016/02/05/465748249/african-am...

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Chicago.

    Chicago is one city in a nation of 330 million people.

    It is an indisputable fact that crime is way (way way way) down over the past 25 years.

    There are no explanations for the drops in crime and violence. The only definitive declaration is that it is not the huge increase in the number of guns. Is it possible to examine the influence of guns on the historically low rate of crime?
  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "As well, if we double the income of the poor, many will still have trouble finding that $400 in emergency money. They will find stupid ways to spend that extra money."

    Doubling the income of the poor will still keep them poor and unable to afford the necessities of life. No doubt they still will be living paycheck to paycheck and unable to come up with $400 in an emergency.

    Living paycheck to paycheck is just as often a state of poor money management as a shortage of money. Because of a previous health issue, I was once relegated to the working poor class. In 2005, I lived on about $1200 a month. I still had my own apartment and car. Life was not that bad as a single person on that income. But I know many could not make it: tobacco, alcohol, fast food, lottery tickets, etc suck up a lot of the limited disposable income. Such people tend to blame society rather than their own actions.

    This is one reason why I believe in a Guaranteed Basic Income. Everyone gets about $1000 a month, which should cover basic needs. If they want more, get a job. If they want to spend silly, society can say "we gave you enough income for food and shelter and some discretionary income so why are you blaming us."

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "As well, if we double the income of the poor, many will still have trouble finding that $400 in emergency money. They will find stupid ways to spend that extra money."

    Doubling the income of the poor will still keep them poor and unable to afford the necessities of life. No doubt they still will be living paycheck to paycheck and unable to come up with $400 in an emergency.

    Living paycheck to paycheck is just as often a state of poor money management as a shortage of money. Because of a previous health issue, I was once relegated to the working poor class. In 2005, I lived on about $1200 a month. I still had my own apartment and car. Life was not that bad as a single person on that income. But I know many could not make it: tobacco, alcohol, fast food, lottery tickets, etc suck up a lot of the limited disposable income. Such people tend to blame society rather than their own actions.

    This is one reason why I believe in a Guaranteed Basic Income. Everyone gets about $1000 a month, which should cover basic needs. If they want more, get a job. If they want to spend silly, society can say "we gave you enough income for food and shelter and some discretionary income so why are you blaming us."

    Sounds like a Wisconsin republican lawmaker, e.g. if you want your UE compensation, you will do blah, blah, blah. I'm just about ROFLMFAO at this response.

  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:
    Sounds like a Wisconsin republican lawmaker, e.g. if you want your UE compensation, you will do blah, blah, blah. I'm just about ROFLMFAO at this response.

    I had to look for the meany of this acronym.

    FYI, I believe a citizen should do nothing but submit an annual tax return to receive a GBI. No obligations or proof of need at all. Kind of hard to compare me to that R lawmaker in Wisconsin.

    About 25 years, the Alberta government tried a "work for welfare" program. It had recipients sweeping streets, shoveling snow for a few hours a day, picking garbage, etc. That program didn't work out too well: it cost a lot to supervise these workers. And many chronic welfare people are not that productive anyways.

    And many welfare people just use welfare for a few months until they sort out a few things in life to get back to self-sufficiently. It was kind of pointless putting them on a work gang.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    Dockadams Wrote:
    Sounds like a Wisconsin republican lawmaker, e.g. if you want your UE compensation, you will do blah, blah, blah. I'm just about ROFLMFAO at this response.

    I had to look for the meany of this acronym.

    FYI, I believe a citizen should do nothing but submit an annual tax return to receive a GBI. No obligations or proof of need at all. Kind of hard to compare me to that R lawmaker in Wisconsin.

    About 25 years, the Alberta government tried a "work for welfare" program. It had recipients sweeping streets, shoveling snow for a few hours a day, picking garbage, etc. That program didn't work out too well: it cost a lot to supervise these workers. And many chronic welfare people are not that productive anyways.

    And many welfare people just use welfare for a few months until they sort out a few things in life to get back to self-sufficiently. It was kind of pointless putting them on a work gang.

    Meh, I was around when LBJ talked about the war on poverty, then along came the war on drugs, anything our government comes up with, and their slogans is usually a failure.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

    I had to laugh at your response because giving people a GBI is absurd. It's another shot at a social program which probably won't work, although the idea to lift people up is a good one, but then, there's the strings attached to any program by government, that's the conservative side of it, you know republicans and conservatives don't want to spend money on social programs, unless it benefits them directly or indirectly.

    From wiki:

    "In March 3, 2014, as Chairman of the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan released his "The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later" report, asserting that some of 92 federal programs designed to help lower-income Americans have not provided the relief intended and that there is little evidence that these efforts have been successful.[29] At the core of the report are recommendations to enact cuts to welfare, child care, college Pell grants and several other federal assistance programs.[30] In the appendix titled "Measures of Poverty", when the poverty rate is measured by including non-cash assistance from food stamps, housing aid and other federal programs, the report states that these measurements have "implications for both conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, this suggests that federal programs have actually decreased poverty. For liberals, it lessens the supposed need to expand existing programs or to create new ones."[29][30] Several economists and social scientists whose work had been referenced in the report said that Ryan either misunderstood or misrepresented their research."

    Ryan is mentioned in this post, and here's an interesting tidbit about Ryan who has been behind cuts to social programs in this state and the federal government, and, who has helped Scott Walker enact stringent rules for recipients of social programs like unemployment compensation:

    "When he was 16, Ryan found his 55-year-old father lying dead in bed of a heart attack.[8][13] Following the death of his father, Ryan's grandmother moved in with the family. As she had Alzheimer's, Ryan helped care for her while his mother commuted to college in Madison, Wisconsin.[13] From the time of his father's death until his 18th birthday, Ryan received Social Security survivors benefits, which were saved for his college education."

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan