Unemployed Didnt Get that Job? Sue!!!

reply to post by macman


For them to sell their product there has to be a demand, yet even when demand goes down and the company is scrambling to survive and people have seen how they screw the public, instead of letting them die we threw more money at them to keep them afloat. They therefore owe the public a lot more than they're delivering.
Profit for profit's sake will get them nowhere eventually people will get pissed off, and that's what is happening now.
And I am not talking about the mom and pops shops I am talking about the too big to fail. Unfortunately mom and pops are few and far between, and they are the most likely to not discriminate or list "Jobless need not apply". They are the ones who should be flourishing and not too big to fail conglomerates. Yet the mom and pops are the ones that are responsible when the big corps should be the ones acting responsibly now. We gave them a s***load of money, I don't think I am wrong in saying we sure as hell should see some damn thing come from our "investment" at congressional order, or else. Next time they should be allowed to faceplant as far as I am concerned. And listing jobs with the "jobless need not apply" is a good start to falling flat on their faces! When they start getting sued and such, and their products/services are not being bought then they will know that the public has spoken (As if we haven't already because they should have been left to fail to begin with cause obviously demand was down and they were losing profits).

Demand runs the system always has, people who don't understand that do not understand economics, if nobody is working and can not afford to buy, your company is going out of business. When you treat your employees or even potential employees discriminatorily and think they should just roll over and take it, of course your company is not going to get anywhere.

reply to post by illuminatislave


Actually correct me if I am wrong, but only those that pay into unemployment and their companies can collect unemployment, so you are right, if you pay into unemployment you should be receiving unemployment.

But if you have not pay unemployment you can not receive any, that is why the unemployment numbers are blotched when the government gives away data, they do no count the those unemployed that are not within the system.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by illuminatislave

 

Actually correct me if I am wrong, but only those that pay into unemployment and their companies can collect unemployment, so you are right, if you pay into unemployment you should be receiving unemployment.

But if you have not pay unemployment you can not receive any, that is why the unemployment numbers are blotched when the government gives away data, they do no count the those unemployed that are not within the system.

You're correct on both counts.

The official unemployment numbers are fictitious. We are more than likely near 17-18%.

reply to post by illuminatislave


Yes, yes, 17% would be accurate, I was just researching on those numbers on another thread, it is scary, since 2000 we have lost 17 million jobs with the last 5 just since 2008, that is why Obama is been blamed but actually is Wall Street the one that should take the blame with their derivative scams that brought down the economy no only in the US but Globally.

edit on 4-10-2011 by marg6043 because: wrong data

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I love how the OP is in support of discrimination against unemployed people, yet in the same breath will bitch about the unemployed living off of the taxpayer's dime.

I mean really now

So why should the tax payer pay for people to be unemployed?

Why shouldn't the unemployed receive benefits that they have paid into? You cannot receive unemployment insurance if you haven't worked for a significant period of time, and during that time you are paying into the system.

Are some of you guys sick? Why do you want to see a bunch of people who are willing to work and contribute to society broke and desperate? You're advocating discrimination to keep them from working and also saying that they should not receive unemployment benefits to at least keep them going until they can find work. That's insane.

You guys are begging for civil unrest, and a skyrocketing crime rate with your borderline sociopathic attitudes towards your own countrymen.

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

Yes, the worker pays into Unemployment Insurance. But, as the pot is drying up, then wait?
Seems that those that are working are paying for those that aren't.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I love how the OP is in support of discrimination against unemployed people, yet in the same breath will bitch about the unemployed living off of the taxpayer's dime.

I mean really now

So why should the tax payer pay for people to be unemployed?

Why shouldn't the unemployed receive benefits that they have paid into? You cannot receive unemployment insurance if you haven't worked for a significant period of time, and during that time you are paying into the system.

Are some of you guys sick? Why do you want to see a bunch of people who are willing to work and contribute to society broke and desperate? You're advocating discrimination to keep them from working and also saying that they should not receive unemployment benefits to at least keep them going until they can find work. That's insane.

You guys are begging for civil unrest, and a skyrocketing crime rate with your borderline sociopathic attitudes towards your own countrymen.

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

Yes, the worker pays into Unemployment Insurance. But, as the pot is drying up, then wait?
Seems that those that are working are paying for those that aren't.

That would be welfare.
I don't think that it is others paying for it, I think that the total amount of weeks is lengthened so that those that paid in far more money to UEI can actually recieve all they paid into it instead of being cut off while their money sits there for the next time. But I am not sure. At least that is how it worked when I recieved I only took two weeks and then had another job that money still sits there today, which I can't use maybe that is where the extra money is coming from people who paid in and can't even get it now? That means I guess yeah we are paying for them but I am not complaining, if I was in their shoes I'd be grateful to recieve it when I could. But I highly doubt anyone working in the present is paying for it.

reply to post by macman


You need to address the reasons behind the pot drying up before you think about kicking everyone off of unemployment. Unemployment is a safety net, but when you have a ridiculous % of the population falling into the net, something is WRONG. What are your suggestions to fix this problem, besides telling that mother of 2 who was laid off and cannot find work that her family should eat # and die?

High unemployment in America is not due to laziness, the only laziness being displayed is the intellectual laziness from people who want to see an America where people who cannot find work should be left broke, desolate.

And then folks like you will complain when you walk outside one morning and your car has been broken into.

reply to post by ldyserenity


While I agree whole heatedly that money should not be given to failing companies by the Govt, the idea of Companies being there to provide jobs is absurd.

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I love how the OP is in support of discrimination against unemployed people, yet in the same breath will bitch about the unemployed living off of the taxpayer's dime.

I mean really now

So why should the tax payer pay for people to be unemployed?

Why shouldn't the unemployed receive benefits that they have paid into? You cannot receive unemployment insurance if you haven't worked for a significant period of time, and during that time you are paying into the system.

Are some of you guys sick? Why do you want to see a bunch of people who are willing to work and contribute to society broke and desperate? You're advocating discrimination to keep them from working and also saying that they should not receive unemployment benefits to at least keep them going until they can find work. That's insane.

You guys are begging for civil unrest, and a skyrocketing crime rate with your borderline sociopathic attitudes towards your own countrymen.

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

Yes, the worker pays into Unemployment Insurance. But, as the pot is drying up, then wait?
Seems that those that are working are paying for those that aren't.

That would be welfare.
I don't think that it is others paying for it, I think that the total amount of weeks is lengthened so that those that paid in far more money to UEI can actually recieve all they paid into it instead of being cut off while their money sits there for the next time. But I am not sure. At least that is how it worked when I recieved I only took two weeks and then had another job that money still sits there today, which I can't use maybe that is where the extra money is coming from people who paid in and can't even get it now? That means I guess yeah we are paying for them but I am not complaining, if I was in their shoes I'd be grateful to recieve it when I could. But I highly doubt anyone working in the present is paying for it.

Ok, so it is a matter of the unemployed person getting the fair share that they paid into UEI?
How is that measured, as I see people unemployed ranging from those that have worked for 30 years and those that have worked for 1 year.
Again, that can't be fair.

Grateful or not, people are getting paid for not working. There is something wrong with this picture.

Originally posted by illuminatislave
reply to post by macman

 

You need to address the reasons behind the pot drying up before you think about kicking everyone off of unemployment. Unemployment is a safety net, but when you have a ridiculous % of the population falling into the net, something is WRONG. What are your suggestions to fix this problem, besides telling that mother of 2 who was laid off and cannot find work that her family should eat # and die?

High unemployment in America is not due to laziness, the only laziness being displayed is the intellectual laziness from people who want to see an America where people who cannot find work should be left broke, desolate.

And then folks like you will complain when you walk outside one morning and your car has been broken into.

Never said is was fair, nor due to laziness. Don't put words in my forum mouth.
And the whole car broken into thing? So the unemployed are more prone to crime? So I guess that the statement of not hiring the unemployed, due to concern of theft is true.

The whole "It's the system man" really is boring and tired.

It is what is is. If you work, you get money.
If you want more money, work harder and/or smarter.
If you don't work, you don't get money.

This is very basic.

Originally posted by macman

Never said is was fair, not due to laziness. Don't put words in my forum mouth.
And the whole car broken into thing? So the unemployed are more prone to crime? So I guess that the statement of not hiring the unemployed, due to concern of theft is true.

The whole "It's the system man" really is boring and tired.

It is what is is. If you work, you get money.
If you want more money, work harder and/or smarter.
If you don't work, you don't get money.

This is very basic.

When you have destitution, you will have crime. You can't be this oblivious dude. The more poor you have, the more crime will increase. This is not rocket science.

The only thing basic is your thought process and or narrow view of how this world actually works. It is not that black and white. I can't fathom why you'd think that its a great thing to see college educated americans that have worked hard all of their lives being forced to work for Burger King for enough money to maybe gas up the car for a week.

Maybe you're bored and tired of hearing "it's the system man" because it's actually true? You do realize that the country has bled jobs out of every orifice and opportunity has become limited? Or are you still stuck in 1994?

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Never said is was fair, not due to laziness. Don't put words in my forum mouth.
And the whole car broken into thing? So the unemployed are more prone to crime? So I guess that the statement of not hiring the unemployed, due to concern of theft is true.

The whole "It's the system man" really is boring and tired.

It is what is is. If you work, you get money.
If you want more money, work harder and/or smarter.
If you don't work, you don't get money.

This is very basic.

When you have destitution, you will have crime. You can't be this oblivious dude. The more poor you have, the more crime will increase. This is not rocket science.

The only thing basic is your thought process and or narrow view of how this world actually works. It is not that black and white.

Ok, so then the fear of Companies is deemed correct, by your comment.

I, owning Company ZX would not hire unemployed people. Because, iluminatislave has just proven that they are more prone to theft.
Theft costs my company money, and I also loose the money invested in hiring the person that stole.

Thanks. That sure was easy.

Originally posted by macman

Ok, so then the fear of Companies is deemed correct, by your comment.

I, owning Company ZX would not hire unemployed people. Because, iluminatislave has just proven that they are more prone to theft.
Theft costs my company money, and I also loose the money invested in hiring the person that stole.

Thanks. That sure was easy.

Making yourself look utterly clueless was easy? Good to know.

Unbelievable.

reply to post by macman


You have to understand that unemployment in America is higher than the sugar coated numbers given by the government, Its not jobs, no jobs that can support a middle class, we are now growing into a poor working class, even they have to get into welfare because they re still working on poverty level.

I see this as an agenda, we have lost 16 million jobs since 2000 they have not been replaced yet, and the jobs been created if any, are not equal to those been lost.

The United States is facing its worst unemployment crisis of the last 70 years. Nearly 16 million Americans are out of work, one-third of whom have been jobless for over six months. Another 9.3 million Americans are working part time because they can’t find the full-time jobs they want and need. The jobs shortage is so severe that there are now six unemployed workers for every job vacancy—double the ratio in the prior recession of the early 2000s.

Part time is not full time and still you are into welfare.

Overall, the nation has an underemployment rate of 17.5%, or 27.4 million people.

Among the 15.7 million jobless workers, one in every three has been out of a job for six months or more. These long-term jobless represent 3.6% of the total labor force, far exceeding the previous peak of 2.6% set in June 1983. More than 2 million workers have already been unemployed for more than a year. There is only one job vacancy for every six people unemployed.

Average unemployment rates mask an even bleaker reality for many Americans. Among African American and Latino workers, the unemployment rate has reached 15.7% and 13.1%, respectively. In Michigan, where the unemployment crisis has taken its toughest toll, unemployment reached 15.1% in October 2009.

www.epi.org...

This is from the job creation act, but guess what none of the stimulus for job creation have help fix the nations unemployment issues.

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Never said is was fair, not due to laziness. Don't put words in my forum mouth.
And the whole car broken into thing? So the unemployed are more prone to crime? So I guess that the statement of not hiring the unemployed, due to concern of theft is true.

The whole "It's the system man" really is boring and tired.

It is what is is. If you work, you get money.
If you want more money, work harder and/or smarter.
If you don't work, you don't get money.

This is very basic.

Maybe you're bored and tired of hearing "it's the system man" because it's actually true? You do realize that the country has bled jobs out of every orifice and opportunity has become limited? Or are you still stuck in 1994?

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

No, because I hear it out of the mouths of every re-tread hippie I come across.
There is nothing forcing you to work.
By every account, there is avenues that reward you for not working.

I work, by choice, because I don't depend on others nor the Govt to hand me things so I become dependent upon them.

reply to post by marg6043


Yes, I do realize that.

So the point is what?

Should the working person pay for the non-working person not to work?
No.

Should the non-working person be doing back-flips in any effort to work any job they are offered? If they want money they should.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Never said is was fair, not due to laziness. Don't put words in my forum mouth.
And the whole car broken into thing? So the unemployed are more prone to crime? So I guess that the statement of not hiring the unemployed, due to concern of theft is true.

The whole "It's the system man" really is boring and tired.

It is what is is. If you work, you get money.
If you want more money, work harder and/or smarter.
If you don't work, you don't get money.

This is very basic.

Maybe you're bored and tired of hearing "it's the system man" because it's actually true? You do realize that the country has bled jobs out of every orifice and opportunity has become limited? Or are you still stuck in 1994?

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

No, because I hear it out of the mouths of every re-tread hippie I come across.
There is nothing forcing you to work.
By every account, there is avenues that reward you for not working.

I work, by choice, because I don't depend on others nor the Govt to hand me things so I become dependent upon them.

So you're saying that millions of people are out of work because they...don't want to work?

Keep going. I'm being highly entertained by the musings of a reprobate.

reply to post by macman


Yes from what I understand is that if they paid into it for 52 weeks there was still a cap on it that said that they cuoldn't collect after the 6 months period came up. If the 30 year person is collecting they would have been cut off at 6 months period but they would have paid into it far beyond that (they'd still have money sitting in that fund) the person who worked a year likely doesn't qualify because I beleive that the minimum is 18 months of study working and paying into it. But if they did collect most likely they would be cut off well before the 6 month period
( I am not sure if it is six months it has been so long since I got it, but it is something like that) Now that year guy who can't get it because he hasn't worked long enough to recieve, now his money may go to the others who can collect, however the government still has to put them into his "account balance" Sort of like Social Security. So though he may be paying for someone else on UE he still has what he paid into it owed to him (will be added to whatever he pays in when he gets another job and starts contributing to the Unemployment again). That's how I understand it.

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Ok, so then the fear of Companies is deemed correct, by your comment.

I, owning Company ZX would not hire unemployed people. Because, iluminatislave has just proven that they are more prone to theft.
Theft costs my company money, and I also loose the money invested in hiring the person that stole.

Thanks. That sure was easy.

Making yourself look utterly clueless was easy? Good to know.

Unbelievable.

I will take classless. That I have no problem with.

Clueless? Yeah, ok.
Just because you stated that the unemployed are more inclined to break into my car (Theft), and don't like that your re-verified theft statement is used in the Company world does not mean I am clueless.
Maybe think before you type. You, and you alone left that avenue wide open in this.

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by macman

Never said is was fair, not due to laziness. Don't put words in my forum mouth.
And the whole car broken into thing? So the unemployed are more prone to crime? So I guess that the statement of not hiring the unemployed, due to concern of theft is true.

The whole "It's the system man" really is boring and tired.

It is what is is. If you work, you get money.
If you want more money, work harder and/or smarter.
If you don't work, you don't get money.

This is very basic.

Maybe you're bored and tired of hearing "it's the system man" because it's actually true? You do realize that the country has bled jobs out of every orifice and opportunity has become limited? Or are you still stuck in 1994?

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)

No, because I hear it out of the mouths of every re-tread hippie I come across.
There is nothing forcing you to work.
By every account, there is avenues that reward you for not working.

I work, by choice, because I don't depend on others nor the Govt to hand me things so I become dependent upon them.

So you're saying that millions of people are out of work because they...don't want to work?

Keep going. I'm being highly entertained by the musings of a reprobate.

Not loosing their job at the get go because they don't like working.

Not working any little job they can find, due to what ever excuse you want to insert.

Sorry, but I see plenty of jobs available. They may not be the kind that is wanted, but they are out there.