"overly generous jobless benefits causing worker shortage" theory now gaining momentum.

Jobs report April 2021: Hiring boom goes bust (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/07/jobs-report-april-2021.html)
Many people choosing to stay on unemployment rather than work, business owners and analysts say | KOB 4 (https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/many-people-choosing-to-stay-on-unemployment-rather-than-work-business-owners-and-analysts-say/6099342/)

This continues a trend I noticed when I was doing the hiring at the end of last year . There are plenty of jobs . Yet it was very difficult to hire new employees and to retain them
Quid did a Snoopy dance because he believes this news validates his push for more socialistic interventions .

Tom you know that the long term jobless are not fit for work, so why not help them out, it is good for the economy, they spend every penny they get. You are looking for new employees, try looking for old ones, people with a little life history and a little big of nouce, not these damn millennials who know nothing

he believes this news validates his push for more socialistic interventions .

What are the "socialistic" interventions?

the long term jobless are not fit for work, so why not help them out,Why not take money from working Americans and give it to the lazy? You're really asking that? When the pantry becomes empty, it's amazing how quickly those "not fit for work" can get themselves ready. Anyone who is mentally/physically equipped to work should be expected to get off his/her rear end and get after it. But if they don't want to, they won't get a penny from other Americans who work hard and pay the bills.

other Americans who work hard and pay the bills.
Those "lazy" people are using that money to pay their bills and buy necessities.

Those "lazy" people are using that money to pay their bills and buy necessities.And go to the Casinos and make a down payment on a car and any other number of things people do with money they don't really need. Most of the stim money checks went to people like the two of us who did not at all need it. Vote buying.

But even at that, if you want to pay your bills and buy necessities, GET A JOB.

Most of the stim money checks went to people like the two of us who did not at all need it. Vote buying.
I gave mine to people who needed it for home and car repairs. What did you spend yours on?

I gave mine to people who needed it for home and car repairs.Why do you feel so compelled to publicly pat yourself on the back?

We put it in the bank. It is completely stupid idea to send out money the government does not have to people who, in most cases, do not need it.

Why do you feel so compelled to publicly pat yourself on the back?
All that money I have, ya know, all that wealth -- gotta earn my way into heaven, ya know. And I'm daring you to do the same, to help others who desperately need the help.


send out money the government does not have to people who, in most cases, do not need it.
You're full of it. The ones I know definitely do. Around here, retail stores have closed permanently, as have restaurants, motels, small businesses of various kinds. Thus, employees have been let go and they don't have the experience/skill set necessary for other jobs that might be available.

If I’m full of anything it’s some knowledge of this topic. You should try it. We had to borrow or print all of this money. If we had sent it to the unemployed then that would be fine. Instead it was primarily sent to people like the two of us who don’t need it.

If I’m full of anything it’s some knowledge of this topic.
What is your source?

We had to borrow or print all of this money. If we had sent it to the unemployed then that would be fine. Instead it was primarily sent to people like the two of us who don’t need it.
Sooooo, my unemployed in-law niece in Iowa who has four little kids shouldn't have gotten hefty stimulus checks? Or my unemployed nephew in Colorado shouldn't have gotten any? Or my unemployed in-law nieces in Florida....

My source? How's this for you?
You are ineligible for stimulus payment if you earn more than the income limit. That applies to anyone whose reported adjusted gross income for tax years 2018 or 2019 was at least:


$99,000 for individuals and married couples filing separately
$136,500 for heads of household
$198,000 for married couples filing jointly

Now I'm going to go WWAAAAYYYYYYY out on a limb here and say that married couples, for instance, making 80 or 100 or 125 thou a year do not NEED a 2400 dollar stim check. Pols, however, need our votes, so they stupidly send the checks out to them, and the non-thinkers cheer them as being full of compassion. Completely stupid.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-is-ineligible-for-stimulus-checks-4842756#:~:text=Income%20Limits%20for%20Stimulus%2 0Checks%20You%20are%20ineligible,%2499%2C000%20for %20individuals%20and%20married%20couples%20filing% 20separately

And then there is YOUR source. You mentioned the UNEMPLOYED. Aren't those the very people I said above who SHOULD get stim checks?

But that's OK. You just go right on defending the need for married couples making 150 thou a year to get a stim check from the feds funded completely by borrowed money. I can only guess that makes perfect sense to you.

But that's OK. You just go right on defending the need for married couples making 150 thou a year to get a stim check from the feds funded completely by borrowed money. I can only guess that makes perfect sense to you.
I don't know any married couples who make that much money. And any that do have mostly likely helped out struggling friends, neighbors, and/or family members. Plus, most of my friends who work have had their hours cut, have been laid off, or the business has folded.

I don't know any married couples who make that much money.Do you suppose that it just might be possible that they are out there and you don't know them?

According to you, you made that much last year. Remember saying that when you said you voted to raise taxes on yourself in Illinois? Remember?

Do you suppose that it just might be possible that they are out there and you don't know them?
They're all in Mississippi.

According to you, you made that much last year. Remember saying that when you said you voted to raise taxes on yourself in Illinois? Remember?
No, I did NOT make/earn that money. My beloved mother and son died. I was very surprised I had been named a beneficiary in their wills. I'd give it back in a nanosecond if I could have both alive and in my life.

What are the "socialistic" interventions? You can deny it is socialism But the reality is that there is no significant difference between progressive "reform " and socialism . The only real difference is that today's socialist want to have capitalist around enough to pay for their agenda. By all appearances private ownership of the means of production is preserved . But through mounting interventions in the economy, the government’s sway over business grows to the point where it is the state that ultimately steers and dictates production, and thus becomes the de facto owner of the means of production.

You know the one thing that is lacking in this post is compassion. Tom, I am surprised at your attitude. Not all unemployed are shiftless layabout dead beats, but this is what your post implies. many lack the skills for todays economy, this is a failure, not of their initiative, but of your Lasse Faire education system. Education for profit, educating those who can afford it

But through mounting interventions in the economy

My question, still not answered, is what are those interventions?

This is the third time I have asked you about "socialism", and this us the third time you have not answered my question.

many lack the skills for todays economy, this is a failure, not of their initiative, but of your Lasse Faire education system. Education for profit, educating those who can afford it
That's my beef, too. We should spend a lot more time and energy teaching life skills and give vocational guidance, even to middleschoolers and, of course, to older students. Actually, even younger students can learn what they're good at doing and be taught new skills. College too often is a bunch of useless courses. I know many of MY college courses were useless (teacher training -- but no real training, just the history of this or that, ethics, etc., not much practical ... although some of that knowledge might help me win on "Jeopardy"...).

Rich guys didn't need tax cuts but they got them and why is it that when you help out the poor or main street during a CRISIS it becomes socialism?

Becuase Tal, that is what it is, to make a dependent population, not saying the help isn't necessary but this is what socialism does, makes the population dependent on government, on centralised authority. The real problem is over population in a mechanised, digital world.

My question, still not answered, is what are those interventions?

This is the third time I have asked you about "socialism", and this us the third time you have not answered my question.

I answer and you pretend I don't . Mounting interventions is trillions in government spending on the economy )6 trillion to date and counting ). Mounting interventions is the bureaucratic regulatory state that tells us and business how to conduct every aspect of our lives Clete's comment above is right on socialism makes people dependent on the government.....cradle to grave government , Where Clete is wrong in in his strawman telling me that because I object to a program where it is more advantageous for someone not to work than to rejoin the work force that I oppose all unemployment assistance .

I answer and you pretend I don't .

No pretending at all. In fact, the first time I asked you, you refused in your own words to answer because you thought it was a trick. (or a trap).


Mounting interventions is trillions in government spending on the economy )6 trillion to date and counting

Increasing the national debt occurs under whatever administration is in power. Are both parties therefore "socialistic"? In any case, I'm asking about specifics, not generalities.


Mounting interventions is the bureaucratic regulatory state that tells us and business how to conduct every aspect of our lives

This is crazy talk. Government is not telling us how to conduct "every aspect of our lives".


Clete's comment above is right on socialism makes people dependent on the government.....cradle to grave government

Exactly where is this cradle to grave socialism in the USA? Examples, please.


Where Clete is wrong ..... telling me that because I object to a program where it is more advantageous for someone not to work than to rejoin the work force that I oppose all unemployment assistance .

Does this mean unemployment insurance is not socialism?

Does this mean unemployment insurance is not socialism?

It is not actually insurance, it is government welfare, and welfare is a form of socialism

It is not actually insurance, it is government welfare, and welfare is a form of socialism

Tomder again is notable for his absence in replying re socialism. I can't assume paraclete speaks for Tom. Presumably, he would eliminate unemployment insurance for which premiums are paid. He does not say what he would replace it with, if anything, nor does he address the other points in my post to Tomder.

In the US, there is a clause in the Constitution that states "provide for the general welfare". It is unclear why Paraclete considers welfare to be a dirty word.

Conservatives think welfare is a dirty word, until they need it, or if it's CORPORATE welfare, or legalized stealing. Socialism is just a buzz word for the right to brand everybody but them as being a bad thing and only their rights matter. Yep the right to bear arms is sacred but the right to vote is on their terms.

Freedom for some and not others which in truth started when THEY got to the new land.

nor does he address the other points in my post to Tomder.

In the US, there is a clause in the Constitution that states "provide for the general welfare". It is unclear why Paraclete considers welfare to be a dirty word.

I don't consider welfare a dirty word. I'm not going tp go point to point with you, I addressed the misconception that unemployment insurance is insurance, but call it what it is, a government handout to help you meet difficult circumstance. However, government payment to an individual in any form is socialism, and I cannot see why you run away from it as if it is a bad thing, as you say "provide for the general welfare"

I'm not going tp go point to point with you,

I notice you never do. Something pops into your head and you post it without thinking. Are all Aussies like that, or just you?


I addressed the misconception that unemployment insurance is insurance

All employees are charged a premium for the insurance. The money goes into an insurance pot paid out when necessary. When paid out, the employer gets a surcharge according to the amount paid. That's called insurance. It is not a government handout.


government payment to an individual in any form is socialism

That's ridiculous. Are death benefits paid to a soldier's survivor socialism? Salaries to police and firemen? Elected officials? Excellent example of your popping off whatever enters your head.


and I cannot see why you run away from it as if it is a bad thing, as you say "provide for the general welfare"

I have no idea what this means, and I don't expect you to clarify it.

All employees are charged a premium for the insurance. The money goes into an insurance pot paid out when necessary. When paid out, the employer gets a surcharge according to the amount paid. That's called insurance. It is not a government handout.That is true in theory, and it seems to be true in good economic times. But when the economy hits a serious downturn, the feds end up having to subsidize the fund, and never more dramatically than now when it is clearly not bringing in anything close to enough money. It's now just another "borrow, print and spend" federal fiasco.


government payment to an individual in any form is socialismI'd have to agree with Athos in his response. Socialism is more an economic model than it is a government model.

The provision to provide for "the general welfare" in the Constitution was historically considered to be a provision to provide for highways, police, and so forth which lifts the welfare of everyone. It is only in the past century or so that pols figured out how to buy votes by sending out payments funded by taxes lifted from working people. Now, even worse, they don't even bother to fund this vote buying with taxes.

It's now just another "borrow, print and spend" federal fiasco.

Providing the means to survive for families - men, woman and children - is a "federal fiasco"?


The provision to provide for "the general welfare" in the Constitution was historically considered to be a provision to provide for highways, police, and so forth which lifts the welfare of everyone. It is only in the past century or so that pols figured out how to buy votes by sending out payments funded by taxes lifted from working people.

Yes, the interpretation of the clause changed over the years. It came closer to the plain meaning of the original words. As to the cynical notion that it is only for buying votes, would you therefore rescind social security?

I am opposed to expanding the federal debt to levels which have the potential to sink us.

I would make SS a voluntary program. Sadly it is too late for that. At least it is, for the present, self funding.

I am opposed to expanding the federal debt to levels which have the potential to sink us.

What level is that?


I would make SS a voluntary program.

That would condemn millions to poverty in their old age.

We are currently approaching a national debt of about 100,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in America. That strikes me as a titanically stupid idea. Interest rates will some day rise again, and we are going to be in serious trouble.


That would condemn millions to poverty in their old age.How?

not these damn millennials who know nothing
We call them professional students. Anybody who wants to work, need just show up, hired on the spot!

Athos said: That would condemn millions to poverty in their old age.

JL said: How?

WG says: C'mon, think about it. Where does SS come from? And why? And how?

I thought you said we were not to respond to a question with more questions. Well...you just did.

I thought you said we were not to respond to a question with more questions. Well...you just did.
You do so I can too. HA!

Athos said: That would condemn millions to poverty in their old age.

JL said: How?

WG says: C'mon, think about it. Where does SS come from? And why? And how?

SS is failed ponzi scheme, it worked while ever there was a smaller population with lower life expectancy

SS is failed ponzi scheme, it worked while ever there was a smaller population with lower life expectancy

Currently, nearly 70 million Americans receive social security benefits. You call that a failure?

The SSA estimates that it made about $7.9 billion worth of improper payments in total during the 2019 fiscal year.

The SSA estimates that it made about $7.9 billion worth of improper payments in total during the 2019 fiscal year.

Your point?

Freedom or an Athos imposed, compulsory "We'll take care of you" social program. I think I'll take freedom.

Freedom or an Athos imposed, compulsory

It's already in effect. Why would you need me to impose it?


"We'll take care of you" social program. I think I'll take freedom.

Your freedom would cost millions to be in poverty in their old age. I must ask you this: Why are white evangelicals so unfeeling about others when the clear Christian message is a preferable option for the poor as outlined in the Gospels?

I don't need to provide verses. As a Bible expert, you should know them by heart.

The SSA estimates that it made about $7.9 billion worth of improper payments in total during the 2019 fiscal year.

You call that a failure?
YES! (my point)

YES! (my point)

Why is that a failure? Surely you're not referring to the whole social security program? Or are you? If so, why?

Currently, nearly 70 million Americans receive social security benefits. You call that a failure?
The whole social security program, is doomed for failure.

The whole social security program, is doomed for failure.
Why? If you have a job, you pay into it as does the company you work for.

Do you actually think anybody under the age of 57 is ever going to receive a Social Security check?

Do you actually think anybody under the age of 57 is ever going to receive a SSC check?
If disabled, yes. You are allowed to claim retirement SS starting at age 62.

Why? If you have a job, you pay into it as does the company you work for.
The Government steals from Social security to pay for other sh*T. Social security has to barrow money to stay afloat.
They will go Broke (again) in 2028



$7.9 billion worth of improper payments

Your freedom would cost millions to be in poverty in their old age. I must ask you this: Why are white evangelicals so unfeeling about others when the clear Christian message is a preferable option for the poor as outlined in the Gospels?

.

Athos it has nothing to do with being a Christian and a great deal with being a Republican, with that political view, that no one is entitled to anything, a work 'til you drop philosophy. When politics intervenes, that is self interest intervenes, good works go out the window unless served by political advantage

Athos it has nothing to do with being a Christian and a great deal with being a Republican, with that political view, that no one is entitled to anything, a work 'til you drop philosophy. When politics intervenes, that is self interest intervenes, good works go out the window unless served by political advantage

If I understand you, the Republican philosophy of greedy self-interest is responsible for ignoring the poor in society, not Christians. To a certain degree, I agree with you. However, I believe the Republican cult is filled mostly with the white evangelicals I mentioned.

I also believe this is the main subgroup supporting Trump and his "Big Lie" that the election was rigged. What I fail to understand is how any large group of Christians could possibly believe Trump after 4 years of obvious proven lies and a piggish life of immorality (amorality?).

The Government steals from Social security to pay for other sh*T. Social security has to barrow money to stay afloat. They will go Broke (again) in 2028

If that's what you believe, what are you as a Christian doing to avoid that happening with its disastrous effect on the poor and the marginalized and the disabled?


$7.9 billion worth of improper payments

You are repeating this, but not saying why. You are certainly implying that this means the entire SS program is bad. You are using a slogan to defame the program without a word of explanation. "Improper payments" is a complex issue which cannot have justice done to it in the confines of a Q&A site.

To discover what the phrase really means, anyone (including you) can google the phrase and discover all the aspects of it. You will learn that, unlike your implication, it has nothing to do with bad management by the Social Security employees.

I'm a bit surprised you did something so devious.

Social security has to barrow money to stay afloat. They will go Broke (again) in 2028SS is currently solvent and, in fact, uses its surplus to fund other reckless, insane federal spending initiatives. But you are correct in saying that a day of reckoning is coming. The exact year is a subject of debate, but our current crop of self-serving, corrupt, narcissistic pols have no interest in taking the necessary steps to fix it, so we'll just continue to hobble along until the dam actually breaks and then try to figure out how to somehow survive.

Why work when the government will give you freebees for not working
Those who receive SSA,APA, welfare etc. act as if they finally made it in life. Why be bothered with work when you don't have to?
Those who spent years in College, no desire to work, taking advantage of the 'Free money" that is offered, becoming professional students. Unwed Mothers, encouraged to go on welfare, perpetuating their current position. Mothers not wanting their children to leave home and get a job! Young adults thinking they need just show up and collect a paycheck, not willing to lift a finger! Won't work for less thn $15hr, wanting to make the big bucks right of the bat. Never giving a ****

Gimme, gimme, gimme, all for sale!

Those who receive SSA,APA, welfare etc. act as if they finally made it in life. Why be bothered with work when you don't have to?
Those who spent years in College, no desire to work, taking advantage of the 'Free money" that is offered, becoming professional students. Unwed Mothers, encouraged to go on welfare, perpetuating their current position. Mothers not wanting there children to leave home and get a job! Young adults thinking they need just show up and collect a paycheck, not willing to lift a finger! Won't work for less thn $15hr, wanting to make the big bucks right of the bat.

See my post #53. That post is what you should reply to, not the above piece of rambling wild accusations. The vitriol in the above is remarkable for one who espouses a religious faith.

Won't work for less thn $15hr, wanting to make the big bucks right of the bat. Never giving a ****

Gimme, gimme, gimme, all for sale!

You speak as though taking a minimum wage job is a privilege and $15 an hour is big bucks. You forget that the people you speak of are in the minority and victims of circumstance, even if sometimes it is of their own making. There are employers who won't give some a chance, prejudging them

See my post #53. That post is what you should reply to
I'd rather stick with the Topic. But thanks for asking.


Those who receive SSA,APA, welfare etc. act as if they finally made it in life. Why be bothered with work when you don't have to?
Those who spent years in College, no desire to work, taking advantage of the 'Free money" that is offered, becoming professional students. Unwed Mothers, encouraged to go on welfare, perpetuating their current position. Mothers not wanting their children to leave home and get a job! Young adults thinking they need just show up and collect a paycheck, not willing to lift a finger! Won't work for less thn $15hr, wanting to make the big bucks right of the bat. Never giving a ****
Wooohoo! I got my welfare, I finally made it!!!
This is what our Government is creating.

You speak as though taking a minimum wage job is a privilege
I've worked for far less. It might go better for those who are looking for a Job, to think of it as being a privilege?
Nobody want's to work. I say open the Borders, I know some people wanting to work!

Wooohoo! I got my welfare, I finally made it!!!
This is what our Government is creating.Exactly correct.

Anyone willing to work now can walk into practically any store or business in our area and start at twelve to fifteen dollars an hour. Get two jobs. Work sixty hours a week if need be, but take care of yourself and don't become a leech sucking the financial blood of others.

I doubt they are sucking yours

I'd rather stick with the Topic. But thanks for asking.

You're quick with the glib replies, but weak on actually engaging in productive dialogue. You are afraid of something, and I suspect it's a basic lack of topical knowledge.

I'd rather stick with the Topic. But thanks for asking.


Wooohoo! I got my welfare, I finally made it!!!
This is what our Government is creating.
And then!


I've worked for far less. It might go better for those who are looking for a Job, to think of it as being a privilege?
Nobody want's to work. I say open the Borders, I know some people wanting to work!

And this


Exactly correct.

Anyone willing to work now can walk into practically any store or business in our area and start at twelve to fifteen dollars an hour. Get two jobs. Work sixty hours a week if need be, but take care of yourself and don't become a leech sucking the financial blood of others.

That's all well and good except if you're a woman with a couple of kids and they ain't got no babysitters

Maybe those service and waitresses jobs wages could be increased you know for like people that can't get two jobs because they ain't got no transportation

That's all well and good except if you're a woman with a couple of kids and they ain't got no babysitters
Rarely does a person who has been on welfare for more than a year, will desire to go and get a job. they will come up with all the excuses in the book, no transportation, no babysitter, Can't afford to lose my welfare, medical etc. etc.

Funny thing; my Niece couldn't get section 8 housing because she was the wrong color (white). Good thing, she was forced to live with her Dad, forcing her to obey his wish. she had to get a job (without a car, no babysitter). She is now supporting four kids on her own.

Rarely does a person who has been on welfare for more than a year, will desire to go and get a job.

You know this how?


Funny thing; my Niece couldn't get section 8 housing because she was the wrong color (white).

Ah, that explains so much about you. You're a racist! I never suspected. What is it with you evangelicals? Something from the Old Testament? Like Noah cursing Ham to be enslaved?

You're a racist!
Did I say something that offends you?

FYI: She was told that by the social worker.

You're a racist! I never suspected.Predictable."I don't agree with you, so you must be a racist." Really gets tiresome.

Predictable."I don't agree with you, so you must be a racist." Really gets tiresome.
Crazy thing, I had a friend tell me the same thing 15 years ago- Social worker, said the same thing to Him (wrong color).

Predictable."I don't agree with you, so you must be a racist." Really gets tiresome.

Not predictable. His own words. "Funny thing; my Niece couldn't get section 8 housing because she was the wrong color (white)."

When outed, he quickly threw in "She was told that by the social worker". Interesting he omitted that little part until caught. Then he suddenly remembered the same thing from 15 years ago. I guess it was the same social worker! This would be laughable if not so revolting.

I believe you're a racist too. Not the white-sheeted hooded kind, but the kind that prefers blacks "in their place". The Trump school of racism.

Two peas in a pod.

Rarely does a person who has been on welfare for more than a year, will desire to go and get a job. they will come up with all the excuses in the book, no transportation, no babysitter, Can't afford to lose my welfare, medical etc. etc.
Study up on welfare. Many states have adopted policies as to how long someone can be on welfare. Time limits range from 24 months to 60 months. Only a few states have no time limits.

My Catholic Charities clients knew they had two years on welfare and then they'd get a letter informing them to seek work because they would be cut loose from welfare payments. And so it was. Part of my job was helping them job hunt, fill out job applications, and do well on interviews.

His own words. "Funny thing; my Niece couldn't get section 8 housing because she was the wrong color."
Who doesn't get section-8 housing? If you have two kids and you apply, how are you not going to get it???

Time limits range from 24 months to 60 months.
You are correct. Once you are given notice, time to pop out another Brat!


Many states
Still leaves some without time limits.

Crazy thing, I had a friend tell me the same thing 15 years ago.
Your site profile says you're 21.

Your site profile says you're 21.

Lol - "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!!"

Great catch, WG.

Your site profile says you're 21. Yup, true dat. My Christian life began 21 years ago, ah, yah, yah that's it! What's it matter?
Great catch, WG. I thought you might enjoy that. My name isn't Waltero either, DOH!

. Yup, true dat. My Christian life began 21 years ago, ah, yah, yah that's it! What's it matter? I thought you might enjoy that. My name isn't Waltero either, DOH!

Nicknames are rarely the real name. No surprise there.

You can't deflect by your nickname from your racism and your lie about your age. Don't post those long sermons about you and God that you are prone to do - they give Jesus a bad name by association.

they give Jesus a bad name by association.
Do you know nothing? Do you know what or who your talking about???

Do you know nothing? Do you know what or who your talking about???
Do you even understood what Athos said???

Do you know nothing? Do you know what or who your talking about???

Lol - yes, I'm talking to and about YOU!

I know you think all kinds of things, I’m sure. But I for a long time now have imagined everybody that I see with a wheelbarrow. And I have a wheelbarrow too. And when you see me, you can think of me and my wheelbarrow. And I have stuff in my wheelbarrow. I may have it hitched to the back of my car. You may like my car, you may hate my car, but I have a wheelbarrow. And in that wheelbarrow I have trials and temptations and fears and failures and disappointments and heartaches and longings. I don’t wake at three o’clock in the morning just to think about the soccer scores from Spain, and neither do you. We are all in this together.

I know you think all kinds of things, I’m sure. But I for a long time now have imagined everybody that I see with a wheelbarrow. And I have a wheelbarrow too. And when you see me, you can think of me and my wheelbarrow. And I have stuff in my wheelbarrow. I may have it hitched to the back of my car. You may like my car, you may hate my car, but I have a wheelbarrow. And in that wheelbarrow I have trials and temptations and fears and failures and disappointments and heartaches and longings. I don’t wake at three o’clock in the morning just to think about the soccer scores from Spain, and neither do you. We are all in this together.


Oh, go away, will you? The nuisance factor is getting the best of you.

Hello fellow libs, forgive the conservatives for they have no clue what they're talking about, though they make noise like they do. They've always been that way but the dufus corrupted them deeply. Despite booting the dude from office, it's going to take a while to wean them from the red meat they crave like junkies chasing a fix. It's ugly but will get uglier before it gets better.

Enjoy watching their heads explode, and don't worry if they seem dizzy from running in a circle hollering for more. That's what they do best! Show some tolerance but keep the rocks handy.

The choice is plain.

https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/97219649_3244681005544796_6694135606638804992_n.jp g?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=WJB3TcZuxlMAX_jfJ40&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&oh=b1db13db8f3ca3a86cc4e67b864edc99&oe=60BF44A1

Same with the wall conservatives need to build?

Same with the wall conservatives need to build? Yes it keeps people out, but it also keeps people in. It is sort of like the Chinese road system, magnificent toll roads everywhere, but your every movement is logged

The wall does not keep Americans in, and it does not keep legal immigrants out.

A wall would not keep anyone in nor would it keep anyone out.

Then what is the point of it? Walls have successfully kept people out and people in in various places in the world

Then what is the point of it? Walls have successfully kept people out and people in in various places in the world
Successfully? Nope. Where?

Israel and the west bank. East/West Berlin, Great Wall

It is foolish beyond belief to suggest that walls do not work. They do not work perfectly, but neither do airbags, door locks and window latches. No one suggests we stop using those. It is absolutely certain that a southern wall would greatly diminish illegal immigration and drug/human trafficking.

Why should I pay for your wall?

But it would be your wall too

To reply to Clete who said this post lacks empathy or compassion or some other liberal drivel ; yes there are SOME people claiming unemployment benefits as they search for work and try to stay afloat from the economic pain incurred during the self imposed pandemic recession .However ,the purposeful constriction of the labor market by the Quids are effectively a state sponsored labor strike. The only thing missing is the picket signs outside of the business.
This serves the Dem narrative . Robert Reich tweeted that there is no labor shortage .“There is a shortage of employers willing to pay their workers a living wage.”
Quid on Monday was an echo chamber for that sentiment . “People will come back to work if they’re paid a decent wage.” You would think he was a union strongman boss instead of the President .The difference is that the Dems have the power to dip into government red ink to attempt to jack up wages

Let me give you one practical consequence that I have seen since moving to South Carolina. Here when you walk into the grocery store there is one employee greeting you and offering a shopping cart . There are numerous employees keeping the shelves stocked and assisting customers . There is one employee at the register and one bagging groceries and offering to bring them to your car.

In NY there was unresponsive staff who could not even correctly tell you what aisle the groceries you want to purchase was in . There was a handful of clerks at the registers but the bulk of the check out was computer self check out .
Forcing higher wages will bring an obvious reaction by employers .It will accelerate the pace of automation and other strategies to improve operation efficiencies without adding workers. . Those jobs will no longer be available .
Right now because of the labor demand employers are sucking it up and hiring what they can. I even hear of monetary incentives being offered just to apply
But eventually the generous benefits will run dry .September is the date . I do not believe there is the vote and the rationale to extend benefits further . At that point employers will get to pick and choose ;and if their employees are not productively at the top of their game ,there will be no reason to retain them.

If the government is going to spend taxpayer money on an employment program ,it should be on helping the lower skilled person obtain the training needed to compete in the labor market of the future . It should not be an incentive to take a government paid leave from the workforce .

About the only people calling for higher wages are the ones who aren't running a business and trying to stay afloat.

To reply to Clete who said this post lacks empathy or compassion or some other liberal drivel ; yes there are SOME people claiming unemployment benefits as they search for work and try to stay afloat from the economic pain incurred during the self imposed pandemic recession .However ,the purposeful constriction of the labor market by the Quids are effectively a state sponsored labor strike. The only thing missing is the picket signs outside of the business.
This serves the Dem narrative . Robert Reich tweeted that there is no labor shortage .“There is a shortage of employers willing to pay their workers a living wage.”
Quid on Monday was an echo chamber for that sentiment . “People will come back to work if they’re paid a decent wage.” You would think he was a union strongman boss instead of the President .The difference is that the Dems have the power to dip into government red ink to attempt to jack up wages

Let me give you one practical consequence that I have seen since moving to South Carolina. Here when you walk into the grocery store there is one employee greeting you and offering a shopping cart . There are numerous employees keeping the shelves stocked and assisting customers . There is one employee at the register and one bagging groceries and offering to bring them to your car.

In NY there was unresponsive staff who could not even correctly tell you what aisle the groceries you want to purchase was in . There was a handful of clerks at the registers but the bulk of the check out was computer self check out .
Forcing higher wages will bring an obvious reaction by employers .It will accelerate the pace of automation and other strategies to improve operation efficiencies without adding workers. . Those jobs will no longer be available .
Right now because of the labor demand employers are sucking it up and hiring what they can. I even hear of monetary incentives being offered just to apply
But eventually the generous benefits will run dry .September is the date . I do not believe there is the vote and the rationale to extend benefits further . At that point employers will get to pick and choose ;and if their employees are not productively at the top of their game ,there will be no reason to retain them.

If the government is going to spend taxpayer money on an employment program ,it should be on helping the lower skilled person obtain the training needed to compete in the labor market of the future . It should not be an incentive to take a government paid leave from the workforce .

You certainly have it good with all that service, here we find things for ourselves in isles marked with appropriate signage, we have multiple checkouts and shopping trolleys so we don't have anyone assist us to the car park and the employees are all paid more than minimum wage

employees are all paid more than minimum wageI don't believe for one second that "all" of the workforce in Australia makes more than minimum wage considering that the minimum wage there, for those 21 and above, is about 18 dollars an hour. Here, only 2% of the American workforce makes minimum wage, so the net effect is about the same as "all". In my area right now, practically everyone is paying considerably above minimum wage.

For the record, 18 an hour seems kind of high, but I like your approach of allowing those under 21 to make less than 18 an hour. I could be talked into a higher min wage here if provision was made for young and new employees to be able to make less so they can still get jobs.

If the government is going to spend taxpayer money on an employment program ,it should be on helping the lower skilled person obtain the training needed to compete in the labor market of the future.
Exactly! Start with education. Put together classes in middle school and high school that will help students identify their particular skills and abilities, teach them new ones, offer internships -- and keep this vocational program current with the times and with the needs of society.

I don't believe for one second that "all" of the workforce in Australia makes more than minimum wage considering that the minimum wage there, for those 21 and above, is about 18 dollars an hour. Here, only 2% of the American workforce makes minimum wage, so the net effect is about the same as "all". In my area right now, practically everyone is paying considerably above minimum wage.

For the record, 18 an hour seems kind of high, but I like your approach of allowing those under 21 to make less than 18 an hour. I could be talked into a higher min wage here if provision was made for young and new employees to be able to make less so they can still get jobs.

You really must learn to read, I didn't say all, I said all the employees, and yes we do have a lower wage for lesser skilled youth. It seems your minimum wage is similar to ours, however, there is a compulsory superannuation contribution as well, so it is actually higher, the cost of things far from the centre of things being higher

You really must learn to read, I didn't say all, I said those,

It's exactly what you said. "and the employees are all paid more than minimum wage"

Perhaps you can point out the word "those" in your passage, a word which you claim above you used. "You certainly have it good with all that service, here we find things for ourselves in isles marked with appropriate signage, we have multiple checkouts and shopping trolleys so we don't have anyone assist us to the car park and the employees are all paid more than minimum wage."

Now perhaps you were only speaking of your local store. That's possible, but even then I would ask how you could know that they were ALL paid more than minimum wage?

It's exactly what you said. "and the employees are all paid more than minimum wage"

Perhaps you can point out the word "those" in your passage, a word which you claim above you used. "You certainly have it good with all that service, here we find things for ourselves in isles marked with appropriate signage, we have multiple checkouts and shopping trolleys so we don't have anyone assist us to the car park and the employees are all paid more than minimum wage."

Now perhaps you were only speaking of your local store. That's possible, but even then I would ask how you could know that they were ALL paid more than minimum wage?

I because they are all adults, some are even seniors and it is store policy, as it is a major chain. When will you get that when I comment on conditions here it is implied they exceed those there. I used to work for yanks who complained bitterly how much we were were paid without having reference to the cost of living, the distance, and the small population (size of market) they thought they could impose US standards here and the result is that people left for better wages and conditions elsewhere, me among them. You see we have a long history of labour laws which mandate fair wages and conditions and these cannot be undone at the whim of the employer

people left for better wages and conditions elsewhere, in other words the market set the wage

people left for better wages and conditions elsewhere,


in other words the market set the wage

Not exactly - you see we have a long history of labour laws which mandate fair wages and conditions and these cannot be undone at the whim of the employer

thank you captain obvious. Clete cited their minimum wage laws and then went on to say that laborers working for American companies chose to move on to companies that offered better opportunities . You know why I never hired anyone at minimum wages ? Because no one would've come to work at my plant for the minimum wage. That made the law about minimum wage irrelevant. The market set the price of labor.

The primary effect of raising minimum wage rates is to squeeze marginal and inexperienced workers out of jobs. We could raise the minimum wage in the U.S. by 50% and it would not result in increased wages for very many people, but it would continue to make it difficult for teens to get summer and part-time jobs and for inexperienced or poorly qualified adults to get full time employment. I would think the best approach is to encourage people to receive training for jobs that pay well. There are many of those out there. Going to college? Don't major in women's studies. Get a degree in engineering.

thank you captain obvious. Clete cited their minimum wage laws and then went on to say that laborers working for American companies chose to move on to companies that offered better opportunities .

I guess you're Captain Less-Than-Obvious. You got it exactly backwards. Clete cited the laborers and THEN went on to cite minimum wage laws.


no one would've come to work at my plant for the minimum wage. That made the law about minimum wage irrelevant. The market set the price of labor.

Not so. There were more workers than just you - like a few million more. The minimum wage law mandates a minimum wage. Surprised? If it were left to the market the minimum wage would be even lower.

If it were left to the market the minimum wage would be even lower.Actually, the market has moved wages in the other direction. 98% of American workers are paid ABOVE minimum wage. So if there was no minimum wage law, 98% of workers would be completely unaffected, and many of the 2% working at min wage would likely still make their current wage. The effect would be slight.


I guess you're Captain Less-Than-Obvious. You got it exactly backwards. Clete cited the laborers and THEN went on to cite minimum wage laws.Tom's point was that they were able to leave one job to go to another job which paid more. That's the market at work. Were American employers in Australia exempt from Australian min wage laws? I kind of doubt that, but perhaps it was so.

thank you captain obvious. Clete cited their minimum wage laws and then went on to say that laborers working for American companies chose to move on to companies that offered better opportunities . You know why I never hired anyone at minimum wages ? Because no one would've come to work at my plant for the minimum wage. That made the law about minimum wage irrelevant. The market set the price of labor.

Employers set the wages not markets and now they scream about lack of employees as they try to reopen. Go ahead, force workers to take those slave level wages with no benefits and let me know how that works out for those so called job creators that are hiring, and hollering. Simple truth is that a year of devastation won't be solved with a few weeks of high hopes and eager pursuit of profits without consideration of those people they want.

That logic doesn't even apply to larger companies just the smaller ones on mainstreet.

It applies to all companies. Historically low unemployment rates drive wages up. Simple economics. Best advice for anyone is to become really good at what is in demand.

You must recognize size differences and locations in an assessment of businesses and their options and situations.

yes tal it is called strategic planning but it seems few businesses truly go in for it these days

The truth is that most businesses ;especially small businesses in the service area ,run on very tight profit margins . That is the strategic factor they deal with . Grocery stores like the ones I mentioned typically are at 2% profit margin.

Yes we know, small business is more lifestyle than earner, but that grocery store you mentioned is over staffed by today's standards but that what comes of having an employ more for less philosophy. Have you heard of German grocer ALDI, at ALDI trolleys are coin accessed, goods don't leave the cartons they come in, the cartons form the shelves, you pack your own at the checkout, if you can find something to pack it in and you bring your own trolley back from the car park. It is an interesting business model

At Walmart here you check yourself out, bag your groceries,,and haul it all out to the car.

sounds like a similar approach

Just like many businesses and stores that have not survived the pandemic. Even before covid many businesses failed in the first years anyway, and others are forced to modify the business plan with the onset of expanding online business. It's a never ending cycle of adjustments to outside forces and conditions. The funny thing is to incentivize business, you throw money at them, while incentivizing people you take money from them. Hoarders of wealth are job creators while poor people are lazy.

Hoarders of wealth are job creators while poor people are lazy.

I know your sarcasm knows no bounds Tal, but poor people are not lazy when given opportunity and fair wages and those opportunities exist for the hoarders of wealth like Gates, Soros and Buffett to make money by investing in people

poor people are not lazy when given opportunity and fair wagesTrue for some but certainly not for all.

True for some but certainly not for all.

JL your bias and privilege is showing

Clete, your ignorance is showing if you really believe that all poor people are looking for a job. It's hard to believe that anyone accepts such a plainly false idea. The more you post here, the more you sadly sound like the typical liberal dem. They love to refer to the ridiculous idea that "privilege" and "bias" somehow negate truth.

JL your bias and privilege is showing taken right out of the woke dictionary . It just makes economic sense that if you can get more benefit from getting largess from the government that it is a disincentive to look for work. I don't blame those who take advantage of the government's misguided generosity of other people's money.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. " ( Alexander Fraser Tytler)

There are fifteen dollar an hour jobs advertised in our area. The instant a person takes it, they are no longer "poor". They certainly are not rich, but it is in working and applying yourself that prosperity becomes possible. Staying on the liberal dem welfare plantation virtually guarantees a life of poverty. Living in public housing facilities virtually guarantees a life of chaos and danger.

you are naïve in the extreme, yes it is better to have employment than not, but to say that a person with a $15 an hour job is not poor is a deliberate lie, and why should people not take public housing if they need it?

to say that a person with a $15 an hour job is not poor is a deliberate lieThe official rate of poverty for a family of four in the U.S. is 25,700. Fifteen dollars an hour amounts to more than 30,000 a year, or more like 45,000 if you work sixty hours a week. If you don't know what you're talking about, and clearly you don't, then you would be better off saying nothing. There is no lying going on, only a display of your ignorance. It is, as I said, certainly not wealth, but it's a start in the right direction and is the only pathway out. And if a wife and hubby both work at 40 hrs a week, they come in at nearly 65K and that's not chicken feed.


and why should people not take public housing if they need it?Between the two of us, I'm the one with experience in dealing with those who are living in public housing. The chaos and crime is staggering in those places. I had a parent tell me one time that she never let her children go outside of her apartment once they got home from school. The place was that bad, and yet it was not the worst. They are terrible places for raising children. Now perhaps you don't care about that, but I do.

Do your homework before you post.

Those two liberal dem paragons of charity, K Harris and J Biden, reported AGI of 3mil and1 mil respectively. Their charitable giving was 1% for KH and 1.5% for JB. Impressive? Nope. The figures are for 2019.

"The average giving for a comparable income level is 8.3%, studies of philanthropic giving show (https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives)."



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-kamala-harris-and-her-husband-gave-less-than-1-5-of-2019-income-to-charity

The official rate of poverty for a family of four in the U.S. is 25,700. Fifteen dollars an hour amounts to more than 30,000 a year, or more like 45,000 if you work sixty hours a week. If you don't know what you're talking about, and clearly you don't, then you would be better off saying nothing. There is no lying going on, only a display of your ignorance. It is, as I said, certainly not wealth, but it's a start in the right direction and is the only pathway out. And if a wife and hubby both work at 40 hrs a week, they come in at nearly 65K and that's not chicken feed.

Between the two of us, I'm the one with experience in dealing with those who are living in public housing. The chaos and crime is staggering in those places. I had a parent tell me one time that she never let her children go outside of her apartment once they got home from school. The place was that bad, and yet it was not the worst. They are terrible places for raising children. Now perhaps you don't care about that, but I do.

Do your homework before you post.

It is you who should do your homework. Firstly, apparently you get out of poverty by working 60 hours a week in some back breaking job. So life and according to you the high life for a husband and wife who does so.

Secondly I grew up in public housing and I find your attitude appalling

Those two liberal dem paragons of charity, K Harris and J Biden, reported AGI of 3mil and1 mil respectively. Their charitable giving was 1% for KH and 1.5% for JB. Impressive? Nope. The figures are for 2019.

"The average giving for a comparable income level is 8.3%, studies of philanthropic giving show (https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives)."



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-kamala-harris-and-her-husband-gave-less-than-1-5-of-2019-income-to-charity

Joe and Kamala look great next to the dufus using his charities to bilk contributors. They had to disband it and give the money back and ban him for life from running a charity.


It is you who should do your homework. Firstly, apparently you get out of poverty by working 60 hours a week in some back breaking job. So life and according to you the high life for a husband and wife who does so.

Secondly I grew up in public housing and I find your attitude appalling

When we agree we totally agree! Takes YEARS to get out of public housing, decades even.

If a person has to work sixty hours a week then so be it. He will then have the opportunity to escape poverty and become self supporting. And stop with the drama about back breaking jobs.

You were not raised in the public housing that exists here. And from ten thousand miles away you have no clue.

If a person has to work sixty hours a week then so be it. He will then have the opportunity to escape poverty and become self supporting. And stop with the drama about back breaking jobs.
Sixty hours a week is two full-time jobs (16+ hrs/day). Please name two such jobs that one person can do that will get him out of poverty and make him self supporting. And how long will that take?

You were not raised in the public housing that exists here. And from ten thousand miles away you have no clue.
Tell us about public housing in this country.

Sixty hours a week is not two full time jobs. Work the math. When I was a teacher I also worked a part time job to make ends meet. A lot of people have done it. No one said it would be easy.

I told you about public housing above.

Sixty hours a week is not two full time jobs. Work the math.
37.5 + 37.5 = two full time jobs = 75.0 hrs.

I told you about public housing above.
Not much. If it's so horrible, why do people apply for it?

Full time is forty and 75 is not 60.

You’d have to ask them.

Full time is forty and 75 is not 60.
Nope. FT = 37.5.

You’d have to ask them.
You seem to be the expert.

When we agree we totally agree! Takes YEARS to get out of public housing, decades even.

No I was out by 14, went to sea, later banking, and did come back to live my father while I did college. It wasn't that hard to get out, it wasn't that hard to get a decent job, and it wasn't that hard to get on, so stop with the condemnatory attitudes and realise all people have value, ambition but not everyone has the means

....realise all people have value, ambition all people have value . It is not true that all people have ambition .I have seen plenty of people with the means and the skill set to advance and were either content or had other reasons to not do so. I would often suggest to an employee to apply to openings that I thought they could easily perform .Some did . Many did not even though it would've worked to their benefit .

Nope. FT = 37.5.Use that figure if you want to, but even then sixty hours is NOT two full time jobs or 16 hours a day as you had falsely said. The point is that a person should do what is necessary to support himself and his family. It is not easy, but it is possible. A husband and wife, even with your 75 hours a week for two jobs, would make more than 1100 dollars a week if you assume a fifteen an hour wage rate. That's a good start. Work hard. Work smart. Avoid debt.


all people have value . It is not true that all people have ambition.A statement so true that it is hard to imagine how Clete could have said otherwise. There are MANY people out there with little to no ambition.

Doesn't take much for a poor struggling family to get thrown under the bus by circumstances beyond their control like an economic downturn or injury illness or death. Or prices that rise higher than your wages, or even the local plant closing and moving operations elsewhere!

Use that figure if you want to, but even then sixty hours is NOT two full time jobs or 16 hours a day as you had falsely said.
I went a step further than your 60 hrs. a week and explained that 70 hours a week is two FT jobs. Not simultaneous, but one after the other.


There are MANY people out there with little to no ambition.
And why is that?

I went a step further than your 60 hrs. a week and explained that 70 hours a week is two FT jobs. Not simultaneous, but one after the other.No, you didn't. Try some honesty. You said 75 hours. I said sixty. Sixty is 40 (full time) plus 20 (part time). People do it all the time. Now if you want to call 75 hours two full time jobs, then fine. But I didn't say anything about 75 hours. I said sixty hours. Full time (40) plus part time (20).

Good grief.

No, you didn't. Try some honesty. You said 75 hours. I said sixty. Sixty is 40 (full time) plus 20 (part time). People do it all the time. Now if you want to call 75 hours two full time jobs, then fine. But I didn't say anything about 75 hours. I said sixty hours. Full time (40) plus part time (20).

Good grief.
And that's NOT two FT jobs!!!. One FT = 37.5. Two FT is 75. And 60 hrs. a week will NOT get him out of poverty.

Arguing about nothing again if you have a job you are lucky because many don't and urging people to have more than one is greed

And that's NOT two FT jobs!!!.First you say it is ("37.5 + 37.5 = two full time jobs = 75.0 hrs." "I went a step further than your 60 hrs. a week and explained that 70 hours a week is two FT jobs"), and now you say it's not with three exclamation marks!!!

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you somewhere in this?


And 60 hrs. a week will NOT get him out of poverty.Have already shown that it will. Keep up. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848114&page=7&p=3869129#post3869129

You do realize that simply putting the word "not" in all caps does NOT make your point correct?

IF two people work that sixty hours a week then who takes care of the kids or gets the one family car for work? All that depends on being able to get those 60 hours a week and in some places it's not available or logistically possible. Not everyone can even work 60 hours a week for long periods of time let alone a mom and dad, and especially not a single parent. Burnout is no joke.

Sounds good on paper though, and in conversation, but reality is a bit trickier.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you somewhere in this?

My fault. I'm sorry. Have been very stressed because my hemaglobin number has been dropping. I misunderstood what you wrote. Tal gave an excellent response just above this one.

My fault. I'm sorry. Have been very stressed because my hemaglobin number has been dropping. I misunderstood what you wrote. Tal gave an excellent response just above this one.Take care of yourself, WG. I'll be praying for you. BTW, hope your husband is doing better.

I have to tell you a story. You have complained REPEATEDLY in the past that I am too literal. Never really thought about it before, but I think you have a point there. I do tend to be very literal in reading the words of others. I'm very careful with what I say/write, and I just assume everyone else is as well, but that's really not the case. I still think you take far too many liberties with Scripture. As I told a friend yesterday, you can't get a meaning from reading "between the lines" that does violence to the lines themselves. Still, I thought you would be cheered somewhat to see that yes, I do listen to your observations.

I don't read Tal's posts. His mind is far, far too far into the gutter.

IF two people work that sixty hours a week then who takes care of the kids or gets the one family car for work? All that depends on being able to get those 60 hours a week and in some places it's not available or logistically possible. Not everyone can even work 60 hours a week for long periods of time let alone a mom and dad, and especially not a single parent. Burnout is no joke.

Sounds good on paper though, and in conversation, but reality is a bit trickier.it is forgotten why the 40 hour week came into being it was so people didn't have to work under the slave labour conditions you propose

the 40 hr week was a fantasy to me since I was an adult . As a laborer I put in 60 hr weeks routinely . As a manager my hours were even longer especially when you consider that I was on call for both shifts of operation

so people didn't have to work under the slave labour conditions you proposeMore foolish drama. When I was a school principal I could only dream of a forty hour workweek. An American man does what he needs to do to support his family.

the 40 hr week was a fantasy to me since I was an adult . As a laborer I put in 60 hr weeks routinely . As a manager my hours were even longer especially when you consider that I was on call for both shifts of operation

You like me worked whatever the boss let us work. Worker hours are set by the boss.

the 40 hr week was a fantasy to me since I was an adult . As a laborer I put in 60 hr weeks routinely . As a manager my hours were even longer especially when you consider that I was on call for both shifts of operationmore fool you, why should others have to do the same

more fool you, why should others have to do the sameBecause that's the real world.

I did not do it for the love of the work . My responsibility was to take care of my family ;and I took that responsibility seriously

It's what people do who do not want to live on the government dole, and who want to have an opportunity for some financial success in life for themselves and their families. Living on welfare is living on the low end.

In my case I did love my work. If I could still do it I'd be back at work in a school.

Yes I know teachers love their jobs. They do the extra work without pay , and sometimes foot the bill for supplies.

They are underappreciated and are poorly represented by the unions that allegedly represent their interests .

I never complained about the extended hours .
this is the business we've chosen - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-R2p6DdK8M)

Thankfully, I was never in a union. Was in a professional organization, but not a liberal one.