 |
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?
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.Quote:
to say that a person with a $15 an hour job is not poor is a deliberate lie
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.Quote:
and why should people not take public housing if they need it?
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.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ome-to-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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Secondly I grew up in public housing and I find your attitude appalling
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
When we agree we totally agree! Takes YEARS to get out of public housing, decades even.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Tell us about public housing in this country.Quote:
You were not raised in the public housing that exists here. And from ten thousand miles away you have no clue.
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.
37.5 + 37.5 = two full time jobs = 75.0 hrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Not much. If it's so horrible, why do people apply for it?Quote:
I told you about public housing above.
Full time is forty and 75 is not 60.
You’d have to ask them.
Nope. FT = 37.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You seem to be the expert.Quote:
You’d have to ask them.
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 meansQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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 .Quote:
....realise all people have value, ambition
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.Quote:
Nope. FT = 37.5.
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.Quote:
all people have value . It is not true that all people have 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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And why is that?Quote:
There are MANY people out there with little to no ambition.
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).Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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
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!!!Quote:
And that's NOT two FT jobs!!!.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you somewhere in this?
Have already shown that it will. Keep up. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...29#post3869129Quote:
And 60 hrs. a week will NOT get him out of poverty.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Take care of yourself, WG. I'll be praying for you. BTW, hope your husband is doing better.Quote:
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.
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.
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 proposeQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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
More 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.Quote:
so people didn't have to work under the slave labour conditions you propose
You like me worked whatever the boss let us work. Worker hours are set by the boss.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
more fool you, why should others have to do the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Because that's the real world.Quote:
more fool you, why should others have to do the same
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
Thankfully, I was never in a union. Was in a professional organization, but not a liberal one.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 AM. |