Immigration is Destroying America.

[Kondor3]

Never mind.

I re-read what you said, and you were right - that is not what you said.

In truth, you evaded serving-up a direct answer, by discounting the value of 'training' in the scenario being discussed.

Pity.

I gave you credit for more balls than that.

 

[Unkotare]

And, while I'm at it, what the hell is wrong with you, giving me that kind of shit, when I've never directed any such thing at you?

While you're at it, stop whining like a little *****.

 

[Kondor3]

And, while I'm at it, what the hell is wrong with you, giving me that kind of shit, when I've never directed any such thing at you?

While you're at it, stop whining like a little *****.

Back to the Kiddie Table with you, junior... you're bothering the grownups again.

 

[High_Gravity]

I am all for LEGAL Immigration, illegal immigration I oppose profusely.

 

[RKMBrown]

Never mind.

I re-read what you said, and you were right - that is not what you said.

In truth, you evaded serving-up a direct answer, by discounting the value of 'training' in the scenario being discussed.

Pity.

I gave you credit for more balls than that.

You need to be more specific in your question, if you want a more specific answer. The question could be read in a number of different ways.

When you say immigrant do you mean American who immigrated and became an American, political refuge who was gifted citizenship, foreigner here on a student visa looking for part time work over the summer, someone with a foreign accent looking for a small contract job like building your backyard deck, American with non-white skin color, H1B visa worker from India, Chinese citizen temporarily here on work or student visa, or someone you know to be an illegal Mexican immigrant? Which one?

You say discounting the value of training is evidence of a lack of balls. I say what training are you talking about and for what job? If I have two software engineer candidates in front of me who will be working on a two year project that uses a particular type of data base, I'm taking the better engineer not the one with specific experience in that database as I know that the amount of time it takes to get accustomed with a database is negligible for a good engineer. In my experience the delta between top notch engineers out weighs specific experience by an order of magnitude.

That said if I'm looking for systems engineer I'm not gonna hire an IT guy who thinks it would be cool to learn to be a systems engineer, as I know it will take many years to train the IT guy to be a Systems Engineer even if he has the aptitude.

If that IT guy wants to become an Engineer he can take out a loan and get the education.

You see, your question was not specific enough to answer. Could I come up with a scenario where there is a viable choice between an American and an Immigrant, and not a choice between two Engineers, .... I suppose I could but you have not done that.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am all for LEGAL Immigration, illegal immigration I oppose profusely.

I also oppose illegal immigration, and oppose hiring illegals. I'd like to see the folks that do it fined to the point where it no longer makes sense to hire illegals.

That said, even the illegals need work. It's a lot harder to turn away a man with a family who is looking to do hard work for a fair wage when he's looking you in the face than it is to say so in an internet forum.

It's different here in TX, it's really hard to tell the difference between legal work crews and illegal work crews. On the crews that have some illegals there's usually a mix that also include texicans, the work is hard and the pay is good. Americans wanting hard work for a good wage do exist but there seems to be a natural tendency for the crews to be one or the other. For example, in construction the Americans tend to the carpentry, electrical work, concrete, and plumbing,.. the crews of texican origin tend to be roofers, stone masons, sheet rock, painters, etc.

I say texican to describe folks who seem to be mexican but might be Americans, how do you know? The ones that seem to be mexican typically don't speak english at all, and don't seem to want to engage in conversation, they sort of smile or shift around if you glance their way No offense but you can sort of guess they might be fresh from the border. That said we do have legal immigration "fresh from the border" so who knows?

 

[Kondor3]

Never mind.

I re-read what you said, and you were right - that is not what you said.

In truth, you evaded serving-up a direct answer, by discounting the value of 'training' in the scenario being discussed.

Pity.

I gave you credit for more balls than that.

You need to be more specific in your question, if you want a more specific answer. The question could be read in a number of different ways.

When you say immigrant do you mean American who immigrated and became an American, political refuge who was gifted citizenship, foreigner here on a student visa looking for part time work over the summer, someone with a foreign accent looking for a small contract job like building your backyard deck, American with non-white skin color, H1B visa worker from India, Chinese citizen temporarily here on work or student visa, or someone you know to be an illegal Mexican immigrant? Which one?

You say discounting the value of training is evidence of a lack of balls. I say what training are you talking about and for what job? If I have two software engineer candidates in front of me who will be working on a two year project that uses a particular type of data base, I'm taking the better engineer not the one with specific experience in that database as I know how that the amount of time it takes to get accustomed with a database is negligible for a good engineer. In my experience the delta between top notch engineers out weighs specific experience by an order of magnitude.

That said if I'm looking for systems engineer I'm not gonna hire an IT guy who thinks it would be cool to learn to be a systems engineer, as I know it will take many years to train the IT guy to be an Systems Engineer even if he has the aptitude.

If that IT guy wants to become an Engineer he can take out a loan and get the education.

You see, your question was not specific enough to answer. Could I come up with a scenario where there is a choice between an American and an Immigrant, and not a choice between two Engineers, .... I suppose I could but you have not done that.

I avoided industry- or sector-specifics for exactly this reason; preferring to paint with a broader brush and to serve-up a generic choice between investing a bit of money in the (re-)training of an American worker, versus choosing an immigrant that has already undergone the training.

But, fine, I should be able to drill-down sufficiently to help us facilitate this choice, without over-reaching or annoying either of us...

------------------

SCENARIO:

01. This is May 2014.

02. Your long-range project schedule indicates a need for a worker in 6 months.

03. Entry-level software developer.

04. MCSD certification or equivalent combination of training and experience.

05. Coursework emphasis on:

a. .Net 4.x.
b. Visual Studio 2012
c. M$-SQL Server
d. C#
e. IP networking
f. M$-Server 2012 Enterprise

06. Two extremely high-caliber candidates present themselves.

a. an American citizen.

b. a foreign national looking to immigrate, and willing to pay his own way here.

c. Your search is over; you want one of these two; nobody else would be better.

07. Neither have any prior skillset-specific work experience.

08. Both place well re: communications, personality, intellect, perceived work-ethic, etc.

09. Both want (and expect) the same starting salary and benefits.

10. Both are in school, due to graduate with your needed skills, 5-1/2 months from now.

a. the American via a domestic trade/tech school; funded by taxpayer retraining dollars

b. the foreigner via an overseas trade/tech school; funding source is immaterial

11. Your choice is:

a. the American worker; taking advantage of the outcome achieved via those
taxpayer dollars; with the added bonus of taking him-or-her off of welfare.

b. the foreign worker; taking advantage of his education through means other
than that provided by US tax dollars; sponsoring him as he enters the US;
with him reimbursing you for any outlay or administrative costs; zero-sum.

=================

Hopefully, that is specific enough for your purposes.

If not, feel free to continue tweaking the model until it yields something that you think would be agreeable to the two of us, in pursuit of that 'straight answer'.

 

[RKMBrown]

Never mind.

I re-read what you said, and you were right - that is not what you said.

In truth, you evaded serving-up a direct answer, by discounting the value of 'training' in the scenario being discussed.

Pity.

I gave you credit for more balls than that.

You need to be more specific in your question, if you want a more specific answer. The question could be read in a number of different ways.

When you say immigrant do you mean American who immigrated and became an American, political refuge who was gifted citizenship, foreigner here on a student visa looking for part time work over the summer, someone with a foreign accent looking for a small contract job like building your backyard deck, American with non-white skin color, H1B visa worker from India, Chinese citizen temporarily here on work or student visa, or someone you know to be an illegal Mexican immigrant? Which one?

You say discounting the value of training is evidence of a lack of balls. I say what training are you talking about and for what job? If I have two software engineer candidates in front of me who will be working on a two year project that uses a particular type of data base, I'm taking the better engineer not the one with specific experience in that database as I know how that the amount of time it takes to get accustomed with a database is negligible for a good engineer. In my experience the delta between top notch engineers out weighs specific experience by an order of magnitude.

That said if I'm looking for systems engineer I'm not gonna hire an IT guy who thinks it would be cool to learn to be a systems engineer, as I know it will take many years to train the IT guy to be an Systems Engineer even if he has the aptitude.

If that IT guy wants to become an Engineer he can take out a loan and get the education.

You see, your question was not specific enough to answer. Could I come up with a scenario where there is a choice between an American and an Immigrant, and not a choice between two Engineers, .... I suppose I could but you have not done that.

I avoided industry- or sector-specifics for exactly this reason; preferring to paint with a broader brush and to serve-up a generic choice between investing a bit of money in the (re-)training of an American worker, versus choosing an immigrant that has already undergone the training.

But, fine, I should be able to drill-down sufficiently to help us facilitate this choice, without over-reaching or annoying either of us...

------------------

SCENARIO:

01. This is May 2014.

02. Your long-range project schedule indicates a need for a worker in 6 months.

03. Entry-level software developer.

04. MCSD certification or equivalent combination of training and experience.

05. Coursework emphasis on:

a. .Net 4.x.
b. Visual Studio 2012
c. M$-SQL Server
d. C#
e. IP networking
f. M$-Server 2012 Enterprise

06. Two extremely high-caliber candidates present themselves.

a. an American citizen.

b. a foreign national looking to immigrate, and willing to pay his own way here.

c. Your search is over; you want one of these two; nobody else would be better.

07. Neither have any prior skillset-specific work experience.

08. Both place well re: communications, personality, intellect, perceived work-ethic, etc.

09. Both want (and expect) the same starting salary and benefits.

10. Both are in school, due to graduate with your needed skills, 5-1/2 months from now.

a. the American via a domestic trade/tech school; funded by taxpayer retraining dollars

b. the foreigner via an overseas trade/tech school; funding source is immaterial

11. Your choice is:

a. the American worker; taking advantage of the outcome achieved via those
taxpayer dollars; with the added bonus of taking him-or-her off of welfare.

b. the foreign worker; taking advantage of his education through means other
than that provided by US tax dollars; sponsoring him as he enters the US;
with him reimbursing you for any outlay or administrative costs; zero-sum.

=================

Hopefully, that is specific enough for your purposes.

If not, feel free to continue tweaking the model until it yields something that you think would be agreeable to the two of us, in pursuit of that 'straight answer'.

I choose a. I see no reason to hold the American's training process against him. The program was offered and he took advantage of it, good for him.

As for the domestic trade/tech school funded by taxpayer retraining dollars, I'd have to know more about that program before making my opinion on it. Were the dollars provided voluntarily by the citizens? If so that's great. If the tax payer dollars were taken by force... against the will of citizens in one region of the country to fund particular citizens in another region based solely on region or race or some other selection criteria to the exclusion of others, well then I'd say burn that program to the ground. I'd rather see locals fund and manage their own training programs for jobs that return tax dollars in that region. Locally managed programs of this sort are usually more productive than unmanaged programs run by DC.

For example, a corporation wants to move to a region and build a plant there and hire thousands of workers. The region offers up a tax incentives and a training program to supply the corporation with a workforce for their new plant when constructed. Win / win.

The main difference here, to me, is that IMO local taxes such as sales and real-estate taxes are voluntary and managed by local votes in so far as you are free to move to a different region of the country if you don't like what the other folks in that region want. By contrast, a federal program that is funded with income taxes is not voluntary for the group of Americans that disagree and there is no region of the country to move in this case.

I would not live in California or New York. I have no interest in being a libertarian conservative in a liberal state.

You see for these federal programs there are only two choices when you are in disagreement, stop working (or at least reduce your income which is what I've done in protest) or leave the country.

 

[protectionist]

Yanno...............if someone is willing to put their asses on the front line, defending what this country says they stand for, if the can serve at least one full enlistment (4 years), then they should be citizens.

I mean..................only 1 percent of the current population of this country is willing to do so, and the other 99 percent like to state how much they support the troops.

If you're an immigrant, and are willing to support this country in all it's battles, and serve, even if it means you get sent to the front lines, you should have citizenship for this nation.

Lots of others only go to college and state how they would defend this country. If you enlist, you actually DO care about defending this nation.

So all the 10 things listed in Post # 903 just went right over your head, right ?

Pheeeeww!! This forum amazes me more and more every day.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/geez.gif

 

[protectionist]

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are not going to "throttle-back on immigration." No matter how badly some frightened dimwits would like it to be, we will not. No matter how ignorant of what this country is and what it stands for some idiots posting here are, we will not. Social security is going to run up against inevitability sooner or later; the fact of our continued immigration will just give us more time to change or replace that system once that inevitability finally pumps some political courage into our representatives. Read again: We are NOT going to "throttle-back on immigration." At least not legal immigration. We need not, we should not, and we will not. Some idiots are very busy denying reality when they should be getting busy accepting the FACTS as I have presented them.

Who do you think you are ? The president of the United States ? You have nothing to say about what we do regarding immigration.
And you happen to be DEAD WRONG. You say >> "we are not going to "throttle-back on immigration" Well, that's FALSE!


We just DID THROTTLE BACK ON IMMIGRATION, a couple of hours ago TODAY, when the US Supreme Court made a ruling that allows landlords to discriminate against illegal aliens.

The SCOTUS left intact a Nebraska town's ordinance that cracks down on illegal immigration, declining to hear an appeal filed by a civil rights group. (MALDEF - Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-immigration-20140505,0,1985729.story

 

[Kondor3]

You need to be more specific in your question, if you want a more specific answer. The question could be read in a number of different ways.

When you say immigrant do you mean American who immigrated and became an American, political refuge who was gifted citizenship, foreigner here on a student visa looking for part time work over the summer, someone with a foreign accent looking for a small contract job like building your backyard deck, American with non-white skin color, H1B visa worker from India, Chinese citizen temporarily here on work or student visa, or someone you know to be an illegal Mexican immigrant? Which one?

You say discounting the value of training is evidence of a lack of balls. I say what training are you talking about and for what job? If I have two software engineer candidates in front of me who will be working on a two year project that uses a particular type of data base, I'm taking the better engineer not the one with specific experience in that database as I know how that the amount of time it takes to get accustomed with a database is negligible for a good engineer. In my experience the delta between top notch engineers out weighs specific experience by an order of magnitude.

That said if I'm looking for systems engineer I'm not gonna hire an IT guy who thinks it would be cool to learn to be a systems engineer, as I know it will take many years to train the IT guy to be an Systems Engineer even if he has the aptitude.

If that IT guy wants to become an Engineer he can take out a loan and get the education.

You see, your question was not specific enough to answer. Could I come up with a scenario where there is a choice between an American and an Immigrant, and not a choice between two Engineers, .... I suppose I could but you have not done that.

I avoided industry- or sector-specifics for exactly this reason; preferring to paint with a broader brush and to serve-up a generic choice between investing a bit of money in the (re-)training of an American worker, versus choosing an immigrant that has already undergone the training.

But, fine, I should be able to drill-down sufficiently to help us facilitate this choice, without over-reaching or annoying either of us...

------------------

SCENARIO:

01. This is May 2014.

02. Your long-range project schedule indicates a need for a worker in 6 months.

03. Entry-level software developer.

04. MCSD certification or equivalent combination of training and experience.

05. Coursework emphasis on:

a. .Net 4.x.
b. Visual Studio 2012
c. M$-SQL Server
d. C#
e. IP networking
f. M$-Server 2012 Enterprise

06. Two extremely high-caliber candidates present themselves.

a. an American citizen.

b. a foreign national looking to immigrate, and willing to pay his own way here.

c. Your search is over; you want one of these two; nobody else would be better.

07. Neither have any prior skillset-specific work experience.

08. Both place well re: communications, personality, intellect, perceived work-ethic, etc.

09. Both want (and expect) the same starting salary and benefits.

10. Both are in school, due to graduate with your needed skills, 5-1/2 months from now.

a. the American via a domestic trade/tech school; funded by taxpayer retraining dollars

b. the foreigner via an overseas trade/tech school; funding source is immaterial

11. Your choice is:

a. the American worker; taking advantage of the outcome achieved via those
taxpayer dollars; with the added bonus of taking him-or-her off of welfare.

b. the foreign worker; taking advantage of his education through means other
than that provided by US tax dollars; sponsoring him as he enters the US;
with him reimbursing you for any outlay or administrative costs; zero-sum.

=================

Hopefully, that is specific enough for your purposes.

If not, feel free to continue tweaking the model until it yields something that you think would be agreeable to the two of us, in pursuit of that 'straight answer'.

I choose a. I see no reason to hold the American's training process against him. The program was offered and he took advantage of it, good for him.

Good for you.

Me too.

...As for the domestic trade/tech school funded by taxpayer retraining dollars, I'd have to know more about that program before making my opinion on it...

Regular junior/community colleges and commercial tech/trade schools, who accept Training Vouchers from government job re-training programs; simply a percentage of their business.

...Were the dollars provided voluntarily by the citizens? If so that's great...

In the case of WIA (Workforce Investment Act) grant money, we're looking at Federal (US Dept of Labor) dollars, passing-through the the 50 States, and, in turn, passing through to the various Counties in each State; with each County running its own Workforce Development agency; designed to recruit those in need of training; to require them to pass various tests and readiness classes in advance of actual job-training; then issuing training vouchers to various schools whose programs have been accredited by the State and the US Dept of Labor as providers of training programs which may be paid-for by such grant money.

...If the tax payer dollars were taken by force... against the will of citizens in one region of the country to fund particular citizens in another region based solely on region or race or some other selection criteria to the exclusion of others, well then I'd say burn that program to the ground...

We are probably close to being on the same page, when it comes to programming that serves-up preferential treatment based upon region or race, etc.

Given that WIA (and kindred, if any) is ubiquitous, we can probably rule that out, in this particular case.

...I'd rather see locals fund and manage their own training programs for jobs that return tax dollars in that region. Locally managed programs of this sort are usually more productive than unmanaged programs run by DC...

Something like WIA seems to be a mix-and-match; Federal pass-through dollars, but overseen locally (at the County level); with the Feds and the various States providing guidelines or boundaries or parameters, but with (apparently) considerable creative latitude in connection with recruiting, vetting, and all the preliminaries, as well as disbursements, timetables, outcomes and performance monitoring, and the like.

...For example, a corporation wants to move to a region and build a plant there and hire thousands of workers. The region offers up a tax incentives and a training program to supply the corporation with a workforce for their new plant when constructed. Win / win...

You know... I would not be surprised if a fair number of Counties do just that, in connection with WIA and its kindred, but, truth be told, I don't know that for a fact. I'll confess that the idea has piqued my interest sufficiently to do a little trawling on the Internet to see what I can glean on the subject.

...The main difference here, to me, is that IMO local taxes such as sales and real-estate taxes are voluntary and managed by local votes in so far as you are free to move to a different region of the country if you don't like what the other folks in that region want...

Nolo contendere.

...By contrast, a federal program that is funded with income taxes is not voluntary for the group of Americans that disagree and there is no region of the country to move in this case...

Nolo contendere.

The only saving grace of a WIA-like program, in the taxpayer-angst context, is that it holds out the realistic prospect of getting somebody off the dole, which is also funded in whole or in part by Federal income tax dollars.

Rather like spending a dime to make a dollar, metaphorically speaking.

If one must have such programming (welfare, training) at all, funded by Federal tax dollars, then a program designed to lessen the burden seems rather desirable.

...You see for these federal programs there are only two choices when you are in disagreement, stop working (or at least reduce your income which is what I've done in protest) or leave the country.

Nolo contendere.

It's just that rather than float somebody on the dole for years on-end, I'd prefer to take the hit on the front-end load, get him (or her) (re-)trained, and cut 'em loose on the economy, and to get 'em off the dole.

The lesser of two evils... the perfect is the enemy of the good... and all that happy horseshit.

 

[Unkotare]

And, while I'm at it, what the hell is wrong with you, giving me that kind of shit, when I've never directed any such thing at you?

While you're at it, stop whining like a little *****.

Back to the Kiddie Table with you, junior... you're bothering the grownups again.

Try again, little *****.

 

[protectionist]

If it weren't for immigration, U wouldn't be here..Neither would the U.S. be the source of grand inventions involving the use of electricity,..like the phone and lightbulb.

So what ? None of that has anything to do with the fact that NOW, in 2014, the US is badly overpopulated, immigration is causing massive unemployment and a long list of other harms to Americans. Nice to see you show up to post, but next time make it be something relevant to the topic. Whether we would be here now or not, is irrelevant.

 

[Kondor3]

While you're at it, stop whining like a little *****.

Back to the Kiddie Table with you, junior... you're bothering the grownups again.

Try again, little *****.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[protectionist]

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are not going to "throttle-back on immigration." No matter how badly some frightened dimwits would like it to be, we will not. No matter how ignorant of what this country is and what it stands for some idiots posting here are, we will not. Social security is going to run up against inevitability sooner or later; the fact of our continued immigration will just give us more time to change or replace that system once that inevitability finally pumps some political courage into our representatives. Read again: We are NOT going to "throttle-back on immigration." At least not legal immigration. We need not, we should not, and we will not. Some idiots are very busy denying reality when they should be getting busy accepting the FACTS as I have presented them.

You, like another pissant on these boards, remind me of an old girlfriend.....

You don't expect anyone to believe you ever had a girlfriend, do you?

You are totally out of line, and a major discredit to this forum. If ever there was a contest between political forums, USMB would lose just because of you.

 

[protectionist]

I believe that our country must face reality...

Bullshit you do. You've been evading, denying, and dismissing "reality" throughout this thread. Don't be a fool AND a liar.

No he hasn't. He's been confronting the truth and expressing reality throughout this thread. If anyone has been a fool AND a liar, it's YOU.

 

[protectionist]

... and begin to live within its means....

As I've pointed out over and over, our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population. However, that is something of a moot point, since we are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. At this point, only the willfully stupid can fail to understand the situation as I have repeatedly explained it with a great deal of supporting facts.

Absolutely wrong, ridiculous, utter NONSENSE.

 

[protectionist]

it must begin to scale-back total population

Exactly the opposite is the problem that we must face before too long. There will be no deliberate "scale back" of legal immigration.

Let's see you present ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT idiotic proclamation.

In a way though, laughbly, there is some truth to that. There WON'T be a "scale back". There will be a TOTAL MORATORIUM on legal immigration, as well as deportation of many immigrants who came here legally. Maybe YOU will be one of them, Unaware. HA HA HA.

http://townhall.com/columnists/virgilgoode/2009/12/11/time_for_an_immigration_moratorium/page/full

http://www.balance.org/immigration.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_reduction_in_the_United_States

 

[RKMBrown]

I avoided industry- or sector-specifics for exactly this reason; preferring to paint with a broader brush and to serve-up a generic choice between investing a bit of money in the (re-)training of an American worker, versus choosing an immigrant that has already undergone the training.

But, fine, I should be able to drill-down sufficiently to help us facilitate this choice, without over-reaching or annoying either of us...

------------------

SCENARIO:

01. This is May 2014.

02. Your long-range project schedule indicates a need for a worker in 6 months.

03. Entry-level software developer.

04. MCSD certification or equivalent combination of training and experience.

05. Coursework emphasis on:

a. .Net 4.x.
b. Visual Studio 2012
c. M$-SQL Server
d. C#
e. IP networking
f. M$-Server 2012 Enterprise

06. Two extremely high-caliber candidates present themselves.

a. an American citizen.

b. a foreign national looking to immigrate, and willing to pay his own way here.

c. Your search is over; you want one of these two; nobody else would be better.

07. Neither have any prior skillset-specific work experience.

08. Both place well re: communications, personality, intellect, perceived work-ethic, etc.

09. Both want (and expect) the same starting salary and benefits.

10. Both are in school, due to graduate with your needed skills, 5-1/2 months from now.

a. the American via a domestic trade/tech school; funded by taxpayer retraining dollars

b. the foreigner via an overseas trade/tech school; funding source is immaterial

11. Your choice is:

a. the American worker; taking advantage of the outcome achieved via those
taxpayer dollars; with the added bonus of taking him-or-her off of welfare.

b. the foreign worker; taking advantage of his education through means other
than that provided by US tax dollars; sponsoring him as he enters the US;
with him reimbursing you for any outlay or administrative costs; zero-sum.

=================

Hopefully, that is specific enough for your purposes.

If not, feel free to continue tweaking the model until it yields something that you think would be agreeable to the two of us, in pursuit of that 'straight answer'.

I choose a. I see no reason to hold the American's training process against him. The program was offered and he took advantage of it, good for him.

Good for you.

Me too.


Regular junior/community colleges and commercial tech/trade schools, who accept Training Vouchers from government job re-training programs; simply a percentage of their business.


In the case of WIA (Workforce Investment Act) grant money, we're looking at Federal (US Dept of Labor) dollars, passing-through the the 50 States, and, in turn, passing through to the various Counties in each State; with each County running its own Workforce Development agency; designed to recruit those in need of training; to require them to pass various tests and readiness classes in advance of actual job-training; then issuing training vouchers to various schools whose programs have been accredited by the State and the US Dept of Labor as providers of training programs which may be paid-for by such grant money.


We are probably close to being on the same page, when it comes to programming that serves-up preferential treatment based upon region or race, etc.

Given that WIA (and kindred, if any) is ubiquitous, we can probably rule that out, in this particular case.


Something like WIA seems to be a mix-and-match; Federal pass-through dollars, but overseen locally (at the County level); with the Feds and the various States providing guidelines or boundaries or parameters, but with (apparently) considerable creative latitude in connection with recruiting, vetting, and all the preliminaries, as well as disbursements, timetables, outcomes and performance monitoring, and the like.


You know... I would not be surprised if a fair number of Counties do just that, in connection with WIA and its kindred, but, truth be told, I don't know that for a fact. I'll confess that the idea has piqued my interest sufficiently to do a little trawling on the Internet to see what I can glean on the subject.


Nolo contendere.

...By contrast, a federal program that is funded with income taxes is not voluntary for the group of Americans that disagree and there is no region of the country to move in this case...

Nolo contendere.

The only saving grace of a WIA-like program, in the taxpayer-angst context, is that it holds out the realistic prospect of getting somebody off the dole, which is also funded in whole or in part by Federal income tax dollars.

Rather like spending a dime to make a dollar, metaphorically speaking.

If one must have such programming (welfare, training) at all, funded by Federal tax dollars, then a program designed to lessen the burden seems rather desirable.

...You see for these federal programs there are only two choices when you are in disagreement, stop working (or at least reduce your income which is what I've done in protest) or leave the country.

Nolo contendere.

It's just that rather than float somebody on the dole for years on-end, I'd prefer to take the hit on the front-end load, get him (or her) (re-)trained, and cut 'em loose on the economy, and to get 'em off the dole.

The lesser of two evils... the perfect is the enemy of the good... and all that happy horseshit.

If, and that is a huge if, welfare hand-outs were timed to the receiver selecting hand-out training program or getting a job where the hand-outs end when the training is complete and/or a job is obtained. Well yeah I'd be for that. You see that changes the hand-out system into a hand-up system and I'm good with voluntary short term hand up programs. I'd personally volunteer to fund that, but would have a hard time forcing fellow citizens to also volunteer to fund that. Clearly the issue of income taxation vs other more voluntary forms of taxation is another discussion. In my opinion forced income taxation taints the merit of good programs. It brings out my ire

This being said, my brother switched degree plans 4 times before my parents turned off the spigot and he decided to become a chef and borrowed his own money to do it. Their mistake, arguably, was not turning off the spigot the second time. Two strikes kind of thing. Needless to say he became a chef, then manager of a restaurant.

IMO when a thing is provided free with no shoestrings it is likely not going to be appreciated.

 

[Unkotare]

Because our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population, there will certainly NOT be any deliberate reduction in LEGAL immigration. We are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. Fortunately we have the room, the resources, and the strength of culture to manage these inevitable demographic changes if we acknowledge reality and plan prudently.