People ARE working

[AzogtheDefiler]

Nope since I have had a job for the last five years running a campground at night. I also deliver pizza.

Well it’s an honest living.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Perhaps not everyone wants to drive a truck. Do you want to force Americans to do the jobs they don't want to do?

Not every job I've taken was what I wanted.
You work until you find that job you want. I dont get youngsters these days,they all think they're fucking special.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

OMG. And I thought I had it bad when I stated at a luxury hotel, where they were so short staffed that there was nowhere to eat. I ended up at an eatery at an outlet mall, and even that was only half open.

Yep sitting here now with her. Fortunately we had another one fairly close by. The OP is liar.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The taxpayer "teet" has ended. Just because there's a vacancy doesn't mean workers should flock to it. Workers are free to choose as it should be.

Nope,you take that job and continue to look for a better one.
At least that was the way it was when I was growing up and when I was an adult,which you dont appear to be.
Why would you not work and allow yourself to fall behind in life? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They are free to choose only because the new government welfare payments (falsely named child tax credit) gives them that choice. The liberals are working hard to keep Americans from working.

Yep..
They want as many people as they can get to be reliant on the gov.
In other words,they're trying to buy votes.

 

[colfax_m]

I’ve been complaining about all the benefits going to families earning $150,000, and even partial benefits to wealthy families earning $400,000.

As far as lifting 3 million children out of poverty, why don‘t the leftists just limit the handouts to children in poverty-level homes? They cast a wide net, giving money to tens of millions of families who are well above poverty, even downright affluent, for one reason: to buy votes.

According to government poverty lines, a family of four with an income of $26,500 is below poverty, $31,000 for a family of five. So why not just limit the welfare expansion to HHI of $30,000 or less? and then start phasing it out to where families at $50,000 get nothing?

IOW, if libs are going to brag about this program lifting 3. Illion children out of poverty, why not just limit it to families IN poverty? Or is the problem they’re not buying enough votes if the restrict it like that?

2021 Poverty Guidelines

So you want to raise taxes on working class families to force them back into the labor pool.

No one is going to run on it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The hell with kids after they are pushed out of the birth canal, eh?

I didnt fuck her so why should I pay for her brats?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So you want to raise taxes on working class families to force them back into the labor pool.

No one is going to run on it.

Hypocrisy is off the charts. You only want to punish success.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes, repealing the child tax credit will raise the taxes if basically EVERY family (except for only the most wealthy).

Are you mortified by parents staying home and raising their children?

When they expect other people to subsidize that choice, yes. Why not have one parent working and one parent stay home? Sure, they might have to buy an average townhouse rather than a single family home, but oh well. My parents grew up in small apartments because that’s what THEIR parents could afford.

It takes some sort of nerve for a woman with a husband earning $100,000 to expect that other people will subsidize them so she can stay home and STILL afford a house. If the family thinks it is more important for the mother to stay home than to buy a house, choose that. If they think it’s worth it for the mother to work so than can buy a house, choose that.

 

[Lisa558]

Hypocrisy is off the charts. You only want to punish success.

That is exactly what is happening in the liberal quest for “equity.”

 

[JohnDB]

COVID created a mess. It screwed up basically every part of the economy. Nothing is in balance. It will be eventually, but now it sucks.

It had nothing to do with SS being in a mess.
It's about manipulation and control of common people...keeping them in generational poverty.

 

[Concerned American]

10 million unfilled jobs right now.

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary - 2024 M02 Results

www.bls.gov

It would be a challenge to walk down a street in a business area or mall in America today and not see a help wanted sign.

 

[Concerned American]

Perhaps not everyone wants to drive a truck. Do you want to force Americans to do the jobs they don't want to do?

I am sure there are at least 100K people in America today who are willing and able to drive a truck.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sure they are. But have you noticed the lack of quality people who are working? It's almost like every unqualified retard in the country ran out of unemployment benefits and were forced to get a job.

sorry you had to get a job finally

 

[imawhosure]

Perhaps not everyone wants to drive a truck. Do you want to force Americans to do the jobs they don't want to do?

Hey, incompetent one...........people can work towards the job they want. In the mean time, you work at a place that supports your family, or yourself. Or are you suggesting, we have a RIGHT to go into a job we like!

 

[JGalt]

sorry you had to get a job finally

No thanks. I could add a lot to the workforce but I have a comfortable side hustle.

 

[FA_Q2]

I never have understood what there is so much attention paid to the labor participation rate. In my eyes, the lower the labor participation rate the better off we are as a society.

I do not pay much attention to the participation rate unless it is a relevant piece of information. Such as here, it is relevant because there was a massive decline due to the pandemic and then it DID NOT RECOVER. That is a problem because that dip is not due to a fundamental change in productivity or society.

I would generally agree that the fewer people that must work the better society is. That is what happened over the industrial revolution. We went from a society that had to employ virtually everyone above the age of 5 just so people did not starve to death to a society where almost half do not have to work and can, instead, do something like raise a family. That is simply NOT the case here and you can see that by the simple fact we are not seeing an increase of overall quality of life for people. It is going the other direction, people have less, make less and are unable to even get the things they can afford and want.

First, if someone is content living on welfare, then great for them. Truth is, if that is all it takes to keep them happy I am more than happy to pay a little bit to keep them the hell out of my way. Seriously, I sure don't want them working for me. I don't even want them working around me. They will lay out of work half the time, show up late the rest of the time, and leave early all the time. And when they are at work, well I am going to probably end up climbing up their back as I blow past them.

That is a parody and is flatly incorrect.

The problem is not whether a small number of poor employees are no longer working, the problem is that when you disincentivize work you get fewer people that do it. Most of those will not be shitty employees and to reach to a personal attack on them to support your position shows your position is lacking.

Second, I am not going to sexist here and say that a woman needs to stay home with her kids. But I am going to say that someone should. I was raised in a one income family. And I raised my kids with a stay at home Mom. No amount of money is worth leaving your kids in the hands of daycare, babysitters, nannies, or even an au pair. My son and his wife are attempting to have their first child. They both have graduate degrees and earn over six figures. One of them is going to stay home when that child is born. It might be him, it might be her. I kind of hope it is him because I know he will be a great father. Plus, "Pops" will be around pretty frequently.

Irrelevant, that is not the case here. More people are not leaving the workforce because they are financially secure enough to raise a family.

Third, at least two percentage points of that low participation rate can be blamed on video games. Countless studies have shown that young males, 18-25, would rather live in Mom and Dad's basement and play video games all day than work. Great for them. Again, keep them out of my way. I mean are these really the people you want making your sandwich at Subway?

No it cannot. What you replace work with is not the reason for exiting work. The reason you stop working is because you can.

If you can because society has progressed, good. If you can because government is suppressing productivity, bad. One leads to an explosion of wealth and progress like the aftermath of the industrial revolution and the other leads to starvation and death like the aftermath of USSR's collapse.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am sure there are at least 100K people in America today who are willing and able to drive a truck.

It is funny to pose a question 'do you want to force people to drive a truck' as though that was even remotely connected to reality.

The exact opposite is true, the government applies a TON of force preventing people from driving a truck - there are mountains and mountains of regulations that prevent people from taking that job. Not that none of those should exist as that is another thread but it is always telling that some go straight to force without ever thinking we could just lessen the barriers we put there in the first place.

 

[colfax_m]

When they expect other people to subsidize that choice, yes. Why not have one parent working and one parent stay home? Sure, they might have to buy an average townhouse rather than a single family home, but oh well. My parents grew up in small apartments because that’s what THEIR parents could afford.

It takes some sort of nerve for a woman with a husband earning $100,000 to expect that other people will subsidize them so she can stay home and STILL afford a house. If the family thinks it is more important for the mother to stay home than to buy a house, choose that. If they think it’s worth it for the mother to work so than can buy a house, choose that.

Why not have one parent working and one stay home?

Great idea. Lots of families are doing that. But here we have a ton of you guys bitching about a labor crisis and no one “wanting” to work as if staying home and raising their kids is inconvenient for you.

 

[colfax_m]

I am sure there are at least 100K people in America today who are willing and able to drive a truck.

Driving a truck is not a great job. For one, it’s got terrible hours. Two, it’s really unhealthy.

Three, the trucking industry has some real issues in terms of being predatory. They like to set truckers up as “independent contractors”, meaning you’re not an employee. Meanwhile, they’re loaning you the money to train and get a truck. So on day one you’re in massive debt.