To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[flacaltenn]

Oh, the discussion aint' over yet. A rational response to your "proposal" which you THINK should be an obvious solution to safety nets and welfare is that --- making folks COMFORTABLE in endangered menial jobs is actually immoral and has some very obvious NEGATIVE consequences to the long term welfare of the people involved in your altruistic spending of other people's money..

Oh, please. First, these jobs are hardly "endangered". They'll probably be the only jobs left at the rate the One Percenters are going at the middle class.

It's immoral, because you are simply promoting THE JOB and not THE PERSON. By making them comfortable in jobs subject to extinction thru technology, automation or transformation to the web. The focus should be on WHO is ELIGIBLE for inflated wage jobs at the very bottom of the work force. IMO -- only folks who are currently pursuing continuing or higher education should be eligible for min wage jobs. With some exceptions for seniors and the mentally challenged. THAT WAY -- they have a trajectory in the workforce pyramid. A GED would qualify. As would vocational training or comm. College.

Here's kind of hte problem with that mentality. Back in the 1980's, I worked two minimum wage jobs to pay for college at UIC. To pay tuition (when the army wasn't covering it for me) I had to work 10 hours a week. The rest of it went to paying rent, transportation and other stuff. I worked 35 hours a week between these two jobs. plus one weekend a month in the National Guard.

NOW- tuition at UIC costs close to $16,000 a year. You could work 40 hours a week and still not e able to afford it.

STill -- that was a better solution than taking on a mountain of debt thru student loans. You did the right thing. MAYBE could have reduced the pain by taking the 1st 2 years at a Comm College. I took freshman year at a Comm College and continued in academics for 5 more years at full colleges of my choice.. No academic advantage in the 1st 2 years of college paying PREMIUM prices for the standard trivial freshman/soph stuff.

What about the OTHER students buying your service? They are ones that have to subsidize jobs that are value-warped and inflated by "living wage".

 

[flacaltenn]

Lots of unintended SEVERE negative consequences to promoting jobs to "living wage". Inner city drop-out rates are embarrassing and atrocious. Most of the kids want OUT of their crappy home life and to leave abusive situations. If you dangle $15/hr to flip burgers in front of them -- you're dooming MORE OF THEM to a life of disenfranchisement from market labor. Schools wouldn't be able to KEEP them inside their doors.

and that would be bad, why? if the schools were teaching them anything useful, you might have a point. Right now they are largely glorified baby-sitting services.

That's a different problem. They have no concept of what a job is for. Those types need IMMERSION into the vocational, internships, that have LARGELY been abandoned. It's one size fits all education. So don't expect much in terms of ADAPTING to cultural, economic, social realities..

 

[Humorme]

Rather than to tell you why your solutions won't work, I'd rather try figuring out how some variation of your ideas could work. For instance, entry level jobs could pay a wage of $15 an hour AND last for a term (one to two years.)

BY DEFINITION of a job -- minimum wage of any type ONLY LASTS a year or two. So that's not the issue. It's the vertical wage inflation that you created ABOVE the entry level position..

Unless the worker qualifies under a protected class (mentally challenged, physically challenged, etc.) then they can only work for an employer for a definite term. As an added bonus on those jobs, the employer may get a tax credit (I think it already exists) to hire those who are furthering their education AND offer reduced college tuition and free GED classes for those who get one of these menial jobs.

Variations of this are what I've been pitching to the LParty for about 4 years now. I gave you a variation. Which is ONLY students (broadly defined) are eligible for min wage jobs. Employers probably wouldn't NEED a tax credit. They would advertise the hell of supporting students and helping to build careers. It's PR gold. And companies could NEGOTIATE with tech schools, GED services, etc and get MUCH better deals than the individuals could. And employer would rather kick in training than inflate EVERY JOB in his business..

Here is the basic problem you're saddled with:

You advocate that some jobs be available to only one segment of society. That is socialism.

My ideas start out with the premise that the employer owns the job and we cannot make them hire any specific individual and / or class of individuals.

Then I look for ways to incentivize employers to hire certain individuals and get tax breaks for helping the neighborhood they service.

NOTHING I advocate requires an employer to hire any given individual or groups of individuals. NOTHING I advocate requires a "minimum wage" of any sort.

Bottom line here: Jobs are worth more than employers are paying, but rather than employers paying their employees a realistic wage, the employer passes the burden to the taxpayer. So, taxpayers are making up the difference between insults you think are wages and the amount it takes to live.

While nobody has a right to welfare, it exists and the government is going to utilize that to their advantage. I'm taking it all into account and reframing the whole issue. The objective is to incentivize employers to pay more in wages and employees need to be incentivized to go out, get a job, and try to better themselves.

 

[Humorme]

You're asking a retard that is too chickenshit and cowardly to say that stuff in public? He voted for Hitlery, didn't.

There you go, love that your true colors have come out. It was just a matter of time, you dishonest assholes can’t cover up your real self for long.

I’d never vote for Hillary, she is dishonest. I wouldn’t vote for Trump either.

You need some new material. Everybody you disagree with is some negative label. But, you are not an honorable man. You and I know that is a fact regardless of how much shit you spew on this board.

More personal insults I see. That is all you seem to have to be able to communicate.

I went third party because they were the two worst candidates of all time. Sanders would have gotten my vote over Trump, Cruz or Clinton. Kasich was my first choice but others were very acceptable.

Why do you ***** about insults when you are the one that started them?

Where did I insult?

Dude, get a life. This thread is about whether or not low end workers deserve a realistic wage.

The rest of the shit that you allude to is off topic, personal, and irrelevant. Grow up, get a life, and leave me alone. I gave you the opportunity to take this up in PM and you didn't. Give it a rest now.

You want to showboat and prove how many misguided National Socialists back your warped version of "conservatism" while lying to the posters here and trying to badger me. This is not the place nor the proper thread for it.

So, excuse the Hell out of me while I ignore you.

 

[Papageorgio]

There you go, love that your true colors have come out. It was just a matter of time, you dishonest assholes can’t cover up your real self for long.

I’d never vote for Hillary, she is dishonest. I wouldn’t vote for Trump either.

You need some new material. Everybody you disagree with is some negative label. But, you are not an honorable man. You and I know that is a fact regardless of how much shit you spew on this board.

More personal insults I see. That is all you seem to have to be able to communicate.

I went third party because they were the two worst candidates of all time. Sanders would have gotten my vote over Trump, Cruz or Clinton. Kasich was my first choice but others were very acceptable.

Why do you ***** about insults when you are the one that started them?

Where did I insult?

Dude, get a life. This thread is about whether or not low end workers deserve a realistic wage.

The rest of the shit that you allude to is off topic, personal, and irrelevant. Grow up, get a life, and leave me alone. I gave you the opportunity to take this up in PM and you didn't. Give it a rest now.

You want to showboat and prove how many misguided National Socialists back your warped version of "conservatism" while lying to the posters here and trying to badger me. This is not the place nor the proper thread for it.

So, excuse the Hell out of me while I ignore you.

You made an accusation I voted for Hillary and I responded by saying I didn’t. Then you claim I am always insulting, and called me a name. Then you claimed I started the insults and when I asked for proof you now claim I am off topic? Lol!

 

[flacaltenn]

Here is the basic problem you're saddled with:

You advocate that some jobs be available to only one segment of society. That is socialism.

Don't think I've ever suggested that EVER. In my entire life. In fact, I'm on record saying that I could walk into IN/OUT Burger, randomly pull a couple young folks and make them into Chem engineers or Biologists. That;s the transition REQUIRED to survive in the 21st century. And we better "get on it". Time and lives are wasting. OUR kids are not choosing STEM fields. Colleges are full of foreigners, students and faculty in those areas.

Bottom line here: Jobs are worth more than employers are paying, but rather than employers paying their employees a realistic wage, the employer passes the burden to the taxpayer. So, taxpayers are making up the difference between insults you think are wages and the amount it takes to live.

Actually jobs are worth what the PRODUCT can support. That's clearly the only way to run business. What is a dishwasher worth to an average household? It saves you maybe a half hour a day. That's 170 hours a year or so. You can't monetize that in the price that you set for the product tho... Because ALL of these conveniences are now EXPECTED to be more affordable than the actual time/money saved by buying one. So boxing up a hundred dishwashers a day as a job has a worth according to what the product or service can support.

Meanwhile the CEO that works 60+ hours a week. Is responsible for MULTIPLE stores or manufacturing sites. Must make 100s of decisions per day and RARELY sees his own bed or family and is taking ALL the risk is the target of your scorn.. As it says in "eat the rich" by P.J. O'Rouke -- you could drag the CEO out to parking lot, tar and feather him, send him out of town in boxcar in his undies and what does each employee get?

Maybe a new set of tires. And the LARGE probability that next year, there will be layoffs because the company decided to find bargain basement mgt..

 

[flacaltenn]

While nobody has a right to welfare, it exists and the government is going to utilize that to their advantage. I'm taking it all into account and reframing the whole issue. The objective is to incentivize employers to pay more in wages and employees need to be incentivized to go out, get a job, and try to better themselves.

Welfare and safety nets are a FAR BETTER and efficient way of "testing need" and subsidizing income. Because you're NOT -- inflating EVERYBODY'S wages by artificially making bottom jobs worth MORE than they are. It's a smarter form of triaging the wounded. If only govt was smart enough to do it right..

 

[Humorme]

While nobody has a right to welfare, it exists and the government is going to utilize that to their advantage. I'm taking it all into account and reframing the whole issue. The objective is to incentivize employers to pay more in wages and employees need to be incentivized to go out, get a job, and try to better themselves.

Welfare and safety nets are a FAR BETTER and efficient way of "testing need" and subsidizing income. Because you're NOT -- inflating EVERYBODY'S wages by artificially making bottom jobs worth MORE than they are. It's a smarter form of triaging the wounded. If only govt was smart enough to do it right..

You are guessing based upon mere theories. It's like the Republicans having compromised with the left and allowing the Assault Weapon Ban (though that's a bad example and I would never have supported that), but the legislation had a shelf life that expired after we found out that the ban made crime worse.

This idea I floated does NOT require any of socialism or forcing anyone to "do" anything. Give employers an option and see which they prefer. Those who want to have lower taxes will take people off welfare and recruit those who are motivated. IF the idea fails, it will have a shelf life and one day, you can go back to business as usual and try another solution.

 

[flacaltenn]

While nobody has a right to welfare, it exists and the government is going to utilize that to their advantage. I'm taking it all into account and reframing the whole issue. The objective is to incentivize employers to pay more in wages and employees need to be incentivized to go out, get a job, and try to better themselves.

Welfare and safety nets are a FAR BETTER and efficient way of "testing need" and subsidizing income. Because you're NOT -- inflating EVERYBODY'S wages by artificially making bottom jobs worth MORE than they are. It's a smarter form of triaging the wounded. If only govt was smart enough to do it right..

You are guessing based upon mere theories. It's like the Republicans having compromised with the left and allowing the Assault Weapon Ban (though that's a bad example and I would never have supported that), but the legislation had a shelf life that expired after we found out that the ban made crime worse.

This idea I floated does NOT require any of socialism or forcing anyone to "do" anything. Give employers an option and see which they prefer. Those who want to have lower taxes will take people off welfare and recruit those who are motivated. IF the idea fails, it will have a shelf life and one day, you can go back to business as usual and try another solution.

Not everyone at bottom rung NEEDS the welfare. Therefore they don't need an inflated wage job in an inflated wage world. It's detrimental to their "gain".. It's DOESN'T JUST replace welfare (if it does at all). It's a braindead way of raising EVERYBODY regardless of "need"..


I'm not guessing about this. It's not "a theory".. Even with employer choice, you're spending Other People's Money (OPiuM) to ENTICE them. How is that different than welfare? In that system, the cost of subsidies should ABSOLUTELY be counted against the decreases in welfare.

TRIAGING the needy is necessary. Otherwise you're making a bunch of summer HS employees who go home to middle class homes spoiled. And wasting money in the system. That's not a theory. It's how things work..

Furthermore the emphasis should be on incentives for blasting your way OUT of the bottom jobs thru continuing education. THAT is sane and compassionate. Inflating the JOB and making comfortable there is immoral.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Fast food workers need a union just like Wal-Mart workers i know so many older adults in these jobs working two full time jobs just trying to survive.

 

[Papageorgio]

More personal insults I see. That is all you seem to have to be able to communicate.

I went third party because they were the two worst candidates of all time. Sanders would have gotten my vote over Trump, Cruz or Clinton. Kasich was my first choice but others were very acceptable.

Why do you ***** about insults when you are the one that started them?

Where did I insult?

Dude, get a life. This thread is about whether or not low end workers deserve a realistic wage.

The rest of the shit that you allude to is off topic, personal, and irrelevant. Grow up, get a life, and leave me alone. I gave you the opportunity to take this up in PM and you didn't. Give it a rest now.

You want to showboat and prove how many misguided National Socialists back your warped version of "conservatism" while lying to the posters here and trying to badger me. This is not the place nor the proper thread for it.

So, excuse the Hell out of me while I ignore you.

You made an accusation I voted for Hillary and I responded by saying I didn’t. Then you claim I am always insulting, and called me a name. Then you claimed I started the insults and when I asked for proof you now claim I am off topic? Lol!

I made the claim because you made an idiotic, chickenshit, bogus claim that I was a lefty. I took it to PM. Got a problem with me? Take it up in PM.

I don’t PM people, if you can’t tell it out here then it doesn’t need to be said. Again more personal insults. This is a zone 2 thread you are violating the TOS.

 

[Papageorgio]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Fast food workers need a union just like Wal-Mart workers i know so many older adults in these jobs working two full time jobs just trying to survive.

Try to start a union and good luck.

 

[ph3iron]

In the course of this thread I have not advocated NOR supported an laws that would impose a requirement that an employer pay an employee any kind of wage. Giving employers a chance to reduce their taxes by more than half (and it is clearly THEIR choice) is not socialism in any way, shape, fashion or form.

Great, then why not offer such tax breaks to employers that provide employees with healthcare insurance instead? I'd be all for that.

They are the ones against a free market. BTW, why protect jobs if you're only going to force people to work for slave wages?

Can you name me one person who is "forced" to work for anybody for any wage? I've had several jobs in my life, and nobody ever forced me to take any of them. I took those jobs by my own choice.

I agree, although when you consider many of the liberals out there, they feel having to show up on time for work is forcing them....and terribly difficult.

Might help if you knew the def of liberal.
For the individual and small gov.
Thought you would be one mr high and mighty
Prefer to spout knees news?

 

[Thinker101]

In the course of this thread I have not advocated NOR supported an laws that would impose a requirement that an employer pay an employee any kind of wage. Giving employers a chance to reduce their taxes by more than half (and it is clearly THEIR choice) is not socialism in any way, shape, fashion or form.

Great, then why not offer such tax breaks to employers that provide employees with healthcare insurance instead? I'd be all for that.

They are the ones against a free market. BTW, why protect jobs if you're only going to force people to work for slave wages?

Can you name me one person who is "forced" to work for anybody for any wage? I've had several jobs in my life, and nobody ever forced me to take any of them. I took those jobs by my own choice.

I agree, although when you consider many of the liberals out there, they feel having to show up on time for work is forcing them....and terribly difficult.

Might help if you knew the def of liberal.
For the individual and small gov.
Thought you would be one mr high and mighty
Prefer to spout knees news?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Here is the basic problem you're saddled with:

You advocate that some jobs be available to only one segment of society. That is socialism.

Entry level jobs are available to anybody and everybody in our society. Just because some people use them for long term or for supplemental income doesn't mean they are for "one segment" of society. Socialism? You don't grasp the word or its definition.

My ideas start out with the premise that the employer owns the job and we cannot make them hire any specific individual and / or class of individuals.

You may claim it starts out like that, yet you deviate from it extremely quick and by 180 degrees right after claiming it. SMFH

Then I look for ways to incentivize employers to hire certain individuals and get tax breaks for helping the neighborhood they service.

Employers get many tax breaks already. :SHRUG:

NOTHING I advocate requires an employer to hire any given individual or groups of individuals. NOTHING I advocate requires a "minimum wage" of any sort.

Yet here you are arguing about a living wage as a mandate. gofigure

Bottom line here: Jobs are worth more than employers are paying, but rather than employers paying their employees a realistic wage, the employer passes the burden to the taxpayer. So, taxpayers are making up the difference between insults you think are wages and the amount it takes to live.

Jobs are worth what someone will work for and a company can afford to pay (You're 180 degrees off what you claimed just a couple paragraphs up). You seem to be thinking people deserve a specific lifestyle with amenities and all.

While nobody has a right to welfare, it exists and the government is going to utilize that to their advantage. I'm taking it all into account and reframing the whole issue. The objective is to incentivize employers to pay more in wages and employees need to be incentivized to go out, get a job, and try to better themselves.

Nobody has a right to anything more than a roof over their head and food on the table, the rest is up to them to get themselves. If they are envious about someone else having what they don't, that's their problem they need to fix themselves.

 

[flacaltenn]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Fast food workers need a union just like Wal-Mart workers i know so many older adults in these jobs working two full time jobs just trying to survive.

Unions are still pushing a 19th Century definition of "a job".. They never have been concerned with careers. Very short term gains for their members. A "job" in the 21st century ain't nothing like "union rules". It requires multi-tasking, flexibility and in a lot of cases -- continuing education.

Ain't got a problem with the union concept. But if that's how you HELP folks in endangered low wage jobs -- Lord help those folks reject that kind of help...

 

[beagle9]

Ray, I've answered this so many times for you that it is getting monotonous. Let's try this one more time, using a case that I'm familiar with:

Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

Under my proposal: He would have been sent to jail. There would be no early release of ANY kind without him applying himself.

So, on day one he enters prison. There he is met by someone who says:

"It's as simple as this. You've been found guilty of a crime. You can do eight years living in misery OR you can prove yourself and get out of here and live your life according to the rules of society.

You will work eight hours a day and you can sign up for GED classes. While taking GED classes you are required to begin removing tattos (beginning with prison tats, gang tats, etc.) Once you have a GED, you will be eligible for a two year reduction in your sentence. From there you will qualify to take training in some skill set that is in demand. You could qualify for another year - possibly two years toward early release, depending upon what jobs you will qualify for once you leave. Once you have those two things out of your way, you will be subject to drug / alcohol rehab classes (that you can take at any time) if applicable AND undergo a series of seminars for applying for a job, credit and getting an apartment / house, balancing a budget, setting priorities, maintaining a home, etc.

All said, you can leave in 28 to thirty months. OR you can stay the course.

While in prison, there is NO coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream, and you will have three hours of Internet / phone privileges / visitors per week to conduct any business you need.

Breaking any rule will result in a loss of that time.

Now, Ray, a guy goes to prison and gets a GED, alcohol / drug abuse counseling, training for the job he is going after upon release and has had seminars in basic life skills plus is bonded by the state so an employer doesn't lose money by hiring him. It's a win / win for everybody with no appreciable cost to taxpayers.

Those who choose to stay will, most likely keep returning. Add time for the recidivism upon a third prison stint and they will most likely die there after the third conviction since a third conviction would mean NO early release and a serve time of one year beyond their sentence.

So you are taking away coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream. Other than cigarettes it sounds like grade school. Again, school is already available the sad fact is the percentage of them changing is slim to none. You can’t force someone to do something against their will, they have to want it. Bribing them to change behavior has never been successful.

Bribing them? I'm not bribing anyone. I'd remove the luxuries of life and allow them to be exactly where they want to be without access to the things we enjoy in life.

Prison time should be for short stints and then to punish people while allowing them to get their excrement together and go back to society, make restitution, and rejoin society.

If they choose to stay in prison, there should not be one, single, solitary thing that is enjoyable about it.

You pretend like everybody goes to prison and that's how they planned their life. But, prisons are where we banish the emotionally disadvantaged, those suffering mental retardation, and those who were brought up by people imparting values foreign to what you feel are normal.

Sometimes people are raised where the most abnormal things you can imagine are considered normal. If they don't adjust to your values, you want to punish them and then turn them back into society with them still unprepared to live what you think is a normal life.

You have to remember I grew up in such an environment. My father had a low regard for life and when he was around, he would beat my mother. The only advantage I had over my siblings and cousins is that when the old man was in the hoosegow, my mother got sick (they thought it was TB at the time) and the cops found out that I was taking care of my siblings alone at the ripe old age of 11. We ended up in a neighbor's house and I got my first taste of normal. That didn't last but for a few months, but it was enough for me to prefer it over what I had been brought up in.

Other people tell me how "lucky" I am, but I wonder if it had not been for the right circumstances I'd be like the people I grew up around: drunks, drug addicts, cigarette smokers, law-breakers, the heathen. If somebody had not shown me a better lifestyle and got through that I too could have it if I sacrificed, applied myself and worked hard, this might be an entirely different conversation.

The bottom line is, you are not going to fix all of America's problems with low wage jobs and punishment. If that's all you got, this country is pretty well screwed.

Rehab doesn't work, never has. What you will get is a bunch of cons who will work the system so they can get out and then go back to what they were doing and have a bigger network of friends that the met in prison.

Again, the program I'm discussing has never been tried. We are just now beginning to implement it here:

Georgia opens first prison charter school

Education at heart of Georgia’s next wave of change in criminal justice

You can get a degree or certifications from prison as it now stands. It's not required they go however if they are not motivated to learn, they won't. If they want to get out early then they will do what they need to, to get released but no guarantee they will go straight after they are released. It's a start however, I am not confident that the motivation to change will be there. You can work a day as a welder make $280 or you can make a five minute drug deal and make $2000 and then go home and smoke weed for the rest of the day.

Sadly criminals can be the same as wild animals who have been captured from out of the wild from their habitats in which they have been living in, and they have to be treated just like a wild creature in the same ways that we would treat wild animals for whom we wish to save.

The first thing to be done is to rate the depth of their conditions, separate the real bad from the not so bad, and recognize the ones who weren't bad other than being easily influenced, and for whom were found in the wrong place at the wrong time in a situation... These types are excellent candidates for being educated and rehabilitated.

There has to be a separation of these prisoners, and in many cases there is, and states are doing exactly what is needed to deal with these lost souls who need help. Not all will or should qualify unless they earn it, and with that earning should come submission. Just like the military once did with young folks who were just entering into the services, where as they had to break that old wrestless spirit, and then rebuild the person from scratch. Part of that was the balding of the head in which was to Target the identity in order to change the old into a knew one that is the same as changing the character. Now depending on who is running these systems just like who is running our government makes all the difference in the world as to how effective the nation is at these task or how ineffective the nation is at these task.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you are taking away coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream. Other than cigarettes it sounds like grade school. Again, school is already available the sad fact is the percentage of them changing is slim to none. You can’t force someone to do something against their will, they have to want it. Bribing them to change behavior has never been successful.

Bribing them? I'm not bribing anyone. I'd remove the luxuries of life and allow them to be exactly where they want to be without access to the things we enjoy in life.

Prison time should be for short stints and then to punish people while allowing them to get their excrement together and go back to society, make restitution, and rejoin society.

If they choose to stay in prison, there should not be one, single, solitary thing that is enjoyable about it.

You pretend like everybody goes to prison and that's how they planned their life. But, prisons are where we banish the emotionally disadvantaged, those suffering mental retardation, and those who were brought up by people imparting values foreign to what you feel are normal.

Sometimes people are raised where the most abnormal things you can imagine are considered normal. If they don't adjust to your values, you want to punish them and then turn them back into society with them still unprepared to live what you think is a normal life.

You have to remember I grew up in such an environment. My father had a low regard for life and when he was around, he would beat my mother. The only advantage I had over my siblings and cousins is that when the old man was in the hoosegow, my mother got sick (they thought it was TB at the time) and the cops found out that I was taking care of my siblings alone at the ripe old age of 11. We ended up in a neighbor's house and I got my first taste of normal. That didn't last but for a few months, but it was enough for me to prefer it over what I had been brought up in.

Other people tell me how "lucky" I am, but I wonder if it had not been for the right circumstances I'd be like the people I grew up around: drunks, drug addicts, cigarette smokers, law-breakers, the heathen. If somebody had not shown me a better lifestyle and got through that I too could have it if I sacrificed, applied myself and worked hard, this might be an entirely different conversation.

The bottom line is, you are not going to fix all of America's problems with low wage jobs and punishment. If that's all you got, this country is pretty well screwed.

Rehab doesn't work, never has. What you will get is a bunch of cons who will work the system so they can get out and then go back to what they were doing and have a bigger network of friends that the met in prison.

Again, the program I'm discussing has never been tried. We are just now beginning to implement it here:

Georgia opens first prison charter school

Education at heart of Georgia’s next wave of change in criminal justice

You can get a degree or certifications from prison as it now stands. It's not required they go however if they are not motivated to learn, they won't. If they want to get out early then they will do what they need to, to get released but no guarantee they will go straight after they are released. It's a start however, I am not confident that the motivation to change will be there. You can work a day as a welder make $280 or you can make a five minute drug deal and make $2000 and then go home and smoke weed for the rest of the day.

Sadly criminals can be the same as wild animals who have been captured from out of the wild from their habitats in which they have been living in, and they have to be treated just like a wild creature in the same ways that we would treat wild animals for whom we wish to save.

The first thing to be done is to rate the depth of their conditions, separate the real bad from the not so bad, and recognize the ones who weren't bad other than being easily influenced, and for whom were found in the wrong place at the wrong time in a situation... These types are excellent candidates for being educated and rehabilitated.

There has to be a separation of these prisoners, and in many cases there is, and states are doing exactly what is needed to deal with these lost souls who need help. Not all will or should qualify unless they earn it, and with that earning should come submission. Just like the military once did with young folks who were just entering into the services, where as they had to break that old wrestless spirit, and then rebuild the person from scratch. Part of that was the balding of the head in which was to Target the identity in order to change the old into a knew one that is the same as changing the character. Now depending on who is running these systems just like who is running our government makes all the difference in the world as to how effective the nation is at these task, and how ineffective the nation is at these task.

I would agree that we need to target who does and doesn’t get into these programs. Also the military idea of breaking a rebuilding them would be the best way to give them a chance.

 

[beagle9]

If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?

I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING

I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)

Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.

That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.

It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.

You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.

You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.

Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.

Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.

Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.

. Not good to waist time in prison if going to be let back out on the street. I would rather a good candidate for rehabilitation get that education in order to cope upon release, and yes with a job skill to boot if possible. Ray, do you realize that to a bum in prison, it is punishment for him or her to get education then forced upon them, and to make them work on a job skill to boot while on the inside.. Ohhh the horror's it must be for a buck wild bum to then be forced to get educated, and then to learn a job skill instead of running around selling drugs and impregnating your daughters. Wake up Ray.

You do know john Wayne was a racist and avoided WWII?
A great hero

. Care to stay on topic ?

 

[beagle9]

Again, the program I'm discussing has never been tried. We are just now beginning to implement it here:

Georgia opens first prison charter school

Education at heart of Georgia’s next wave of change in criminal justice

You can get a degree or certifications from prison as it now stands. It's not required they go however if they are not motivated to learn, they won't. If they want to get out early then they will do what they need to, to get released but no guarantee they will go straight after they are released. It's a start however, I am not confident that the motivation to change will be there. You can work a day as a welder make $280 or you can make a five minute drug deal and make $2000 and then go home and smoke weed for the rest of the day.

What you're saying may hold true for federal prison, but it is not that way in the state prisons.

People become better criminals in prison because all they have to do is swap stories and network with each other until they get released. If a man were working eight hours a day and in his spare time learning how to succeed on the outside, a lot of them will take the training and rehabilitation opportunities.

When they're spending 12 hours a day working and studying, they will tend to get away from the criminal mindset. Couple that with the knowledge that a three strike you're out policy that will mandate they do all their sentence upon a third conviction AND at least a year, plus additional time if they break the rules in prison, ... if that don't scare it out of them, they will rot in prison while those who want to become productive will be given a second chance.

There are several states that have schooling in prison. California, Maine, Washington, Texas, New York and Colorado to name a couple.

Training, educating and so on are not guarantees, 7 out 10 re-offend and 5 out of ten wind up back in prison. Just the way it is. Not a knock on your idea however that is the reality of that group. Easy to tow the line in prison when everything is provided, tougher when you have to make it on your own.

I also think about the message, want a free education? Don't join the service, commit a crime!

Again, you keep harping on stuff that the government tried that did not work. My experiences are not with the government. Knock the idea all you like. Until it's been tried, it has not failed. Uncle Scam has his ideas; those with experience have theirs.

I think Papa makes a good point. Why do you believe that rewarding failure and bad behavior is a path to success?

Be good citizen, pay your taxes, vote every election, keep out of trouble, it's up to you to make yourself something.

Be a criminal, don't work a legitimate job, get locked up, we will train you for a career in something.

"Folks, when you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people."
Rush Limbaugh

. Let me guess Ray, you are that perfect person who comes from that perfect family that had no members including yourself, that had gotten off of the rails somehow, and so because you or a family member gave a crap about you or them, then they or you stood in the fire to help them or they helped you to somehow get back onto the straight and narrow right ?? Everything in life is suppose to be the same as how you would want to be treated or how you are to treat others. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This goes for anyone.