Why do poor communities exist in America?

[danielpalos]

Yes, there are guarantees of equal protection of basic rights. That does not include all areas of commerce.

You simply ignore the law with your diversions.

This is the law:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

 

[WinterBorn]

Also, there is Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1

"Articles of Confederation, art. 4

1 Mar. 1781

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them."

 

[WinterBorn]

You simply ignore the law with your diversions.

This is the law:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

And when you quit your job you are not fined or prosecuted or prevented from gaining other employment. It does NOT mean that benefits intended for those who lose their job through no fault of their own, are owed to every person who quits a job and refuses to work.

And all UC has time limits, usually 26 weeks. And that is for all persons.

 

[WinterBorn]

Means nothing when we have an actual homeless problem.

Equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

Unemployment compensation was never meant to solve the homeless problem. And claiming it should be is ignoring the purpose of the program and its parameters.

 

[danielpalos]

And when you quit your job you are not fined or prosecuted or prevented from gaining other employment. It does NOT mean that benefits intended for those who lose their job through no fault of their own, are owed to every person who quits a job and refuses to work.

And all UC has time limits, usually 26 weeks. And that is for all persons.

Don't be illegal to the Law.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation was never meant to solve the homeless problem. And claiming it should be is ignoring the purpose of the program and its parameters.

So what. Only right-wingers prefer to repeat historical mistakes and allege they are not really like that, afterward.

 

[WinterBorn]

Don't be illegal to the Law.

I am not. But even when I said let every one draw UC, but only for 26 weeks, that was not good enough for you. So what you want is a lifelong income at tax payer expense, without having to prove you need it.

 

[WinterBorn]

So what. Only right-wingers prefer to repeat historical mistakes and allege they are not really like that, afterward.

I have not talked about history. I have talked about the actual intent of the UC programs. And the intent is clearly not what you want it to be. So you try and muddy the waters by talking about homelessness, multipliers, and other factors that do not change what UC was designed to do. And UC has accomplished that quit well.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not. But even when I said let every one draw UC, but only for 26 weeks, that was not good enough for you. So what you want is a lifelong income at tax payer expense, without having to prove you need it.

This is the law: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. There are no other requirements.

 

[danielpalos]

I have not talked about history. I have talked about the actual intent of the UC programs. And the intent is clearly not what you want it to be. So you try and muddy the waters by talking about homelessness, multipliers, and other factors that do not change what UC was designed to do. And UC has accomplished that quit well.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is the law: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. There are no other requirements.

Correct, for the 100th time. That is the definition of employment for CA.

It is not the requirement for unemployment compensation. It is simply the CA labor code that defines employment and the termination of employment.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And persons who quit a job do not draw UC in other states either.

You have argued in circles, often quoting inconsequential laws or statutes. You have not shown one statute, law or section of the US Constitution that requires a citizen to be paid for doing nothing. Do that and we can talk more.

 

[danielpalos]

Correct, for the 100th time. That is the definition of employment for CA.

It is not the requirement for unemployment compensation. It is simply the CA labor code that defines employment and the termination of employment.

There is no authority to create public policies that are repugnant to existing law. Only cognitively dissonant legislators do that.

 

[danielpalos]

And persons who quit a job do not draw UC in other states either.

You have argued in circles, often quoting inconsequential laws or statutes. You have not shown one statute, law or section of the US Constitution that requires a citizen to be paid for doing nothing. Do that and we can talk more.

The only inconsequential statutes are those that are repugnant to existing at-will employment law.

 

[Rocko]

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR ) that would be great!

Name one place on earth that doesn’t have poor people

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no authority to create public policies that are repugnant to existing law. Only cognitively dissonant legislators do that.

And no one has done that. Just because the time of one month is used in the definition of employment for CA, does NOT mean that is the only time span that can be used in anything concerning work, labor law or unemployment. Will pensions now be limited to one month?

 

[danielpalos]

Name one place on earth that doesn’t have poor people

We have to quibble between Poor and Poverty. We have fixed Standards for a reason.

 

[danielpalos]

And no one has done that. Just because the time of one month is used in the definition of employment for CA, does NOT mean that is the only time span that can be used in anything concerning work, labor law or unemployment. Will pensions now be limited to one month?

Employment is at the will of either party not your special pleading.

 

[WinterBorn]

The only inconsequential statutes are those that are repugnant to existing at-will employment law.

Numerous things you have quoted are inconsequential. Your idea has been shot down so many times and in so many ways.

You are wasting bandwidth, at best.

 

[WinterBorn]

We have to quibble between Poor and Poverty. We have fixed Standards for a reason.

hey dumbass, he isn't quibbling about poor or poverty. He asked you to name one place that does not have poor people. That is all. Your overuse of semantics is simply pathetic.

Go back to offering full body massages.