Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's the way business worked for years. They would hire an employee and train them. That turned into wanting trained employees to hire.
Good for Wal Mart for going back to an admirable business model.
They didn't do it by choice, they did it because they can't find any other drivers, so make them drivers instead.
The original point is that there are a lot of good paying jobs in this country, but they are not going to come knocking at your door. It will require physical labor and some minor training, but anybody can do it.
The answer is NOT increasing the minimum wage, as I see signs all over the place offering $17 and $18 an hour to run a cash register or restock clothes on shelves. The answer is to stop giving taxpayer money away to people able to work and who simply feel jobs are beneath them.
1. Any adult not working a full-time job and living with a parent in a six-figure household should be exempt welfare-type benefits:
a) I know a young mother, now divorced, who moved in with her mother (a GS 14), who not only gets child support for her two children, as she should, she also gets food stamps, Medicaid for her kids, and a host of other benefits. She works one day a week, as a fill-in receptionist for a vet.
b) I also know a woman in her 50s, who lives with her parents, both of whom are retired government professionals with a six-figure pension. She too gets food stamps, and works two afternoons a week at the library.
2. Any parent in a two-parent household, where neither is working, should get no welfare. I know a couple (with kids) where both refuse to get a job, saying what’s available is beneath them, and they are getting rent relief, food stamps, Medicaid, and so forth.
Many bosses are finding that the stay-at-home workers are exploiting it, and they want them to return to the office. Workers are refusing. Shouldn’t the boss decide whether teleworking is allowed, rather than entitled workers making the rules?I worked from home for 5 years.. also had an office at the company. No distractions.. it was a very productive time. Exceeded all my goals by a mile.
You’re preaching to the choir. The Dems are ruining this country.These sorry assholes vote for Democrats that screw up the economy with failed Leftest policies and high taxation and tremendous regulation and then they wonder why they can't make $100K a year.
The best way to stop poverty and low wages in this country is to stop electing Democrats that screw up the economy.
I live in DC. The government workers “work” from home. I see them lounging by the pool for most of the day, at the movie theater at 1 pm, and at the Starbucks at 10:00 a.m.Except for government workers. In spite of this thing winding down they are still working from home five days a week.
Many bosses are finding that the stay-at-home workers are exploiting it, and they want them to return to the office. Workers are refusing. Shouldn’t the boss decide whether teleworking is allowed, rather than entitled workers making the rules?
You’re preaching to the choir. The Dems are ruining this country.
Part of the problem is that the entitled college grads turn their nose up at a $50k starting salary. I’ve even had liberals complain to me that it’s ridiculous to expect people to get by on less than $100k, with them making the assumption that I was earning more. Libs are a bunch of snobs.There are plenty of good paying jobs in the US, it's just that we can't find people to take them.
Part of the problem is that the entitled college grads turn their nose up at a $50k starting salary. I’ve even had liberals complain to me that it’s ridiculous to expect people to get by on less than $100k, with them making the assumption that I was earning more. Libs are a bunch of snobs.
It doesn’t have to be based on anything other than what the boss wants. If the boss wants people in the office so he can oversee them more closely, or arrange in-person meetings, or whatever, then that’s where they need to be if they want to keep their jobs.Of course the boss should decide. Should be based on productivity. People waste a lot of time around the water cooler. Look for people with a strong work ethic and get out of the way.
And? Your point?They paid 20,000-36,000 a year for their education.
It doesn’t have to be based on anything other than what the boss wants. If the boss wants people in the office so he can oversee them more closely, or arrange in-person meetings, or whatever, then that’s where they need to be if they want to keep their jobs.
COVID got people accustomed to rolling out of bed, changing out of their pajama top, and walking down the hall to the bedroom with The computer. Now they’re complaining that commuting to work is too much of a bother.
And? Your point?
My college, back in the day, was $6,000 a year (I had scholarships but that was the tuition), and my first job was $11,000.
Like Trump's tax cut for the rich.First prevent politicians from PURCHASING votes with borrowed money
If you’re low to lower-middle income, Pell Grants pay. If you’re middle to upper-middle class, and have lived responsibly, you have $2500.Good. If they want drivers they should train them.
CDL classes around here were $2500. (That's for a class B). I heard they went up. Not everyone has that.
Still don’t get your point. Things cost a lot less back then, but salaries were a lot less too.Me too. Times are different now. My car payment was $88 and my rent was $125.
Because they are employed by that company and have to abide by their rules. If they say they need to show up for work in the office, then that’s what they have to do.If they are doing well and meeting their goals, why screw with them?
Still don’t get your point. Things cost a lot less back then, but salaries were a lot less too.
