Why do poor communities exist in America?

[WinterBorn]

You indulge in special pleading and ignore at-will employment law.

How so?

 

[danielpalos]

How so?

This is the law: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

By what reasoning are you manufacturing for-cause criteria for unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State?

 

[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. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

By what reasoning are you manufacturing for-cause criteria for unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State?

In order to provide assistance for the unemployed, there must be some criteria.

The "one month" in the description of at-will employment is for the purpose of defining "at-will employment". Nothing more.

 

[danielpalos]

In order to provide assistance for the unemployed, there must be some criteria.

This is the criteria:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is the criteria:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

As the definition of "employment". Not as a requirement for drawing UC.

 

[danielpalos]

As the definition of "employment". Not as a requirement for drawing UC.

It is the law regarding employment at the will of either party. How did you reach your conclusion that the law regarding employment at will is not a requirement for drawing unemployment compensation?

 

[WinterBorn]

It is the law regarding employment at the will of either party. How did you reach your conclusion that the law regarding employment at will is not a requirement for drawing unemployment compensation?

Because it is part of the definition.

But, if you insist we can make it all "one month".

You can draw UC for one month, and then you have to work for a month.

 

[danielpalos]

Because it is part of the definition.

But, if you insist we can make it all "one month".

You can draw UC for one month, and then you have to work for a month.

The definition defines the Law. This is the Law: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Where does it say you need Cause to quit or draw unemployment benfits?

 

[WinterBorn]

The definition defines the Law. This is the Law: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

Where does it say you need Cause to quit or draw unemployment benfits?

You want to be paid UC, but don't want any of the limitations?

Where does it say you get paid for being unemployed?

 

[WelfareQueen]

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!

This is so stunningly ignorant on so many levels. People live in poverty because they choose to live in poverty. We are all responsible for our own lives. No halfway intelligent person would choose to live year after year.in crime and drug infested communities. It is a choice.

Having worked in those communities for years doing emergency services I can tell you most of the people are not real bright. Be they white or black. The intelligent folks get a job or a marketable skill and get the fuck out.

When you start taking responsibility for your own life and stop blaming the Government or Uncle Charlie your life will be much, much happier.

 

[danielpalos]

You want to be paid UC, but don't want any of the limitations?

Where does it say you get paid for being unemployed?

Are you claiming you don't care about being "legal" to the law? Why be hypocrites in border threads, "right-wingers"?

 

[danielpalos]

You want to be paid UC, but don't want any of the limitations?

Where does it say you get paid for being unemployed?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ok, so no unemployment compensation. Now there is no conflict.

And I just saved the tax payers $400 billion.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok, so no unemployment compensation. Now there is no conflict.

And I just saved the tax payers $400 billion.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.

I have ceded nothing. But I have proven that your idea of a new & improved UC is nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

I have ceded nothing. But I have proven that your idea of a new & improved UC is nonsense.

Ignoring the argument is termed and styled as being non-responsive in legal venues. No judge has to take you seriously. Why should I?

 

[WinterBorn]

Ignoring the argument is termed and styled as being non-responsive in legal venues. No judge has to take you seriously. Why should I?

And a judge would listen to you when you change the basis for your argument?

First it was about the violation of equal protection under the law. The it became about the "one month" mentioned in the definition of at-will employment.

 

[danielpalos]

And a judge would listen to you when you change the basis for your argument?

First it was about the violation of equal protection under the law. The it became about the "one month" mentioned in the definition of at-will employment.

You simply forgot the concept again:

This is the law: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

States have no authority to abridge that legal privilege and immunity via unequal protection of the laws. Simply requiring for-cause criteria in any at-will employment is an Abridgement and unequal protection of the laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

You simply forgot the concept again:

This is the law: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

States have no authority to abridge that legal privilege and immunity via unequal protection of the laws. Simply requiring for-cause criteria in any at-will employment is an Abridgement and unequal protection of the laws.

And my plan removes that criteria by paying UC to everyone who is without a job. But it pays it in the same manner that it currently pays. $450 a week for 26 weeks.

There is nothing in the descriptions you have posted that sets the amount or the length of time for the payments.

 

[danielpalos]

And my plan removes that criteria by paying UC to everyone who is without a job. But it pays it in the same manner that it currently pays. $450 a week for 26 weeks.

There is nothing in the descriptions you have posted that sets the amount or the length of time for the payments.

Only if you ignore the law. Employment is at the will of either party. For-cause criteria is an abridgement to at-will employment and repugnant to the equal protection clause, as well as an abridgement of employment at the will of either party.