Why do poor communities exist in America?

[danielpalos]

That is not a at-will employment right that is abridged by the UC laws.

At-will employment is exactly the same as it was. There are no for-cause requirements.

Being qualified for unemployment compensation has nothing to do with at-will employment laws.


Once again, give me a at-will employment privilege that is abridged by the current UC laws.

At-will employment law fixed those privileges and immunities for the People in any at-will employment State. Unemployment compensation law abridges those privileges and immunities by legislative Act. There is no legal reason to abridge at-will employment privileges and immunities for unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not answer my question? What part of the 1st amendment applies to this discussion?

Where did you get your alleged morality regarding "work or die"?

 

[danielpalos]

Which I posted and desgtroyed your stupid claims with

You lie claiming my posts are unsubstantiated they are substantiated with facts. You know this but are too much of a chiild to admit it.

All you need is an argument of any kind as opposed to proven fallacies which is all you have posted

Nothing you wrote substantiates anything you have said.

 

[danielpalos]

Being the greatest nation on earth, we have a ton of work to do on fixing our infrastructure. Our health care system is flailing, and wages are and have been way behind for years. We want young people to have families, which are expensive, and then save money. It isn't feasible for many. It's no dream for the working masses anymore. And then there are those that want to gut medicare, the one thing that helps older Americans. Social security and medicare are two of the greatest things we've ever done in america.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner could go a long way toward helping to fix our economy. Full employment of capital resources means more market participation in that market friendly manner.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nothing you wrote substantiates anything you have said.

What I wrote is factually accurate what you wrote is fallacy

 

[Soupnazi630]

Where did you get your alleged morality regarding "work or die"?

That is not morality fool that is a law of nature.

 

[Soupnazi630]

At-will employment law fixed those privileges and immunities for the People in any at-will employment State. Unemployment compensation law abridges those privileges and immunities by legislative Act. There is no legal reason to abridge at-will employment privileges and immunities for unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

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.

Unempployment compensation abrisged no immunities or privileges

 

[WinterBorn]

At-will employment law fixed those privileges and immunities for the People in any at-will employment State. Unemployment compensation law abridges those privileges and immunities by legislative Act. There is no legal reason to abridge at-will employment privileges and immunities for unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

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.

It does not abridge any privilege or immunity granted by the at-will employment law. You can still quit and employers can still fire you. That is the extent of what the at-will employment laws grant you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Where did you get your alleged morality regarding "work or die"?

Oh, now you want me to answer your question? How about you answer mine first?

What part of the 1st amendment applies to this discussion?

 

[danielpalos]

It does not abridge any privilege or immunity granted by the at-will employment law. You can still quit and employers can still fire you. That is the extent of what the at-will employment laws grant you.

You miss the point. At-will employment Law establishes those privileges and immunities. The legislature is not authorized to enact any public policies which deny or disparage those privileges and immunities established by at-will employment Law.

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, now you want me to answer your question? How about you answer mine first?

What part of the 1st amendment applies to this discussion?

Your morals don't matter only ethics. It is unethical to bear false witness to our own Constitutional laws. Only illegals do that.

 

[WinterBorn]

You miss the point. At-will employment Law establishes those privileges and immunities. The legislature is not authorized to enact any public policies which deny or disparage those privileges and immunities established by at-will employment Law.

Every single privilege that is established by the at-will employment law is still intact. The UC laws have no effect on those laws. The At-will employment laws do not guarantee that quitting a job gets you any assistance.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your morals don't matter only ethics. It is unethical to bear false witness to our own Constitutional laws. Only illegals do that.

And still no explanation as to why you think the 1st amendment applies to this discussion. Typical of you.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You miss the point. At-will employment Law establishes those privileges and immunities. The legislature is not authorized to enact any public policies which deny or disparage those privileges and immunities established by at-will employment Law.

No it does not

I get igt perfectly and you are proven wrong and a liar

 

[skews13]

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!

Capitalism

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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!

I'm sorry, but your vocabulary, writing skills and clear thought patterns (as errant as they are) give you away.
There is no way someone who grew up in Harlem writes like this.

 

[danielpalos]

Every single privilege that is established by the at-will employment law is still intact. The UC laws have no effect on those laws. The At-will employment laws do not guarantee that quitting a job gets you any assistance.

Only if you ignore the law. Here is the federal doctrine that applies to unemployment compensation via those express at-will employment Laws (which cannot be ignored for public policy purposes.)

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Any public policy enacted by the legislature cannot abridge those privileges and immunities via public policies. Thus, for-cause criteria for unemployment compensation is unConstitutional on its face and in its substance.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

No it does not

I get igt perfectly and you are proven wrong and a liar

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted. Now, all you need is a valid argument to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted. Now, all you need is a valid argument to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

My statements are factual and subbstantiated

Your idiotic opinions are proven lies

 

[danielpalos]

My statements are factual and subbstantiated

Your idiotic opinions are proven lies

Simply because You as a right-winger says so? Only Simon gets away with that.