Why do poor communities exist in America?

[Soupnazi630]

Yet, you have no valid argument to prove it only lies about having a valid argument.

I have fact based valid arguments proving you to be a liar

 

[WinterBorn]

You miss the point, like usual. Unemployment compensation cannot abridge those privileges and immunities. In other words, if it is legal to quit on an at-will basis it should also be legal to collect unemployment compensation on that same, at-will basis.

No, nothing anywhere says that.

The at-will employment laws are intact and unabridged. UC has caused no loss of privileges at all.

 

[danielpalos]

No it should not.

It abrisged nothing

Simply because you say so? Where is your valid argument.

 

[danielpalos]

You are vomiting a balds faced lie.

You never prove it and never have

You have been proven wrong and a liar

You have Nothing but your currently unsubstantiated opinion, Right-Winger. How typical of the Right-Wing.

 

[danielpalos]

I have fact based valid arguments proving you to be a liar

No, you don't. All you need is a valid argument for rebuttal.

 

[WinterBorn]

Simply because you say so? Where is your valid argument.

No, because it is the truth. Even with UC in place, you are free to quit, strike, otherwise stop working. The employer is likewise free to fire you for any reason or no reason.

None of that means you are qualified for unemployment compensation.

Nothin in the at-will employment laws guarantees you compensation for the loss of a job when you are the reason for that loss.

 

[danielpalos]

No, nothing anywhere says that.

The at-will employment laws are intact and unabridged. UC has caused no loss of privileges at all.

lol. Why do you believe that?

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."

For unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State.

Anything denying or disparaging this: and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work." for unemployment compensation is an Abridgment of that privilege and immunity via Legislative Act that is repugnant to that concept.

 

[danielpalos]

No, because it is the truth. Even with UC in place, you are free to quit, strike, otherwise stop working. The employer is likewise free to fire you for any reason or no reason.

None of that means you are qualified for unemployment compensation.

Nothin in the at-will employment laws guarantees you compensation for the loss of a job when you are the reason for that loss.

You have no truth only your unsubstantiated opinion. It being Legal by Law means it can't be abridged via legislative Act under our Constitutional form of Government.

 

[WinterBorn]

lol. Why do you believe that?

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."

For unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State. Anything denying or disparaging this: and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work." for unemployment compensation is an Abridgment of that privilege and immunity via Legislative Act that is repugnant to that concept.

No, daniel, it is not.

The UC does not deny or disparage the fact that an employee is equally free to quit, strike or otherwise cease work. It simply does not.

The difference is, you want to be rewarded for quitting. Not rewarding someone for something is not denying or disparaging it.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have no truth only your unsubstantiated opinion. It being Legal by Law means it can't be abridged via legislative Act under our Constitutional form of Government.

Truth? Daniel, if you were working (fantasy I know), could you legally quit your job? Could you go on strike? Could you cease work?? The answer to all 3 questions is 'Yes'.

 

[danielpalos]

No, daniel, it is not.

The UC does not deny or disparage the fact that an employee is equally free to quit, strike or otherwise cease work. It simply does not.

The difference is, you want to be rewarded for quitting. Not rewarding someone for something is not denying or disparaging it.

You simply misunderstand, like usual. The Point is, if it is legal to quit on an at-will basis it must also be legal to collect unemployment compensation on that same at-will basis. Requiring Cause for unemployment compensation infringes upon the right to collect unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State.

Only right-wingers prove they have no problem being illegal to the laws as long as the Poor receive no benefit.

 

[danielpalos]

Truth? Daniel, if you were working (fantasy I know), could you legally quit your job? Could you go on strike? Could you cease work?? The answer to all 3 questions is 'Yes'.

So what. The point is that since you can legally quit on an at-will basis, it is an infringement to require Cause for unemployment compensation in any State where you can legally quit on an at-will basis.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Simply because you say so? Where is your valid argument.

Already presented and ignored and denied by you. Objective reality says so as you full well know.

Now what SPECIFICALLy what right is being abridged answer the question which you have been running from

 

[Soupnazi630]

So what. The point is that since you can legally quit on an at-will basis, it is an infringement to require Cause for unemployment compensation in any State where you can legally quit on an at-will basis.

No it is not

There is no law allowing you to quit on an at will basis.

It is an right which need not and never has been allowed by law

 

[themirrorthief]

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!

if you are lazy you will be poor

 

[Soupnazi630]

You simply misunderstand, like usual. The Point is, if it is legal to quit on an at-will basis it must also be legal to collect unemployment compensation on that same at-will basis. Requiring Cause for unemployment compensation infringes upon the right to collect unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State.

Only right-wingers prove they have no problem being illegal to the laws as long as the Poor receive no benefit.

No it does not

No one has the right to demand money from others.

There is no illegality to the laws and we have equal protection under the law

NOW name one right abridged by UC

 

[danielpalos]

Already presented and ignored and denied by you. Objective reality says so as you full well know.

Now what SPECIFICALLy what right is being abridged answer the question which you have been running from

lol. I would not be asking you for a valid argument if you had one.

At-will employment law is being abridged for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

No it is not

There is no law allowing you to quit on an at will basis.

It is an right which need not and never has been allowed by law

Your strawman argument is duly noted. Since you can quit on an at-will basis, it is extra-Constitutional to require Cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State because it abridges at-will employment law for those benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

if you are lazy you will be poor

Why do you believe that? John Henry died trying to keep up with more profitable automation instead of becoming Rich.

 

[danielpalos]

No it does not

No one has the right to demand money from others.

There is no illegality to the laws and we have equal protection under the law

NOW name one right abridged by UC

Another strawman argument is duly noted. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement.