" wrote in
:

On 16 Aug 2012 11:27:21 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 15 Aug 2012 17:51:20 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 15 Aug 2012 12:51:07 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in
:

On 8/14/2012 7:49 PM, HeyBub wrote:
It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote for a federal
office.

It's a federal crime to break into our country and be here
illegally, and the Feds ignore that crime as well...

Agriculture as we know it would cease if we didn't have illegal
aliens harvesting ... Guess who hires them

I call BULL**** on that one, Han. With so many people out of work
right now, I'd bet not one of those jobs went empty for very long
if we were to finally deport all the illegals.

I'm going by reports of harvest gone unharvested when Alabama or
Arizona or both decided to let illegals deport themselves, and they
did.

Did you mean Georgia? The farmers should have known that was coming
and made sure they had workers lined up beforehand, don't you think?
Or, if the state gov't pushed the deadline or hit them without
warning, they should have helped find workers for the farmers, don't
you think? I'm thinking the two groups bent -themselves- over this
time.

Alabama. This is a site that promotes the law that says you have to
be legal grin and led to the harvesting problems
http://www.alipac.us/f12/ala-governo...rgeting-illega
l- immigrants-257760/

You're both right (I live in both states ;-). There was no surprise,
here.

'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
particular line of expertise. After 6 months (or less?), they
should be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple
days training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles.
Unlimited unemployment checks breed worse things. Get 'em off
their asses!

I think that much unemployment or underemployment stems from
insufficient wages. But then, we have gotten used to cheap food and
other things cheap, so we're not willing to pay what we in all
likelihood should. I agree that people should take a job, almost
any job once their unemployment runs out. Who (OTOH) is in charge
of generating jobs for those whose prior jobs have disappeared? All
this is hugely easy for me to say, because I don't need a job
anymore ...

That's just it. Unemployment isn't running out. Some people have
been on it for over three years, Han! I think that after whatever
the initial run is (I think it was 13 weeks when I last used it,
back in the '70s) and the unemployed person hasn't found work, they
should be forced to take whatever job IS available in their town, at
their unemployment office. If the wages are less than their
unemployment check (usually for very highly paid people), maybe
cover the difference? But the unemployment office isn't forcing
anything. That should change. Forcing unearned money on people
isn't good for anyone involved: Not the worker, not the EDD office,
and not the taxpayers.

I'm not familiar with all the laws about unemployment, especially
since they seem to change often in terms of time periods covered. The
problem is not unemployment compensation in general, but the way the
US (in general) fails to generate employment and educational
opportunities,

Absolute nonsense. Everyone is offered an education, some several
times. Because they choose not to participate isn't my problem. It
shouldn't be the (federal) government's either.

True, as well as false. My son-in-law teaches high school math in
Paterson, NJ (read ghetto school). He delights in the observation he is
making a difference there. He also is shown daily the deficiencies of
the local school system (Paterson isn't exactly an example of how to
educate kids), the indifference of parents, as well as the (lack of)
culture among the kids. So, yes, if you are gung-ho to get educated AND
get a committed mentor, you can get educated anywhere in the US. But it
is really tough in some environments.

especially when the economy turns sour. I think that covering the
difference between previous high wages and the lower wages in current
opportunities has been considered in some places.

That's absurd. Why the hell would I work at a high-stress job if the
government (you) is going to pay me to loaf?

I wasn't loafing, and the high-stress job I had, I eventually ditched.
Before that, though, I saw the high-stress job as a challenge, plus I was
paid enough to live. I was able to buy my first home, and now have
little debt on that home left. On the salary I made last, it would be
really, really tough to buy this house now with just a meager deposit.

But that can get dicey
very fast, especially in the middle income ranges. Example: Your
previous job had generous benefits and pension arrangements, but you
were RIF'ed. There is a new job somewhere else, but at 60% of your
previous wages, with less benefits and pension arrangements. If you
do take that, not only will you have to really limit your expenditures
(including probably selling your house at a moment it isn't
advantageous), but your resume will show that precipitous decrease.
Not good for the next job. Maybe that scenario isn't too important
for farm workers and others, but it is a very important point to a
large portion of currently unemployed middle income people.

If you want a life with no risk (but also with no reward), why did you
move to the US, Han? Freedom to succeed is also the freedom to fail.
You *can't* have one without the other.

I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise from my
Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was good enough
there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD. My alternative was compulsory military
service (in 1969, there was a draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for the
lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded professor at
the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we could live in
Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I took the chance
because it seemed the way to start a career. I was unemployed for a 3
months (long story), but found a job in New York that I stayed with for
34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some point, but was lucky/capable
enough to get going again. So, one thing led to another, and as many, but
not all in similar positions, I stayed in the US, not too far from where
my grandchildren live. My son-in-law and daughter-in-law think we might
the right choice, did and do the right things. Now I got pertussis and
have to overcome that cough ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid