The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

What is "Legal citizenship"? You and a lot of internet conservatives use that a lot...and that's the only place I really ever see it.

A legal citizen of the United States? Either born here or applied for and received citizenship, passed the test and all that?

If they learned the skills to do whatever they did before then they can learn something new. Even monkeys and learn a new skill and you mean to tell me that grown humans are incapable of learning how to do something new? Your precondition is arbitrary. It's no different than saying "Give me a solution without giving me a solution!" You mean to tell me that Rosie the Riveter couldn't learn to do anything other than riveting?

The skills of the modern tech based economy may be quite beyond what a displaced factory worker CAN learn.

[aretood2]

A legal citizen of the United States? Either born here or applied for and received citizenship, passed the test and all that?

What's an illegal Citizen then?

The skills of the modern tech based economy may be quite beyond what a displaced factory worker CAN learn.

Such as?

[Annoyed]

What's an illegal Citizen then?




Such as?

1: Someone who is not a citizen of the US; ie does not have official citizen status. Stop dancing, you know what I'm talking about as well as I do.

2: Not everyone has the mental chops to go through college successfully. What is it, around 40 % of the US population has completed college? That's 60% of the population not eligible for the "new jobs" that require a sheepskin to get hired, regardless of whether or not you need it to do the job. The educational industry has so overvalued their product to the eyes of hiring managers that many people are excluded from jobs they would be perfectly capable of doing simply because they can't get the sheepskin.

So I will concede, revamping the educational system would be a component of a solution. But not in the way you think.

[aretood2]

1: Someone who is not a citizen of the US; ie does not have official citizen status. Stop dancing, you know what I'm talking about as well as I do.

The word "legal" is not used in that context. You can't be an "illegal Citizen" for that would be an oxymoron. I wanted to make sure because many people do ignore permanent residency. I would say that permanent residents should have access to some forms of welfare mainly because to be a permanent resident you have to have lived in the US with a clean record and gainfully employed for at the very least 5 years. I say this because permanent residents end up having kids, American kids, or married to someone who may end up being naturalized. As for those who obtain it through other more limited venues, that could have time restrictions too.

Temporary visa holders and conditional residents really have no business using welfare barring some crazy mitigating circumstance.

2: Not everyone has the mental chops to go through college successfully. What is it, around 40 % of the US population has completed college? That's 60% of the population not eligible for the "new jobs" that require a sheepskin to get hired, regardless of whether or not you need it to do the job. The educational industry has so overvalued their product to the eyes of hiring managers that many people are excluded from jobs they would be perfectly capable of doing simply because they can't get the sheepskin.

So I will concede, revamping the educational system would be a component of a solution. But not in the way you think.

Who said anything about college? You do know that education is more than just college, right? And a lot of jobs out there, good paying ones, don't require 4 year college degrees. Associate degrees and/or certifications obtainable from vocational schools and other post secondary institutions and programs are just as good. Those are places that teach mechanics, plumbers, electricians, you name it. Take CDL courses for example, there's good money to be made as a truck driver (though if you are young I wouldn't bet on trucking right now...)

[Gatefan1976]

1: Someone who is not a citizen of the US; ie does not have official citizen status. Stop dancing, you know what I'm talking about as well as I do.

2: Not everyone has the mental chops to go through college successfully. What is it, around 40 % of the US population has completed college? That's 60% of the population not eligible for the "new jobs" that require a sheepskin to get hired, regardless of whether or not you need it to do the job. The educational industry has so overvalued their product to the eyes of hiring managers that many people are excluded from jobs they would be perfectly capable of doing simply because they can't get the sheepskin.

So I will concede, revamping the educational system would be a component of a solution. But not in the way you think.

You are one of the 60%, aren't you?
You are conflating ability to learn, with ability to be certified. That's why we have technical colleges as well as traditional universities.
Once more, with no thought or reason, it's the teachers fault, or the student's failure. You even identify the problem, but still manage to blame the wrong people.

[Annoyed]

You are one of the 60%, aren't you?
You are conflating ability to learn, with ability to be certified. That's why we have technical colleges as well as traditional universities.
Once more, with no thought or reason, it's the teachers fault, or the student's failure. You even identify the problem, but still manage to blame the wrong people.

No, actually, I'm one of the 40%. As I've said, I spent the first part of my working life in a trade that I learned very young, a mechanic. Midway through life, injury forced me from that occupation, and I had to go back to school to learn to do something else. I graduated, but I simply didn't end up using what I went to school for.

[Gatefan1976]

No, actually, I'm one of the 40%. As I've said, I spent the first part of my working life in a trade that I learned very young, a mechanic. Midway through life, injury forced me from that occupation, and I had to go back to school to learn to do something else. I graduated, but I simply didn't end up using what I went to school for.

And somehow, that is the fault of the "school" or "education", or the "Government", or the "unions", and anyone else but the Employee or the Employer.

[Gatefan1976]

So, the republicans have decided to impeach...………

Rod Rosenstein.
A republican, put in power by a republican, cause he won't stop a republican.
I hope the Scotus was worth the 30 silvers.

[Coco Pops]

So, the republicans have decided to impeach...………

Rod Rosenstein.
A republican, put in power by a republican, cause he won't stop a republican.
I hope the Scotus was worth the 30 silvers.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

They are impeaching because he won't say nice things about Dear Leader

[Annoyed]

Seems that Trump's hard approach to trade might be yielding benefits.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ade-war-report

President Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday announced that they have reached a deal to begin resolving a dispute over tariffs and avoid a trade war.

"We agreed today first of all to work together towards zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers and zero subsides for the non-auto industrial goods," Trump announced in a joint statement with Juncker in the White House Rose Garden.

Maybe this was the point of his hardline stance? Simply to force other nations and entities to play on a level field?

They've gotta remove the non-auto clause, though. As I said a while back, if you want free trade, then have it completely open on both sides of the deal.

[Annoyed]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

They are impeaching because he won't say nice things about Dear Leader

Actually, I think it's because he is stonewalling congressional oversight.

[Ian-S]

Seems that Trump's hard approach to trade might be yielding benefits.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ade-war-report


Maybe this was the point of his hardline stance? Simply to force other nations and entities to play on a level field?

They've gotta remove the non-auto clause, though. As I said a while back, if you want free trade, then have it completely open on both sides of the deal.

That's more of a giant **** you to the UK and a message to other EU states, if we want the same deal after Brexit we've got to pay the EU £36Billion (or some crazy figure like that) and other EU states are being sent a very clear 'do not even consider leaving' message, by giving Japan and the USA free trade deals it sends a "don't **** with us" message to everybody.

Someone said a couple of pages back that the UK has low unemployment, we don't, our unemployment figures are just as bad as the rest of Europe, ok maybe not quiet, but still higher than what the official figures show, something like 40% of our adult population is not employed. You see after six months of being on unemployment benefit, you get kicked off it and placed onto another benefit, which means you are no longer counted as "unemployed". It's a ruse by the Tories to make our economy look stronger than it is.

[aretood2]

That's more of a giant **** you to the UK and a message to other EU states, if we want the same deal after Brexit we've got to pay the EU £36Billion (or some crazy figure like that) and other EU states are being sent a very clear 'do not even consider leaving' message, by giving Japan and the USA free trade deals it sends a "don't **** with us" message to everybody.

Someone said a couple of pages back that the UK has low unemployment, we don't, our unemployment figures are just as bad as the rest of Europe, ok maybe not quiet, but still higher than what the official figures show, something like 40% of our adult population is not employed. You see after six months of being on unemployment benefit, you get kicked off it and placed onto another benefit, which means you are no longer counted as "unemployed". It's a ruse by the Tories to make our economy look stronger than it is.

If 40% was true, you realize that you'd be going through a depression right now, right? The real unemployment level can't be that high unless you are counting working age minors, students, retired/elderly, house wifes/husbands and disabled. It's just impossible to have an economy that the UK has at that high of an unemployment rate.

So I did somes searching and found this website
https://www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-in-the-uk-is-now-so-low-its-in-danger-of-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7

The number it gives is 21.5%. Now while they do mention that it is based on the working age population which is everything with a human heartbeat between 16-64 years of age. They gloss over the fact that many 16-18 year olds don't get jobs for reasons unrelated to the economy. Same thing with couples where only one goes to work and the other purposefully stays at home to care for the children. 15-19 year olds account for almost 4 million people of the population which is about 65,648,100 in 2016. 15-64 year olds make up around 64% of the population which is gives us a work age population of about 42 million tea drinking Brits. That means 9% of the workforce is underage. So that's could potentially bring 21.5% down to 12.5%. That's using CIA World factbook and this other website. That doesn't include university students, which can add another percentage or two brining that 12.5% lower. 1.86 Milliion mothers (Source) were stay at home mothers in 2017. That's another 4% of the workforce. So now we take 12.5% minus 4% (keep in mind that we still have to account for university students) which gives us a rate of 8.5%.

I'll ignore the university students and give you 1% back from the mothers in case you feel that some are staying at home because they can't find jobs versus wanting to be "full time mothers." So we got 9.5% Unemployed. Now what about stay at home dads and the disabled? Well this source puts the 2017 number at around 230,000 which takes out .4% (source), so we'll go ahead and ignore this just to get a higher number of unemployment.

Now the same source says that 2.1 Million British working age people stay at home out of family concerns. So that's 5%. I'll go ahead and take the 12.5% and instead of taking the 4% from the stay at home moms, I'll take 5%, that gives us 7.5% unemployment rate minus minors, stay at home family caregivers, but not minus disabled. I couldn't find much information on disabled for non-minors that are working age. I am sure it's out there but I didn't' really spend too much time looking up this information. However, I'll leave them out to get an even higher level of unemployment. Also, because there are students who do work or want to work as well as disabled people who also work or want to work. Want here, also means "are willing to work".

That said, the "real unemployment" would actually be between 7.5% and 12.5%. It doesn't make sense to count people who A) Don't need to work, B) Can't work C) Don't want to work. So that 21.5% would have to go down because the ABC's are independent of the economy. This is why unemployment also takes into consideration of whether or not one is actively looking for work because it is hard to determine the "real unemployment" rate. I believe that multiplying the unemployment rate by 2 or 3 should get you the "real unemployment" rate. Or rather a very rough approximation in a relatively stable and advanced economy like the US or the UK or EU. But that is a very unscientific method.


Edit: I just realized that the 21.5% includes part time workers...well...that means that the percentage of school students and university students that we can take away is even higher than 9% because 9% only includes minors. But since that also included 15 year olds, I'll leave it be, but in reality it'd probably would be over 10%, bringing the low limit down from 7.5% to 6.5%. 6.5% would just be 2% different from the 2016 unemployment rate, the year these numbers are based on. 2018 can't be that drastically different unless Brexit brought in more unemployment...which would defeat the purpose huh?

[Annoyed]

That's more of a giant **** you to the UK and a message to other EU states, if we want the same deal after Brexit we've got to pay the EU £36Billion (or some crazy figure like that) and other EU states are being sent a very clear 'do not even consider leaving' message, by giving Japan and the USA free trade deals it sends a "don't **** with us" message to everybody.

Someone said a couple of pages back that the UK has low unemployment, we don't, our unemployment figures are just as bad as the rest of Europe, ok maybe not quiet, but still higher than what the official figures show, something like 40% of our adult population is not employed. You see after six months of being on unemployment benefit, you get kicked off it and placed onto another benefit, which means you are no longer counted as "unemployed". It's a ruse by the Tories to make our economy look stronger than it is.

I dunno how the UK figures into this, but if the EU wants to protect its markets by imposing tariffs and other limitations on our products while expecting us to have no tariffs / etc. on their products, then they can go do something unpleasant with themselves.

As far as jiggering the unemployment statistics, they learned that stunt from President peanut farmer back in the 70's. At the time, we were in a severe recession due to the 2nd oil embargo. In order to make the picture appear more rosy than it was, they changed things so that it didn't matter if you found a job or not, if your 26 weeks of unemployment ran out, your benefits stopped, and you were no longer counted as unemployed. They also changed the cost of living adjustments for various benefit programs, excluding energy & food costs, again to make it look better than it was and to lower govt. assistance program outlays.

[aretood2]

I dunno how the UK figures into this, but if the EU wants to protect its markets by imposing tariffs and other limitations on our products while expecting us to have no tariffs / etc. on their products, then they can go do something unpleasant with themselves.

As far as jiggering the unemployment statistics, they learned that stunt from President peanut farmer back in the 70's. At the time, we were in a severe recession due to the 2nd oil embargo. In order to make the picture appear more rosy than it was, they changed things so that it didn't matter if you found a job or not, if your 26 weeks of unemployment ran out, your benefits stopped, and you were no longer counted as unemployed. They also changed the cost of living adjustments for various benefit programs, excluding energy & food costs, again to make it look better than it was and to lower govt. assistance program outlays.

Reread my post, I added an edited extra paragraph. I used pure and simple math to take away people who don't care for and don't need to work. That includes what would be our equivalent of high school students, housewives/husbands, and other stay at home relatives minus the disabled (That means I didn't really count them to make an overestimate). I got the "real unemployment" rate from a website biased in favor of Ian-S's point. That website argues that the UK is collapsing and the world is ending with super high unemployment and that the UK gov is lying about the unemployment rate to make it seem low. The number that website gave was 21.5%

Using the demographics of the UK in 2016 I found that 14% doesn't want to or need to work at all. That gave me a range between 7.5% and 12.5%...and I am overestimating. It's probably as low as 6.5%. The reported unemployment rate was around 4.5%. If unemployment increased in the last 2 years then that is a major blow against Brexit.

The US numbers work in a very similar fashion. But you don't really care about facts, just feelings.