[quote name='dohdough']Hiring 10 people at $8 is not better than 8 people at $10. It only serves the owners and not the workers. Being employed or having a bunch of employees doesn't mean squat if they don't have quality of life. Millions of slaves were "employed" and they were treated like livestock.
Unemployment and poverty can be mutually exclusive. You can be employed and live in poverty or you can be unemployed and not live in poverty. Employment isn't the issue, poverty is. Until the workers are paid enough for sustainable living without being wiped out from a serious medical or other disaster, workers will always be the ones screwed.
As for solutions, have something like the New Deal for people of color with more racially targeted affirmative action. It does not serve the country in anyway to have a large portion of the population left to wallow in circumstances that they were forced into.
More protectionist policies regarding shipping jobs overseas. Tax companies so that it costs more to employ someone at $30 a month somewhere else than $2500 here. So if a company chooses to outsource, there are social safety nets to take care of them.
End corporate personhood. Eliminate the ruling that allows corporations unlimited rein to contribute to any funds to political candidates. End predatory lending/usury.
Also, with all the unemployment numbers, right now it double for non-white men even on the same education levels.[/QUOTE]
Sure, hiring 10 people at $10 is the best option, but there are some jobs that (in this current economy and set of labor prices) aren't worth $10 an hour. Register jockey at Burger King comes to mind. But if that's your job, you shouldn't put yourself into a situation where you have kids and you're the sole provider for the family. It's just dumb. There are also certain circumstances where there isn't demand for 10 jobs, that's just part of our current crappy economy.
Also, calling slaves employed is a bit of a stretch, they were slaves. There's no argument there.
I'll be right next to you when we go ahead with more protectionist policies, on the other hand what will then happen to other citizens of the world? Will we be leaving them behind in a sense?
I'm with you regarding corporate contributions to candidates and PACs, it really isn't at all necessary and it would leave a bad taste in my mouth if my company made a contribution with which I did not agree.
The second part of that has some wiggle room. Predatory Lending is a loaded term at best. If we stick with housing, the whole Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) thing that is partially responsible for the "collapse" of the housing market was spawned by an initiative to get low income peoples into homes (end of the Clinton era and part of Bush 2's first term, I believe he called it the "Ownership Society", wether or not this was a ploy to get the rich richer and eventually knife
the poor is a debate for another thread). It's basically a clever tool that was derived from the deregulation of the banks during the Clinton administration. Banking regulations were originally setup under Bush 1 after the Savings and Loan scandal that was our first ride down bubble bursting in the modern era. Clinton had to undo it (to a certain extent) as a bargaining chip with that lecherous
er known as Newt Gingrich. For what I can't remember. Anyways, it obviously backfired as payments went up while the value of the house did not and in most cases went down. One can also make a decent argument that the elderly were conned by advertising into using their houses as an ATM under the guise of home equity loans after their homes were already paid off, or very close to being paid off. It circulated a LOT of money through the economy and made the situation look better, even though it was the same $5 going between a bunch of pals in an effort to figure who has to go get the beer.
What I really take issue with is your use of the term usury. If you want to get rid of interest entirely, you'll cripple the whole system. Without interest on a loan, good luck finding $250k in your pocket to buy a house. Without interest on a loan, good luck finding someone willing to give you $250k to start a business, or to expand one for that matter.
Higher unemployment for blacks vs whites:
Ok, I can believe that. But the issue is where. If you're taking national numbers into consideration but not applying them to a location it's a useless fact (note, not saying it isn't a fact). I mean look at Mississippi, HUGE unemployment and a large concentration of blacks. That skews the average. Go to Boston, MA (for example) where there's a much more mixed population and the figures become closer to even. Then go to middle of nowhere Montana where you have your militia clowns and that skews the average the other way. Mississippi Blacks aren't
ed, Mississippi itself is
ed and has been for the better part of the last two decades. Affirmative action of any variety isn't going to help there.
Look at that, we can sort of agree on some things and be civil!
