CP wrote --

I apply, occasionally, for the entry level jobs, willing to accept minwage, just to have positive cash flow for my time.

I was taught that when times were tough to accept any job that came along (that I was able to do of course) until something better comes along.
Someone once said when hiring people it was often better to hire someone
who had lots of jobs over someone who had a sheepskin and has no work experience.
The one who had the jobs shows determination while the other hasn't.
I've known people would rather live off the dole than work a job that
their degree wasn't in.

I know the North did, unlike many I talk with, who think the North was pristine regarding slavery, ignorimng how thefounding farthers all had slaves,

It was a part of life at the time, going back centuries.
While Europe didn't have slaves, per se, during the Middle Ages they did have serfs who were pretty much slaves though not in name.

Lincoln at one time, & he was quoted as saying slavery was essential,

At first Lincoln was for preserving the union, not freeing the slaves. Freeing the slaves was secondary to him and a shrewd political move.
Not saying he was opposed to it.
And a lot of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves were opposed to
slavery but how to end was a question. Do it gradually or all at once and flood
the market with more workers than there were paying jobs?

I certainly don't care either way -- he's long dead, as is legal slavery.

Agreed.

I like that our mayor here has been in for 11+ ters, because he is re-elected by popular acclaim on his merits, not on pork barrel politics.

No problem there.

Sadly, some thing the rich, including politicians, asre universally exempt from. :'(

When the Congresscritters vote on something they exempt themselves, be it taxes, work rules, whatever.

terrorists. Diud you notice -- no footprints near the child -- don't people automatically run to help if they see a child lying on the sand, washed up on shore?

Nope, today they just pull out their phone and video it then post on
social media.
Joe
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 www.doccyber.org bbs.docsplace.org (1:135/392)

CP wrote --

I apply, occasionally, for the entry level jobs, willing to accept minwage,

just to have positive cash flow for my time.
I was taught that when times were tough to accept any job that came along (that I was able to do of course) until something better comes along.

I fully agree -- nobody taughht mnethast; the lesson was no longer passed on by my time, I think -- but it's readily deduced with a littlecommon sense (THAT I was taught by my dad--I think it's worth more than forewarnings, sometimes)

Someone once said when hiring people it was often better to hire someone
who had lots of jobs over someone who had a sheepskin and has no work experience.
The one who had the jobs shows determination while the other hasn't.

True -- but too many jobs makes it look like you aren't one to commit & they worry their losses in training will not be returned, as they'll get trained & flighty off elsewhere. (McDonalds, especially, has this problem, as McD's on your CV is a guartanteed interview getter for something better)

One of our local schools (BCIT) is the same -- it's a guaranteed job when you grad their programs)

I've known people would rather live off the dole than work a job that
their degree wasn't in.

Most of my neighbours are this way -- it sucks, because they'd rather party every night than let those paying the taxes to keep their dole & subsidized rent. I getsome welfare, for being disabled, but I work for it, as I was taught you don't get free money -- you EARN your way.

I had to get it upon leaving the hospiotal & rehab, buyt I saw it as only a temporary safety net, not a permanment solution/way of life.

Now, very dsadly, jobsare going ujnfilled because peoplewould rather sit at home on the Covid allowance than do real work! :( These are ADULTS!!!

Guess I gotta work harder to pay for their lazy arses, too! *sigh*

[Slavery, pre-Lincoln]

It was a part of life at the time, going back centuries.
While Europe didn't have slaves, per se, during the Middle Ages they did
have serfs who were pretty much slaves though not in name.

Who doesnt like having others do your work & just present you with profit?

There was no real automation then; even now for some jobs, human labour is necessary (picking the billion dollar berry crops here, for one)

But the second they can ditch the human overhead, most companies jump at it. (especially here in BC where the Union mentality has gone fully rogue)

My dad wasforced to join a union, by law & wasn't happy about it. Legally he had to refuse to work when the union ordered it; his view was he worked for the guy sighing his pay, not his fellow workers, bnuit the law was plain -- if he scabbed, he could be fined $5K or more!

Lincoln at one time, & he was quoted as saying slavery was essential,

At first Lincoln was for preserving the union, not freeing the slaves. Freeing the slaves was secondary to him and a shrewd political move.
Not saying he was opposed to it.

Yup, that's been my view of it, too. But was the south part of the Union yet? Oh, yes, I guess that included the southern parts of the LA Purchase, eh?

& the Republican Party was created to then become for slavery (only because the Dems were antis, is how it looks to me.) 1964 cost the Dems a lot of votes for years to come.)

And a lot of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves were opposed to
slavery but how to end was a question. Do it gradually or all at once and flood

Jefferson wantred to free his whole set, but it was illegal to do so, & would cost him too much to do so.

the market with more workers than there were paying jobs?

There is that -- was that ever brought up explicitly in Congress or Senate then?

So much of what built Americawas accomplished only by slavery -- cotton, sugar (they still use slavery for sugar cane production in the islands.)

I like that our mayor here has been in for 11+ ters, because he is re-elected

by popular acclaim on his merits, not on pork barrel politics.
No problem there.

I am happy our system defines fixed election times, so the public gets to re- evaluate all, including long termers, but I don't like that there are people who merely vote against the incumbent with no clue how that might affect them or their neighbours.

Sadly, some thing the rich, including politicians, asre universally exempt

from. :'(
When the Congresscritters vote on something they exempt themselves, be it taxes, work rules, whatever.

True, sadly; up to "We, the People" to change that, really. (I put it in quotes as it doesn't include me in this geo-political context)

terrorists. Diud you notice -- no footprints near the child -- don't people

automatically run to help if they see a child lying on the sand, washed up on shore?
Nope, today they just pull out their phone and video it then post on
social media.

We had to pass a lawmaking it ilegal to do nothing after several people recorded a guy drowning in a whirlpool, right from hitting the water, yunti he was finally dragged under to his death.

I near vomited. We need a LAW for this?!

I couldn't do squat physically, to help him, nit I could use my eyes & common sense to direct those who could to put down their ******* phones & do this & that. . . &, if a signal, use my own phone to call for outside help.

If I ever watch such, & only recording it, just shoot me -- I'm done as a member of society. I can say that, as it'd never happen.

My Mama didn't raise no jackass!

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

CP wrote --

Someone once said when hiring people it was often better to hire someone who had lots of jobs over someone who had a sheepskin and has no work experience.
The one who had the jobs shows determination while the other hasn't.

True -- but too many jobs makes it look like you aren't one to commit & they worry their losses in training will not be returned, as they'll get trained & flighty off elsewhere.

I may not have made myself clear there.
Its not someone who has only had a lot of different jobs, but who has
done a variety of jobs and the skills that come along with those jobs, be it entry level or a CEO of a multinational company.
As one goes from job to job (entry level moving upward) they learn new skills than someone with a newly printed sheepskin doesn't have.

(McDonalds, especially, has this problem, as McD's on
your CV is a guartanteed interview getter for something better)

And McDonald's is generally an entry level (or stop gap or extra income)
job, as most minimum wage jobs are.
Minimum wage is just that, the minimum, and not intended to be used to support a family, etc.
One does not start as a burger flipper and do that forever, or at least shouldn't. One flips burgers till something better comes along: team leader, assistant manager, manager, etc with increase in pay along the way if they
stay in that job. And more ofte
This would reflected in their work experience to a new employer.

One of our local schools (BCIT) is the same -- it's a guaranteed job when you grad their programs)

I hope they don't guarantee permanent employment at that position.

I had to get it upon leaving the hospiotal & rehab, buyt I saw it as only a temporary safety net, not a permanment solution/way of life.

Too many today use the safety net as a hammock.
Then laugh at us folks for working while they sit back and are taken
care of with our tax dollars.
I believe those who are able to work should work and not get any
welfare. And there are different skills people have who may have a disability.
While someone may not be able to do manual labour, they can hold down a
desk job.

Now, very dsadly, jobsare going ujnfilled because peoplewould rather sit at home on the Covid allowance than do real work! :( These are ADULTS!!!

Same here.
I was against sending everyone that Covid money. Some people, like
myself, didn't need it, and there were people who did need it.
Things like this should be based on need, not money tossed at people willy-nilly.
But then we are talking about politicians who see throwing money at
people as a means of being re-elected by some people.
We used to joke here in WV that politicians brought votes by "a dollar
and a swaller". Vote for me and I'll give a dollar and a drink each time
you vote.

There was no real automation then; even now for some jobs, human labour is necessary (picking the billion dollar berry crops here, for one)

And eventually automation will replace the berry pickers.
When so many were calling for $15 an hour minimum wage, companies began
to look at automation even more so with some FF places replacing counter
people with machines.
The initial cost is high but pays for itself over time.
Now those were calling for the higher minimum wage are out of a job.

My dad wasforced to join a union, by law & wasn't happy about it.

At one time I had to join a union and not happy.
I was working part time for a large grocery chain (it was a stop gap job since nothing else available at the time).
After 30 days one had to join the union. I was working in produce department and some fruit union.
This company had a policy of never firing anyone.
What they did was cut back ones hours for the ones they wanted to get
rid of until their hours until they worked only enough time to cover their union dues.
After a couple of months something better came along and I was gone.

Yup, that's been my view of it, too. But was the south part of the Union yet?
Oh, yes, I guess that included the southern parts of the LA Purchase, eh?

Yep. The South, until 1861, had always been part of the union.
The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the size of the country and all
new states (and territories there in) became part of the union.
There was a big debate over if the new states would be slave or free, for
a balance of power. That is there could be not be more slave or free states but an equal number.
Say you had three territories who wanted to join the union. One had to
be free and the other slave. Thus the third territory that wanted to be admitted had to wait for a territory opposite it to come up.
This was also based on geography, what the people wanted, etc.

& the Republican Party was created to then become for slavery (only because the Dems were antis, is how it looks to me.) 1964 cost the Dems a lot of votes for years to come.)

Close, but you have it reversed.
The Dem's were pro-slavery, the Republicans anti-slavery, at least
joining the union at the beginning. And not anti-slavery per se, just no more slave states admitted.
The Dem's controlled the South before the Civil War and the Republicans
were the majority party in the north.
After the war the Republicans controlled the South and it was the
Republicans who passed the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th that gave
citizenship to former slaves and the 15th that gave former slaves the right to vote. All opposed by the Democ
This didn't set well with a lot of people, on either side.
Some Southerns didn't like the idea of freed slaves being citizens and voting, and some northerners didn't like the idea of all these former slaves being equal citizens. This was mostly due to economics since freed slaves threw more people into the job ma
It was the Democrats who opposed all this and passed Jim Crow laws of varying degrees. Segregation was common until the late 1960s in nearly all states to one degree or another. It may not have been at blatant as it was in the South.
But those opposing integration were almost all Democrats.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ending segregation was passed with barely a Democrat voting for it. It was begun by the Republicans and signed by
Democrat Lyndon Johnson, not because he necessarily agreed with it, but for political motive since he thought it

the market with more workers than there were paying jobs?

There is that -- was that ever brought up explicitly in Congress or Senate then?

Not that I am aware of.

I am happy our system defines fixed election times, so the public gets to re-evaluate all

Same here.

but I don't like that there are people who merely vote against the incumbent with no clue how that might affect them or their neighbours.

When it comes to voting too many people are lazy.
They don't want to take the few minutes it takes to vote out of their
"busy day" much less even learn who is running and their positions.
When I vote (and only missed one election, school board when I first
moved back here) I read what the person has done in the past, not just want they
say they will do.
Its easy for someone to say "vote for me and you'll have everything you
want" but once in office make a lame attempt and say "Well, I tried, vote for me again".
So many voters simply see a name they recognise and even if they may not like that person, vote for them again because the other guy may be worse.
Elections are too often popularity contests.

We had to pass a lawmaking it ilegal

Sadly, too often the case today.
I would like to see people in a situation like that be charged with negligence.
Joe
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 www.doccyber.org bbs.docsplace.org (1:135/392)