These vested interests have no interest in a socially mobile society.

A socially imobile society is a passive, dependent and controllable society.

just throwing some daughters' of hope out there so people will wake up and realize who's on their side.

'Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.”

... is having their slaves move if the job moves. Give up your home, life, friends, schools... it's the American Way.

Or not. Stay where you are and suffer. There's plenty more where you came from.


-- Mal

isn't going to pay a dime toward the employee's moving expenses...thereby making it difficult if not impossible to relocate. Another way corporate America fucks over workers. Besides, you're right. There are plenty of potential wage slaves waiting at whatever backwater "right to work" hellhole the cheap-o company moves to.

Cox Communications is closing a center in San Diego. Workers are being offered same positions in Phoenix and Las Vegas and those who accept will have full moving expenses paid, including assistance on selling/buying homes. Pay will be the same, which is a net gain for imployees since cost of living in both places is lower than San Diego.

My wife works for a very large HR firm, in an executive position handling "packages" for companies who are downsizing. These days it is mostly due to acquisition, and offering jobs at other locations in the acquiring company and paying relocation expense is not uncommon.

The people filling low-income jobs are dispensable. They usually don't get moving expenses. They just have to find another low-income job.

It's the poor, those employees looked upon as dispensable or replaceable by another often poorly trained person whose social mobility is severely limited in the US.

One of the reasons for the lack of social mobility among the poor is the cost of retraining and education for working people. We have community colleges in cities, but they charge for books, maybe even tuition and going to school takes time. A single mother who is working and has two or three children aged under 10 is not going to be able to take advantage of education or training oppotunities she needs to move up in the world unless she gets more than food stamps and welfare for her family.

When the children are grown, some mothers can find a school and attend maybe part-time. But it is very difficult then because by then the mother is in a poverty trap. It's hard to climb out of it once you are in your late 30s. The same principle applies to men though it is usually the women who are primarily responsible for the care of their children.

And then the Republicans wonder why women have abortions. It's really no mystery.

I don't know what your experiance is, perhaps you will enlighten me how it disproves what my wife is presently engaged in as a Vice President of an HR subsudiary of the world's largest temporary manpower agency.

Cox Communications is not a small company, and the positions they are transferring are not executive positions. They are the men and women who ask "How may I help you?" when you make a customer service call for television or internet service.

The post to which I responded said that "If the job moves these days, the corporation sure as hell isn't going to pay a dime toward the employee's moving expenses..." I responded that "sometimes they do" and gave an example of a company that is doing so. I added my wife's expertise and said that she has told me that moving expenses are not uncommon. She handles all levels of employees, including the telephone operators at Cox.

I'm sorry not to jump on the thread's bandwagon and engage in the hate rant with everyone else. I apologize for raining on your parade by pointing out that there is one large corporation which is not totally evil.

When his division of his large company (trust me you've heard of it) lost a contract, he was advised to contact human resources. The rep indicated that there were jobs available for his skill set, but they would require a move across the country and the company was not going to pay for it.

Great that Cox doesn't suck in that regard. But many, including my husband's former employer, do.

If ya know what I mean.

magnanimously cover employees' moving expenses these days for anyone but the top brass are living in an alternate universe. My husband's last employer was so cheap that "all hands"meetings were held during lunch hours on the employees' own time so that the company wouldn't have to pay for them out of the general budget. Anything to save a buck. Relocation assistance? Dream on.

get screwed by corporate greed. That BS about holding meetings on employees' own time is exactly why we need unions. One of about a million "exactlies".

I just happen to have noticed a number of JayHawkSD's posts that were pretty strenuously arguing basically RW talking points. Not sure how s/he has retained posting privileges this long. Looked at the profile and not a single rec of an OP for the last 90 days.

the company at entry level wages, no vacation for two years and less benefits. These companies kept doing this every few years and keep all of the profits. And we had the Greenspan Commission (1983) raise the SS tax so the wealthy could borrow from the SS Trust Fund. It has not been paid back to the fund to this very day!
Next we had destruction of labor unions and vulture capitalism. We have listened to RobMe Romney. And we continue to have banksterism who is, at this very moment collecting a lot of cash to have on hand at their banks when part of the Stock Market collapses soon. They will enjoy confiscating the investments of their costumers so they will not lose out, not even one year on their big bonuses.

... by destroying the last vestiges of the Safety Net created by FDR and LBJ.

There was a time in our country before we had the New Deal/Great Society.
It was not a good time unless you were a 1%er.

They lust for a return to those days.
Sadly, this is not limited to just the Republicans.
3rd Way Democrats want essentially the same thing.
They want to privatize the Safety Net so that they can turn a profit from it.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

"They lust for a return to those days."

They're crafted to push conservative voters in a direction they already want to be pushed and to drown out reasonable voices by sheer volume and repetition.

Yargle argle blargle.

That's who needs to read this article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4603578

The Democratic President is pushing Social Security cuts and the TPP.

The batshit crazy Republican assaults are used by corporate Democrats to make their own vicious assaults look more palatable.

It's a despicable con game by corporatists in both parties.

Who would expect that? From either party, actually, although it does seem that Republicans tend farther from reality than Democrats. But let's not pretend that Democrats are paragons of honesty.

I recently saw a study that said the single greatest predictor of the economic success in life of a child is the number of parents they have at home.

recycled for the past 30+ years and has been refuted ... for the past 30+ years. It was designed by the right to provide support for Reagan and the right's "marriage initiatives."

A child raised in a two parent, but impoverished household, stand a far less chance for "economic success" than a child been to a single, but wealthy, parent. Likewise, a child born into a 2 parent, abusive, household, stands a far less chance at economic success, than a child born into a single, but non-abusive, parent.

{I will post supportive studies when I get a chance.}

the numbers of wealthy single parent households pale in comparison to wealthy couples; but do not neglect the second point ...

It is MUCH easier to accumulate wealth when you have two adults (regardless of the genders) working together as a team, instead of two adults creating a child, working against each other, supporting two separate households.

I stand by it on those grounds. Just because some asshats tried to make bullshit conclusions from the results, the facts still remain.

But much of the abusive parenting is due to the frustration of the parents in trying to raise children with few resources and huge demands. Then, of course, the ability to plan realistically for themselves is something that children of abusive parents often do not learn. So the abuse is passed on from generation to generation.

And a lot of the day-care for pre-school children is of low quality. Vicious circle of poverty and impulsive behavior due to abusive parenting and child-rearing techniques.

It's very sad. And it is possible to break the cycle with good parenting education. We just don't bother with it.

it maybe part of the problem but solving single parenthood is not going to do it
Poor families with both parents intact have the same problem at surviving this system.
I speak from experience which is more intouch with reality than some social scientist or pencil pusher.

You are basically repeating what I said above. It is more closely tied to the cycle of poverty. And poverty is much more prevalent when you have two adults fighting to support two separate households than if you have two adults fighting to support one household. NO ONE said there is a one-size-fits-all panacea. However, bringing up anecdotal examples does not disprove statistical trends.

Two parent families will STILL have a natural advantage that will play out, as they will, on average, have greater resources which translate into greater success.

Two incomes supporting one household will have, on average, more money that two people supporting two households. Or, is your argument that additional money is NOT needed to provide more stability? It is simple, elementary arithmetic.

I'll look for the details elsewhere online if you can share the name of the study.

Where is the Land of Opportunity?
The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States

Raj Chetty, Harvard University and NBER
Nathaniel Hendren, Harvard University and NBER
Patrick Kline, UC-Berkeley and NBER
Emmanuel Saez, UC-Berkeley and NBER

January 2014

Zero incentives to carry the baby to term. Just gotta rough it out because God owns your body. ahem separation of church and state!!

I am surprised how rarely we hear such statements about women with young children. Babies and pre-schoolers need full time parental love and care, not an exhausted mother working full time or more at minimum wage. Any help given to mothers with young children is an investment in the future. Not everyone and everything's worth is based on money.

"makes the most of their lives" he means scrabble around for the crumbs that are available with "Productivity" being

under the grinding wheel to make more for the wealthy.

Thus the reason they hate the humanities.

said.

they have to pick themselves up by the bootstraps. So I ask them then why do they want to cut health care, 'so they can heal themselves?'

needs to decide what they think is true. On the one hand they say people are lazy and won't get jobs and on the other they say that Obama has destroyed the economy and that there are no jobs. It can't be both.