Help wanted — sixty-five million need not apply

[CanOWorms]

Nor do they represent the number of people whose criminal records have been expunged or the number of employers unwilling to hire someone merely accused of a crime. All it does is show the distinct possibility the numbers may be higher then the 65 million suggested in the original post.

No, it shows more than that. It also offers speculation in the other direction. That seems the more likely route.

 

[Fern]

They are obviously counting misdemeanors is that figure of 65 million. C'mon, that could include moving violations (traffic offenses) and all kinds of little, meaningless crap.

If it was felonies, which is what I believe employers screen against, the author might have a point.

Fern

 

[datalink7]

Watched a show recently (maybe on the military channel, can't remember now) that talked about how the military does do checks, but due to trying to hit recruitment numbers is starting to allow some in, including known gang members.

And that show would be 100% wrong. I am currently in recruiting and we do thorough background checks. Anything gang related is immediately out of the question. Just a few months ago we had someone come in who had a gang related tattoo. After talking with him we were pretty certain he wasn't in a gang, just saw the tattoo somewhere and thought it was cool looking so got one. Even so, he wasn't allowed to join because of it.

And "starting to allow" some in is the opposite direction things are going. Restrictions are actually tighter now than they have been in a long time, and are continuing to get tighter.

 

[airdata]

Blame the idiot politicians for setting up the system that allows wall street to rip everyone off, don't blame wall street for following the law.

Did you read that before you posted it? or are we getting into semantics about things that are technically legal but ruin our entire countries economy and countless lives and things that are illegal and probably should be legal?

Here. I'm going to translate what you said.

"You shouldn't blame the millionaire CEO's behind much of the fraud that led us into our current economic crisis.... You should blame the politicians ! Oh... and don't worry about the million dollar bonuses paid out to people w\ bailout money... that's just the way it is !"

or

"Don't hate the player, hate the game!"

or

"Umad?!"

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It is more moral for people to get the opportunity repeatedly to leave crime and be a law-abiding employed citizen.

However, the fact is, while you might be someone who wants to do that, many others who have committed crimes do not - criminals are more likely to be a problem employee.

But letting former criminals be 'black-listed' leaves them without much but crime to support themselves - it greatly increases recidivism IMO.

What we have is a selfish employer interest to just not take the higher risk - against the societal interest both in terms of justice and crime reduction to let them leave crime.

Fact is, we create a permanent criminal underclass this way IMO, by allowing short-term behavior of black-listing released criminals.

They have to eat.

The for-profit prison industry is happy to just lock them up more and more - which we are doing.

Even in this time of reduced state money, we are setting records for prisons - politicians don't mind the support of the prison industry, nor the reduced crime.

IMO, we should *invest* in a new level of government aid for people to help point these people to get employed, and not let employers ask about that history.

Yes, it would make employers unhappy as these people had a higher average for problems - but it's the best plan IMO, over employers 'let someone else worry about it'.

No wonder street gangs are the only option many of them see, and they don't feel much remorse for crimes against society. They have to eat.

It's very childish and immoral to take a scolding approach - 'if they don't like being black listed they should have thought about that before committing a crime'.

There's a time for scolding, when they are sentenced. Black-listing is bad for everyone except the short-term employer benefit.

When you have some car oil to get rid of, it's convenient for you to pour it down the sewer. Works for you short term. But when everyone does that, what happens?

You need to deal with the hassle of disposing of oil safely, and employers need to deal with the hassle of worse problems on average with people with criminal histories.

It's an investment with payoffs for justice to let people leave crime, and for society in reduced prison costs and crime.

Will voters recognize the need to do this, or will they irrationally say things like 'that's pro-criminal, it rewards crime to give the criminal rights!'?

Yes they have to eat. Which is why they steal shoes, alcohol, pharmacuticals, cars, televisions. Or they sell drugs to kids, or rape, or assault. Yes all those people need to be given a fair chance? No Anyone that has stooped to that level has proven that they are all about taking the easiest route to attain something. You can get into construction, lawn cutting, all kinds of jobs that they don't care if you are a criminal or not.
The company I used to work for specifially wanted the temp agency to get people that had non-violent crimes convictions in the door to help them turn their lives around. Violent criminals should never be given special treatment.
I say we change the name of Antartica to Australia 2 and shipp off all the violent offenders there.

 

[Double Trouble]

Did you read that before you posted it? or are we getting into semantics about things that are technically legal but ruin our entire countries economy and countless lives and things that are illegal and probably should be legal?

Here. I'm going to translate what you said.

"You shouldn't blame the millionaire CEO's behind much of the fraud that led us into our current economic crisis.... You should blame the politicians ! Oh... and don't worry about the million dollar bonuses paid out to people w\ bailout money... that's just the way it is !"

or

"Don't hate the player, hate the game!"

or

"Umad?!"

Sigh. Another product of the failed education system apparently. I said nothing of the sort. If that's what you want to believe, carry on though.

 

[wuliheron]

No, it shows more than that. It also offers speculation in the other direction. That seems the more likely route.

No, I think Fern has it right and it merely indicates the number of misdemeanors as well as felonies.

To put this in context .75% of the population is in jail right now, 2% are hardened criminals responsible for most crimes, and roughly 6.5% will serve time. That's 20 million Americans who will serve time at some point in their lives making 3 times that figure if you include all misdemeanors and felonies that don't involve serving time sound about right.

 

[airdata]

Sigh. Another product of the failed education system apparently. I said nothing of the sort. If that's what you want to believe, carry on though.

Originally Posted by Double Trouble
Blame the idiot politicians for setting up the system that allows wall street to rip everyone off, don't blame wall street for following the law.

You didn't make this post?

Before jumping to the conclusion of you being an idiot, please show me how I could have possibly mis-read your post.

"don't hate the big corporations for giving their millionaire ceo's multi-million dollar bonuses with bail out money... hate the government for giving them bail out money." I'm just using your logic here.

 

[Nebor]

And that show would be 100% wrong. I am currently in recruiting and we do thorough background checks. Anything gang related is immediately out of the question. Just a few months ago we had someone come in who had a gang related tattoo. After talking with him we were pretty certain he wasn't in a gang, just saw the tattoo somewhere and thought it was cool looking so got one. Even so, he wasn't allowed to join because of it.

And "starting to allow" some in is the opposite direction things are going. Restrictions are actually tighter now than they have been in a long time, and are continuing to get tighter.

Exactly. We're hitting beyond 100% recruiting goals and have been for more than a year. We can afford to be picky.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I don't think the background checks are as intense as they are making them out to be. I know a few people who have gotten white collar jobs with things like pot busts on their records. Hell half the jobs I've had didn't even check references or verify I had a degree.

 

[Corn]

It is more moral for people to get the opportunity repeatedly to leave crime and be a law-abiding employed citizen.

However, the fact is, while you might be someone who wants to do that, many others who have committed crimes do not - criminals are more likely to be a problem employee.

But letting former criminals be 'black-listed' leaves them without much but crime to support themselves - it greatly increases recidivism IMO.

What we have is a selfish employer interest to just not take the higher risk - against the societal interest both in terms of justice and crime reduction to let them leave crime.

Fact is, we create a permanent criminal underclass this way IMO, by allowing short-term behavior of black-listing released criminals.

They have to eat.

The for-profit prison industry is happy to just lock them up more and more - which we are doing.

Even in this time of reduced state money, we are setting records for prisons - politicians don't mind the support of the prison industry, nor the reduced crime.

IMO, we should *invest* in a new level of government aid for people to help point these people to get employed, and not let employers ask about that history.

Yes, it would make employers unhappy as these people had a higher average for problems - but it's the best plan IMO, over employers 'let someone else worry about it'.

No wonder street gangs are the only option many of them see, and they don't feel much remorse for crimes against society. They have to eat.

It's very childish and immoral to take a scolding approach - 'if they don't like being black listed they should have thought about that before committing a crime'.

There's a time for scolding, when they are sentenced. Black-listing is bad for everyone except the short-term employer benefit.

When you have some car oil to get rid of, it's convenient for you to pour it down the sewer. Works for you short term. But when everyone does that, what happens?

You need to deal with the hassle of disposing of oil safely, and employers need to deal with the hassle of worse problems on average with people with criminal histories.

It's an investment with payoffs for justice to let people leave crime, and for society in reduced prison costs and crime.

Will voters recognize the need to do this, or will they irrationally say things like 'that's pro-criminal, it rewards crime to give the criminal rights!'?

LOL, that's rich coming from the moron who would discriminate against conservatives if given the chance. Here's to hoping you never have the authority to hire anyone:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=276692

To be honest, while when hiring for others, politics are irrelevant, if hiring for a franchise like that, I'd be inclined to employ liberals over right-wing people, if that was known.

That is a controversial position, but I think there's an argument for it - and not the other direction - based on the rightness of the liberal position.

I do understand that most are more comfortable with insisting politics not be a factor. They have that right, and I have mine to think that they're not supporting right causes enough.

......as if you had any credibility with any reasoned readers here at the form, but if any existed, posts like the above go a long way toward erasing it.

Good job you hypocrite, nothing like a little self-pwnage to reveal the truth.

Save234

 

[airdata]

it seems like alot of people don't seem to mind that these people have already "repaid'' their debt to society. What's the reasoning behind discriminating against them if they have reformed?

 

[_GTech]

65 million have criminal records?! That seems like a lot.

How many laws are there? OK, I rest my case then.. So tell me, what do 65 million criminals do when they can't get a job?

Since when did Law stop rape, murder, drugs, or anything else for that matter? Click it or ticket! <<< Reality!

California alone has over 300,000 Inmates and more than 35,000 guards, you do the math, the real problem is, these guards get paid well and can retire after just 20 years and get 90&#37; of their salaries, which is no small # I assure you. ($90,000 is not uncommon.)

Its' the government employees & retirees who are making all the money guys... They make small businesses look worthless, truly.. The problem is someone has to pay for these accumulating mass of Government workers, and to pay for them, they gotta make cuts, lots of cuts. That means public service, teachers, water, streets, and other important departments are going to take a huge hit, because those pensions are guaranteed by you, the Taxpayer!

Welcome to the Business World of Government Legislation, where we pass bills that you pay for, oh and about that new law you wanted me to make xyz corp., coming right up, thanks for your donations...

===============================================

So tell me guys, what do 65 million criminals do when the going gets tough?

================================================

Reformed? What do 4 criminals in a room talk about? And when they can't get a job, yeah, they are gonna think back to those conversations, and guess what, they are more intelligent now after X years of study, and that is scary!

It's no small wonder the criminals are shooting at cops now, the bad aren't just more bold, they are planning better & they got nothing else to lose, the system took it all already.