Humanities desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 23[edit]

USA - Republicans and unemployment.[edit]

What do Republicans do when they can't find a job? I notice a lot of temp / staffing agencies cater to labor jobs. Are there any staffing agencies that cater to jobs that Republicans are interested in? If not, what's the staffing agency equivalent? Thanks. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You refer to "jobs that Republicans are interested in" but you have not provided a source to indicate what sort of jobs those might be. I think to take the guesswork out of addressing your question we would need to know what sorts of jobs "Republicans are interested in". Perhaps you could explain a little further. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's 1 theoretical answer, besides my reply to Jayron. And it has to do with the employees they will work with. Their co-workers. Republicans aren't for the most part going to apply to jobs where they are the only Republican employee, so they would be interested in jobs working with people that are like-minded, and most likely same philosophical class. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You're statements are nonsensical, and show no connection to reality. I have never heard of someone who announces their voting history when applying for a job. A prospective employee would not know the voting patterns of their potential co-workers, and no one at that job would need to know his. Nothing you are saying makes any sense. --Jayron 32 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They seem non-sensical to you, as in, you really think people announce their party when they vote for? I suspect you're actually trying to find reasons to close my thread, which is why you keep changing my argument to something else. So for the "Nothing I say is making any sense" - is it really non-sensical to believe that Republicans do not usually apply for McDonald's jobs? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. It is nonsensical. Firstly, there are tens of millions of people who have voted for Republicans. MANY of them work in retail or in other jobs that require no advanced training. They apply for, get, and work in those jobs just fine. I don't see any data to think they do not. You have not provided any data to say that they do not. Please, let us know where you are reading this so we can help you understand it. --Jayron 32 15:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pure ignorance "they don't apply for McDonald's jobs". Really. --Askedonty (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Or straight out of theguardian.com working-class-voters-america... 29 oct. 2012 There is nothing more vexing to liberals than poor Republicans. --Askedonty (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(To Jayron) can I just say, if it is true that the U.S. does not ask employees their party and to the extent that it is illegal, well then that also means you can't prove your point either, that Republicans apply to, or don't apply to, McDonald's jobs for example. So while my point can't be proven, I don't see how yours can either. However, I'm not that interested in pointing out an inconsistency, I'm not interested in looking like a smart-alec. What I'm trying to say is, if you guys are saying my point can't be proven, then neither can the opposite be proven either. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It can be established statistically, though. The Law of large numbers means that if you take a large enough sample size, expected results should be pretty close to predictions based on statistics. There are 329,000,000 Americans, give or take (see Demography of the United States. The U.S. has a working age population of 66.35% of the total population. (see here. That means roughly 218,000,000 workers. 29% of U.S. voters identify as Republican, that takes us to about 63,000,000 workers who identify as Republican. 37% of people who identify as Republican have an educational level of High School diploma or less. That takes us down to roughly 23,000,000 people who identify as Republican who would have low-skilled jobs, such as retail workers. You have, as yet, provided no information to establish that those 23,000,000 people are applying to jobs any differently than the rest of the population with similar demography (working age, HS level or lower). You can't just say that we can't prove you wrong, we default to the notion that there is no difference. See for example Null hypothesis, Sagan standard, Occam's razor, etc. Not all propositions are treated equally, instead it is the person making the extraordinary claim that "something is different about this situation" which must provide the evidence. Saying that none of those 23,000,000 workers are employed at "McDonald's jobs" (and I presume you mean unskilled retail workers), that's an extraordinary claim not based in the expectation of the rest of the data available, so that is the claim that needs proof, not the claim that people who identify as Republican are employed similarly to others like them who do not identify as Republican. --Jayron 32 15:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any differences based on political affiliation. Regardless of how a person votes in an election, the same services are available. The U.S. does not differentiate or even ask how someone voted when providing services, and AFAIK, it may be illegal for such an agency to deny services based on voting, or to even ASK who a person voted for. The U.S. has a secret ballot. I have never heard of this happening, so I think the OP is mistaken in their premise, making the question unanswerable. --Jayron 32 14:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the mentality. A lot of Republicans don't want jobs - and don't apply to jobs, that poorer people do. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What are you talking about? I'm not aware of such a large difference in employment based on who someone votes for. Can you post a link to where you are reading that? Because I've never heard about it. We cannot answer questions based on a premise that has not been established as itself true. --Jayron 32 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're trying to find reasons to close this thread. I guess I have to introduce another variable that is a little ingrained, and that is race. I'm trying to have a convo without bring race, so here we go. In my city, we have groceries stores and haircuts at twice-3x more expensive in White neighborhoods than grocery stores and haircuts in Hispanic/Black neighborhoods. We have condos in White neighborhoods a lot more expensive than in Hispanic/Black neighborhoods even though they have the same square footage. As a White and Chinese guy, I bring disgrace to my family because I have a 4-year college degree, and never been able to do anything with it. I've essentially been unemployed my whole life. Every job I had, were either part-time or minimum wage. And in which I was the only White guy working. So I'm like a rare exception to people apply to jobs of like-mindedness. And if I get discriminated for a job that caters to mostly Hispanic/Black people, it's not so much my race directly, but the "will he fit in with the co-workers?" And when I lived in a lot of low-income Hispanic/Black neighborhoods, and apply to high-class jobs, don't they look at my resume and go "this guy lives in a low-income neighborhood." And I recently found something that severely offends White people. I recently started posting ads that, if you can help me find a job, I'll give you 10% my paychecks. Post it on Craigslist, White people flag it for removal left and right. Post it on Indeed .com, they suspend my account, Post it at the university I graduated from, not only does it get taken down fast, but I end up getting assaulted by a student-employee there. When I tell my White Dad about it, he backlashes at me, saying I should have learned to not post that ad. But I tell him it's good that I do it because it brings out the evil in people... a fish-and-bait mentality. Sigh. Sorry for getting severely off-topic, but it's in the nature of your question. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Look, we're here to provide references to help you research answers to questions, we aren't really here to help you with your personal situations. There are 7+billion people on earth, we can't address each one individually here, in this forum. Everything you say can be true. This isn't the venue to discuss it. Good luck, I mean it, but here is not the place to get your life in order. --Jayron 32 15:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the previous answers are all wrong and that the question is bases on a false presumption (and perhaps from a troll). The error is that the OP is stating to Labour and referring to a plitical leaning whereas the jobs in question and being advertised are stating to Labour and referring to manual work. See the link here, and see definition 1 and definition 3 https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=NGiwXfLrB8akwQLH1rXQDA&q=dictionary&oq=dictionary&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i131l5j0j0i131l2j0j0i131.1624.3790..4462...0.0..0.55.509.10......0....1..gws-wiz.SiSEkFmlvVI&ved=0ahUKEwjy1ZWQ0LLlAhVGUlAKHUdrDcoQ4dUDCAg&uact=5#dobs=labour Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one has yet provided an answer, so they cannot be wrong. You have a false premise when you state that "the previous answers are all wrong", because no one gave an answer. Instead, each of the previous replies either a) pointed out the OP's false premise b) asked for further clarification or c) did both. --Jayron 32 14:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, 67.175.224.138, why you are posting adds saying "if you can help me find a job, I'll give you 10% my paychecks". Wouldn't that be your money? Aren't you entitled to 100% of your "paychecks"? Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With a bachelor's degree in chemistry, basically every lab technician job I apply to wants someone with GC, HPLC experience, something I only have in college. As well as the fact that every job I apply to, they're only looking to hire 1 person, and interviewing multiple. So when I apply to min. wage jobs, like at a hotel - they make the "you have a bachelor's degree, in chemistry, and you want to apply here??" So neither side understands, how hard it is to find a job. I've even been a homeless for 2 years, sleeping in abandoned building, only at night. But anyhoo, the idea is no matter what, I don't get hired, and so, posting ads offering 10% my salary, is "something new." But as I find, it offends a lot of people. Why is still an experiment for me... Sometimes I'll even experiment contacting places that have previously turned me down, and offer to do it for minimum wage, just to experiment if that works. Shrug. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

If I were to answer my own question, I would say for poor Jewish families, can be supported by rich Jewish families. Something not every other ethnic group does to an extent. So being a unemployed Jewish family is less of a thing for them, as I suspect. The interesting thing is, I'm 31 and can be unemployed my whole life, but it eventually won't matter. I'll eventually be half a millionaire later... which is when my Chinese mom dies. I myself come from a rich family. Which is kind of sad, I may not need to work a day in my life, but end up rich anyways, just late in life. And I myself don't want kids, as I wouldn't want leeches. Tough. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Look, I'm not sure why your editorializing about ethnic groups here, but you're starting to go far afield of the purpose of this desk. This is not the "complain about my station in life and blame it on other ethnic groups" desk, this is the "reference" desk. We're here to provide you avenues to research answers to your questions, or if that is not possible, explain why it isn't possible. Please stop. This particular forum is not the appropriate place to make posts like you just did here. Instead, you should find other forums on the internet to do that. --Jayron 32 17:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question asked... Republicans do exactly the same things that Democrats do: they sign up with employment agencies, look in “help wanted” sections of the newspaper, pound the pavement to get their resumes out there. If all that fails, they swallow their pride and go on government assistance. There are no “Republican jobs” or “Democrat jobs”... just “Jobs”. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what do Independents do? ducks and runs --Jayron 32 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One is retired and the other already has a job. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you are creating a problem by making such an offer. Just apply for a job, no matter whether you may seem overqualified or not. There is not a one-to-one equivalency between credentials and actual job aptitude. Sure, you may be turned down, but this will not occur indefinitely. You are saying that your ad "brings out the evil in people". A more correct assessment is that no one wants to get embroiled in any form of discrimination. They all want their site to be used in a straightforward manner, so they cannot be accused of being complicit in some improper scheme. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even worse. They accept the ad and become the dumb and paralized witnesses of a family tragedy they were completely unable to prevent. --Askedonty (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, you could join the Army. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume the Q is really how white-collar workers handle unemployment. (It's a mistake to assume all Republicans are white-collar, of course, with many former coal miners voting for Trump based on his promise to get them their jobs back.) First, white collar workers are often paid enough that they can save money "for a rainy day". If not the case, then they may have a house, cars, etc., they can sell to pay their expenses until they do get a job. Unemployment and temp agencies do offer low-end white collar jobs, like secretarial work. For high-end jobs, there are private employment agencies, sometimes called "headhunters", and job search web sites. But, it's also possible they may not be able to find a job in their field, and have to settle for something less, perhaps even blue-collar work. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s also note that lots of Democrats are rich white collar workers. The old stereotype of Republicans being the party of “the rich” and “big business”, while the Democrats are the party of “the little guy” does not hold water any more. It may have been true fifty years ago, but both parties have changed a lot since then. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Republican Party still protects the interests of the wealthy, such as wanting low tax rates for the rich and businesses (although perhaps not in the case of trade wars). This lack of revenue means minimal benefits for "the little guy", like no free college and health care. It's amazing that so many people can be convinced to vote against their own economic interests. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like what Blueboar and SinisterLefty said. I myself am able to live unemployed for a year without any income. When I was terminate from my last job, I was worth $40,000 and a year later worth $30,000, and without any government assistance. Only recently applied for grocery-stamps, which is about $200/month in a card that can only be spent on grocery stores foods (uncooked). I was able to live on my own like that because of my lack of spendings (no kids, no home insurance, no car insurance or loans, no college loans to pay, etc.). The only thing I pay is food, and $100 for the public monthly unlimited bus pass for transportation. Moral of the story is, I really don't need a job. But I feel like a lack of job limits my ability to get a girlfriend and such. P.S. I also had 2 jobs that I quit because I was never paid. 1 job I stuck around with for 4 weeks, and another for 6 weeks, was never paid, and so quit. Anyhoo, there is a side of me that is Republican, some things I do support and that is about Objectivism which is the philosophy of philosopher Ayn Rand. And that's against the political system of welfare, because a lot of people hooked on welfare are lazy and stop looking for work, and leech off government-money. But the part of me that is against that - is precisely how hard it is to find a job. It's also an insult to college degrees. I tried asking my parents to pay for a automotive technology certificate at city-colleges so I could learn how to fix cars, but then I'm worried about not finding employment after and thus, a money spent just to put something on my resume. If finding a job were easy, even for idiots, I'd be very against welfare and social security and the like. Shrug. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Let me just throw in that most of what Ayn Rand wrote was fiction, and should be taken as fiction. She has never been taken serious as a philosopher because her "philosophy" has holes big enough to drive a barn through. If you can't see it, maybe take an antidote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we shouldn't choose our economic system or religion based on works of fiction. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

You write "I was able to live on my own like that because of my lack of spendings (no kids, no home insurance, no car insurance or loans, no college loans to pay, etc.)" What that may mean is that you may be able to live well on a low-paying job. This story is interesting and somewhat on-topic. Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all I need is a part-time or minimum wage job to survive. But that's because I adapt. I could be married with kids by now if I had steady income after graduating from college! Now, being a White guy living in Hispanic and Black neighborhoods in my city (Chicago) I have the advantage, I consider myself to be rich, if comparing to Hispanic and Black people, but not consider myself rich when compared with Whites. Haircuts at salons run by Whites are $50 and you can still find $10 haircuts at Mexican barbers. In any event, with no steady income, I'm never rich enough to buy property. Chicago is full of developers building new condos highrises, but no 1 here seemingly is making more low-income housing, in fact, this city is shutting single-room occupancies, gentrification is dividing the city more racially and economically. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I cut my own hair, for free, and yet I don't look like Moe Howard. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With my low self-esteem or self-deprecatory personality, I travel around the city looking for barberstores with the hottest female barbers, if I'm lucky then I pay a huge tip and see what happens next time... months away! 67.175.224.138 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You've probably all your chances then. See Structural fix and Attitudinal fix ( Fixes may have to start with the barber-seeking, which itself should impact your self-esteem so job-seeking in any case for all I know ). True if your facing a job market where you cannot appear anyway but not reliable according to the criteria it may be not great benefit but you might be a step further regarding girlfriend stuff. Then you may push you are reliable as you are motivated at seriously keeping girlfriend comfortable. ( Part of the meeting requiring, flashes in the eyes ) --Askedonty (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incredibly off-topic discussion but lacking the income to buy property doesn't mean you don't have to pay for housing. In your earlier comments, you only mention paying for food and public transport. You make zero mention of accommodation. Since you're also not receiving any government benefit, and I assume from the tone of your comments you're not receiving any private social housing or even directly subsidised housing, who is paying for your housing? Are you squatting? Are you living on the street? Are you living with someone else who's letting you stay rent-free? Are you parents or other family paying for it? Whatever the case you should consider whether your situation is sustainable long term even more so given your comment on gentrification. I don't know the cost of cheap housing in Chicago but I imagine you should expect to spend at least as much as you're paying for public transport and probably more, especially since it doesn't sound like you're sharing a tiny room with 5 other people or other such ways of really keeping costs down. If your family is paying for your housing, in any comparisons with other people you should also consider this isn't an option for many. More generally, I agree with others that you really need to speak to someone set up to deal with people with problems like you're facing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is getting massively bogged down in tangents and assumptions. I think we need to go right back to the start, and look at "how people in particular jobs tend to vote", and work from there. I did a quick Google search ("US voting by employment"), and found this page that has some analysis: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/11/state-voting-patterns-occupational-class-data-politics/575047/ Iapetus (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent source! Good find! I think that, for the OP, the most relevant quote from the article is "But the pattern for service-class locations is more mixed. The service class is the largest class by far, composed of more than 70 million members—more than 45 percent of the workforce—whose members toil in low-wage, precarious work in retail shops, office work, and food service. States with greater shares of service-class workers lean slightly Democratic, but not nearly to the degree creative-class heavy states fall into the Democratic camp or working-class heavy states line up for the Republicans." "McDonalds jobs" being service class. As noted, "States with greater shares of service-class workers lean slightly Democratic, but not nearly to the degree creative-class heavy states fall into the Democratic camp or working-class heavy states line up for the Republicans." Slightly more Democratic actually matches the national percentages very closely, as the U.S. as a whole identifies slightly more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party; which proves the point I was suspecting; that Republicans and Democrats are employed in low-skill service-sector jobs at roughly the same rates as one would expect based on their relative distribution in the population as a whole. --Jayron 32 13:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, are the class definitions used in that article standard? I was surprised to see that jobs like shop assistants, maids, bar staff, etc were excluded from "working class". (I know US class definitions differ from those in the UK, but I thought that was more about average-income jobs being considered middle class). Iapetus (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly standard. Starting in the 1960s, American economists began to avoid the word “class” (which has a lot of baggage attached)... and began to talk instead about “economic sectors” instead. There is a “service” sector, a “manufacturing” sector, an “agricultural” sector, etc. This made sense in an era when many unionized factory workers lived middle class lifestyles, and no longer saw themselves as being “downtrodden masses”. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue with classes in the U.S. is that everyone thinks they are "middle class": [1]. People of wildly different economic situations in the U.S. self-identify as "middle class". It is a term that is so broadly and inconsistently applied as to be a meaningless method of classifying Americans. --Jayron 32 12:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrong" Josef Mengele?[edit]

There are two times in this Finnish newspaper's web site article a picture, where should be doctor Josef Mengele as an old man. The same picture is also here. I think that the person in the picture is not Josef Mengele. Who is the person? Juhani Velhonheimo (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's Mengele, unless you can find evidence to the contrary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think he's supposed to be an old man in the pic ? From the black-and-white image, I expect it could be quite an old pic, from when he was younger. Mengele looks middle-aged in the pic, but could be 67, which is how old he was when he died. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution in both links is to Keystone Press Agency, unfortunately site requires registration.—eric 21:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think, that the person in the picture is not Josef Mengele. Especially the left ear looks quite different than in the other photographs of Mengele. Could the person be the actor Gregory Peck, who played Josef Mengele in the film The Boys from Brazil? Here is a picture of Gregory Peck in that film.--Juhani Velhonheimo (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pic alleged to be JM is of poor quality, and it would be surprising if a movie studio would publicize such a poor quality pic. So, if it was from the movie, it would have to be a snapshot of the movie screen, to be so poor. Also note that the alleged JM pic shows a vertical scar just left of the left eye. Was JM known to have such a scar ? (He might have acquired it later in life.) SinisterLefty (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a scar or merely a flaw in the image? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a scar to me. SinisterLefty (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The picture looks nothing like Peck in that film. See these for comparison. Your best bet is to contact the Finnish newspaper and ask the where they got the picture. MarnetteD|Talk 01:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, hairline looks somewhat like Peck's from the movie, but the creases from the bottom of the nose to around the corners of the mouth are all wrong. The Finnish pic could be Mengele though, see [2] this 1970 photo ([3]), the veins on the forehead match, and while the ear and scar area are both well defined in only one of the pics, both could conceivably be present in the other but obscured due to shadows or washed out in lighting. It does look likely that Mengele had some facial surgery to blend in better in Latin America, a nose job at the least... 93.136.55.123 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Covenant of Governance"[edit]

I'm looking for any existing definitions of the phrase above, or (as I haven't found anything so specific) assistance in crafting or drafting an explicit definition. What would be the similarities or differences between a 'covenant of governance', and a 'constitution'? Thanks especially for directions towards any existing definitions (that could be cited, for example), and then I welcome any diverse opinions and contributions.

Sound like it may mean something more informal, like the "social contract". Then it could mean something like the Mayflower compact, which is essentially a written social contract, without all the specifics found in a constitution. You'll need to research how your phrase has actually been used. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This originates from Leviathan, a book by Thomas Hobbes published in 1651 which "concerns the structure of society and legitimate government, and is regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of social contract theory". In Part II: Of Common-wealth, Hobbes argues that the basis of government ought to be a contract or covenant between the governor and the governed. You can read the whole thing here. Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]