> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

You sure it wasn't selective enforcement of the War on Drugs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_war_on_drugs) and the criminal justice system in general (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/08/racial-dispariti...), and redlining (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining)?

> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

All I needed to read to dismiss this

It's pretty clear that it did...on paper... Didn't actually destroy anything in practice other than the formalization of that unit

If it is pretty clear that it did then you’ll have no problem finding sources that can prove that it occurred, that also take into account the targeted imprisonment that the black community has/had faced since emancipation. Anyone who looks at the black community in the US being destabilized and blames _welfare_ as the cause while ignoring that the legal system imprisons black men at a higher rate than white men regardless of the incident rate of crime is ignorant at best

I read the comment you're replying to as saying it didn't actually destroy anything, it's just easy to infer that from what's visible in records (e.g. statistics). "Didn't actually destroy anything in practice" pretty clearly puts it as against the idea that it destroyed anything though, to my eyes.

That may be what they meant, but my interpretation of their full statement(including the part about the formalization of that unit) was that they didn’t have any family structure to begin with. The poster may have had a nuanced reason for saying that, but given the dog whistle and lack of any nuance actually stated by them, I don’t see a reason to assume as such

Not quite sure what the "dog whistle" was that you're referring to...please explain that!

The statistics show significantly lower marriage rates among black families (moreso correlated to poor families, in which black folks over-represent). The thing not shown in the statistics is the number of families where parents are together, but unmarried (and oftentimes reporting different addresses) because they get SIGNIFICANTLY more benefits that way. So...the family unit is there, but just not formalized. And people are just responding to the incentives in front of them.

That explanation doesn’t have a dog whistle, but implying that a family structure doesn’t exist in any manner in the black community is the dog whistle that it seems you inadvertently triggered

Being good to employees is in my experience not that clearcut.

Yes, companies spend money on social events to make the employees feel good about the company.

But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere.

As an employee you are nearly always better off switching jobs every 18 months, as staying in the same job loses you money.

I wish companies would be more focused on this.

> But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere.

Isn't it rather the other way round: you should be very careful to invest too much money into employees who are willing to quit?

You aren't "investing" in employees by paying them a salary. Employees will get a 10-15% payrise by switching after 2 years. Give them that payrise and communicate why. Even if they leave anyway, you only pay them while they stay so you don't lose much.

Of we train them, they might leave.

But what if we don't train them and they stay?

Simple solution: let the employee pay for the training. If the employee stays for x years, the training costs are waived.

At least in tech, companies have already decided to make employees pay for training. You don’t see people doing leetcode training or side projects to pad their resume because their employers invested in increasing their skill set.

Given that this has already occurred, why would any employee agree to a system where now they have a financial obligation to their employer if they leave?

I get your sentiment but the employers already cut all the benefits out of the system when it comes to skill development. They’ll need to start adding back in investments to employee’s skills without any sort of guaranteed payback for a while before the average employee would extend them any trust

Can't even take seriously a comment which refers to elected leaders as "elites" and that's against my very harsh criticism of the voting restrictions and average voter apathy here.