How long have you been unemployed?

Last time I changed jobs I put my resume up on a Sunday night and got my first inquiry from a company that would go on to offer me a job within a few hours. The next morning I got the first inquiry from the company I now work for. So just a few hours after looking is my experience. The companies who want top talent like yours truly are paying big bucks to multiple recruiters and the competition is fierce.

I think the reason younger people stay unemployed is because the job you started out determines the rest of your career almost. because I took the first job I could get out of college I lost out on a lot of potentially earned income for the rest of the time I stayed at that same company because I was forever lowballed with every new promotion so unlike pussy I would argue that in some cases new job is actually better than having a bad job

*having no job is better than having a bad job

Dougster you're missing my point but as usual you didn't miss an opportunity to toot your own horn.

Most of these guys I'm talking about don't have degrees, resumes and access to recruiters, and could only dream of a job that you're claiming to have. But it still does not answer why they remain unemployed. Is it lack of jobs or lack of desire... Or something else I am missing?

Choose a better title if you want better answers.

I'll work on that

I had a job at 17, and then worked there for a few months. After I quit there, I was unemployed for 3 months. I got a new job at 18, and have been working there ever since.

This is only a part of the answer but I'm going to say drugs are a part of it. I'm really glad I didn't start smoking pot until I was in my 50s and financially secure. Smoking pot makes me just want to hang out with friends, listen to music, and fuck gorgeous young girls. The DS says I'm a stoner. If I had done this extensively as a teenager and/or young adult I'm not sure that I could afford a dream stripper today.

I have the distinct impression today that young people use a lot more drugs than they used to. Add to this the fact that young girls today are much bigger sluts than when I was young. If I was 18 today, I might well focus my most of my energies on getting high and getting laid. A job can seriously interfere with those pursuits.

@OP oh...no I don't get when minimum wage earners don't get new jobs either. I got fired from a ton of jobs in high school and college but I always found a new one. But I think you're not understanding that these guys main jobs is to be there for their chicks. And by be there I just mean be around when she gets home and wakes up in the morning. These girls are emotionally needy, and they don't want a guy who can leave them. Hence being employed at a minimum wage job isn't high on the list of priorities

I was unemployed for about nine months between finishing my advanced degree and landing a job in my field. Mind you this was just as the real estate bubble popped, literally the worst job market since the depression.

Between my most recent layoff and my current job I was out of work for a couple months. Still, it was a very short period of unemployment.

It's a shitty job market for recent grads, although less shitty than 2009. It's a terrible job market for blue collar men. There are some minimum wage jobs out there; taco bell and McDonald's are hiring, unlike three years ago. If the job market keeps improving that should quickly change.

A big thing is back ground checks. When someone asks he about my work, I ask one question, "Can you pass a severe background check?" If they say, "I think so.", my reply is, "Don't bother." You need to KNOW you can pass one.

I was unemployed for the most part a couple of years. I started working at 12 and kept on till I retired at 55 in 2004. Then had a small business for about 3 years. Sold that and got tired of not working, and went back at the end of 2009. Still going.

The simplest answer is they don't really want to work OR what they can get they see as beneath their "dignity".

Oh and Dugly, the real "top talent" gets called by the recruiters before they ever type up a new resume.

Each of the previous commentators has a work ethic. Many young "dudes" lack such an attribute. Some develop it later in life; others are leaches all their lives.

I need to tell you old guys that employment isn't as easy as walking up to the HR department and saying I want a job. when you don't have a good work history or a sexy resume it is easy to continue to be unemployed I'm at a decent paying job. now I guess it work around our temp agencies but even temp agencies aren't a sure thing. so unemployment is a mix of on motivated jobseekers-- plus a more than difficult job getting structure in the United States. I went on several, upon several job interviews for years before I got my first career leading opportunity. and all I can think is that I had a college education and new better. some people were unemployed or from bad backgrounds have criminal history as minors and older, and no the job market isn't kind to people who were brought up outside of the main culture. So my point is decent jobs don't grow on trees. And dead end jobs have a way of suckling up time in the day it takes to look for a decent job. Ugly cycle for the under class actually. God , well to do's are so out of touch with reality

Repost: I don't know what's going on with the Web interface lately it's been messing up the order of my text

I need to tell you old guys that employment isn't as easy as walking up to the HR department and saying I want a job. when you don't have a good work history or a sexy resume it is easy to continue to be unemployed. I guess a work around is temp agencies but even temp agencies aren't a sure thing. so unemployment is a mix of un motivated jobseekers-- plus a more than difficult job getting structure in the United States.

I went on several, upon several job interviews for years before I got my first career leading opportunity. and all I can think is that I had a college education and knew better.

some people are from bad backgrounds have criminal history as minors and older, and no, the job market isn't kind to people who were brought up outside of the main culture. So my point is decent jobs don't grow on trees. And dead-end jobs have a way of suckling up time in the day it takes to look for a decent job.

It's an Ugly cycle for the under class actually. God , well-to-do's are so out of touch with reality sometimes.

I asked an old favorite why her baby daddy never had a job. She said, "Well, he quit school in the 9th grade so his only options are minimum wage menial jobs and he didn't want to do that."

At least she was honest.

Most of them are Democrats. :) I put in 42 years with the same company before retiring at 68.

It's the drugs! Cause I'm high and I never want to work again. All I want to do is fuck her now. I coujd give her 10 orgasms right now. It tastes so good. Damn what the fuck was the question.

Sorry. Good drugs. Should I text her?

Make that 12.

Shadowcat: it's awesome you had opportunities like that. Almost no one works 42 years at the same company anymore. You have to move out to move up.

All I want to do is Led Zepellin.

Me sooooooooo horny.......

James SD - not at all uncommon in the field I was in because there are less than 2,000 people doing that job in the US today and it paid very well. I was a manager for 18 of those years.

I need a strip club

So do I. I get crabby when I miss more than 10 days.

This answers the question

m.youtube.com

Because I got high

John...it only really cool to be high when you got some girl to fuck. Otherwise it's like drinking alone , there's a problem

But it should be fun to watch the Wizard of Oz while playing Pink Floyd The Wall in the back ground.

Never did any drugs, but the longest I was unemployed was four months during the rough times of 2010. I was actually still doing contract work on the side while that was going on, so I was still busy, but my contract work isn't enough to make a living from, so I still needed a real job.

I occasionally consider moving on from the day job I'm at now. We get consistent raises, but promotions look far off in the distance and I've been in the same spot I was when I was hired nearly five years ago. Dunno.

I was unemployed for a very short time when I was 16. I hated it and I resolved that it would never happen to me again. I bought a water truck (with a loan co-signed by my father) and struck out on my own in the oil patch. In almost no time my little company grew to 20 employees, then to 30 employees, finally to almost 100 employees at the peak of my operations.

Over almost 50 years I probably employed over 1,000 different people and fired perhaps 500 people over the same length of time. Lousy work ethic and pure laziness were the most common firing offenses. Disrespecting the boss (me) was also high on the firing list. Dishonesty and incompetence were very low on the firing list.

I'll say one thing. When I was in my early 20's, I thought certain types of work were beneath me. I never did any fast food, for instance. It took me a while to figure out fast food is still better than being unemployed, but by then, I was in my current job. My guess for these stripper boyfriends is they never learned that, at least before they ended up drug dealers.

@GACA- not The Wall but Dark Side of The Moon. With no job they won't leave and they always have a babysitter, albeit not a good one.

GAC, good advice. Only get high when you've got a girl to fuck. Not sure but I think I might've tried to fuck a mail box last night. Or maybe it was an ATM. Can't be sure.

I write tons of songs when I'm not working so I think unemployment is underrated, but I have never taken any government money for anything (outside of tax refunds) so I don't feel guilty about it.

Never been unemployed! My life has mostly been brilliant! I figure that I know how to clean bedpans so my income is secure even if robots take everything else over! I just need to remember to wipe!

The problem I see with all the "severe" background checks now a days, is if someone screws up once, it shouldn't be a career ender. I mean, everyone makes mistakes. As long as it's not a pattern over years and years, I think people should be given a chance to prove themselves again. I mean... What happens to the people who are blacklisted because of a blemished back ground check? (I'm not talking murderers here...) I'm talking Someone who screwed up once or twice and is now learning from it to not do it again. If they are systematically denied an opportunity, what do they become? Stripper boyfriends I guess? lol.

But I see all these checks that need to be passed/jumped through as real problems in the future as more and more things are "on your permanent record" so to say.

Background check companies are a new cottage industry.

+1 to DandyDan for recognizing that there is dignity in all work, even burger flipping at Mickey D's.

The food at Mickey D's is repulsive to me but I willingly acknowledge that Macdonald's Corp. does an excellent job in introducing young kids into the rigours of paid labour. I always looked respectfully at the resume of a prospective employee listing Macdonald's experience. The actual work experience had no use in the oil patch but work habits learned at Macdonald's are valuable to any employer.

Not to engage in pedantry, but not quite halfway through his career, shadowcats company merged with a larger company. From that point on, a different company name/logo appeared on his paycheck. Yes, himself (and many fellow employees) got to continue in their pre-merger positions without interruption. The retirement announcements in newsletter gave total credit for premerger and post merger years of service. Again a big congrats to shadowcat for his 42 years. Point being that in todays environment, it is rare to retire from a company that retains its original name from decades earlier.

If you:

1. don't mind a meager existence
2. qualify for "free" health care and
3. qualify for welfare or equivalent what's the motivation to work?

I bust my ass working to have a high quality of life, to have money for travel, to have money for a mortgage, to have money for hobbies, to have money to fund a nest-egg to retire on.

If you're will to accept meagerness... beingon the dole give you something for zero input. (And anything dividend by zero effort is infinite return.)

sc,

My first real job was for 34 years, the Friday before I turned 55 on the following Monday, they offered me another job for 1/2 the money. I retired on the spot. It was a great company to work for before a hostile takeover by a another company. It went downhill after that, then the company was spun off and is still around after all these 123 years, nearly twice as old as me..

Now, I am older then my present company by 3 years. :)

Do you want America to continue to be filled with people living in prisons, mental hospitals, and under bridges, or just otherwise driven out of the labor market? Do you want people to be able to continue to abuse their children, and then justify it? Do you want fathers to be able to sexually molest their daughters, and then be defended and shielded by their entire church?

Do you want people like Jose and Kitty Menendez to be able to brag to friends and relatives about how they are disinheriting their sons Lyle and Erik, because they aren't towing the line?

Then change nothing. American inheritance law is designed to enforce the Self-Reliance Ethic, and this is also the legitimation given for the vast majority of family child abuse.

Inheritance Law and the Evolving Family by Ralph C. Brashier Temple University Press, 2004

Brasier is Cecil C. Humphreys Professor of Law at the University of Memphis School of Law. He was a co-author of the "Keeping Current" column in the American Bar Association's "Probate and Property" magazine.

SJG

Jose and Kitty Menendez came here from a Spanish speaking country. Well, in most of the Spanish speaking world it is not even possible to disinherit a child. The minor or adult child wouldn't even need to hire a lawyer.

Brasier pg 90

" Sometimes American parents disinherit their children. The disinheritance usually goes off without a hitch; occasionally however it backfires on the parent. When Joan Crawford disinherited her adult daughter Christina, Christina penned a best-selling expose of Crawford's abusiveness that would forever taint the way film buffs think of the actress. "

pg 91 " The American parent's ability to disinherit his children is unimaginable to most people of the world. In most European and South American countries, children receive a forced portion of their deceased parent's estate based simply on the existence of the parent-child relationship. In several countries whose inheritance law originated in English common-law principles, courts can provide a disinherited child with reasonable financial provision from the parent's estate under family maintenance laws. Decades ago England itself adopted the family maintenance system, ending the English testator's unfettered discretion to disinherit a child. When adopting family maintenance principles in 1938, Parliament specifically acknowledged that very few civilized countries afford a testator complete freedom to disinherit his children.

More than sixty years later, the United States steadfastly clings to a position most of the world rejects. In fact, America's failure to protect its children from parental disiheritance may be its most notable departure from world inheritance norms. With rare exceptions, when an American parent intentionally disinherits his child, the law does not second guess him -- the child's age, her need, her relationship with the parent-testator, and the effect on the state are irrelevant. . . . Should American probate laws protect children from a parent's disinheriting act? Should it matter that the disinherited children are adults at the time of the parent's death? If we were generally to protect children from parental disinheritance, would we want to acknowledge exceptional instances in which a parent could still disinherited his child? "

Trevor Todd, British Columbia

Dysfunctional Families disinherited.com

Blacksheep and Scapegoats disinherited.com

Brashier, pg 98

" In a civil-law country, a testator generally cannot deprive his child of an inheritance even when his will includes the clearest possible attempts to do so. . . . The inheritance laws of most jurisdictions in the United States stand in direct contrast to those in civil-law countries. In the United States, most states do not recognize community property. Moreover, no American jurisdiction gives children of all ages a forced share of a parent's estate. "

SJG

I wonder when your mom will disinherit you so you can leave the basement instead of good will hunting life. Why dont you go and smell some roses instead of reading a book on horticulture. Fuck.

from Brasher's notes:

" The forms of child inheritance protection encountered most frequently are based on either the civil-law concept of a fixed, fractional forced inheritance ( such as the legitime ) or the discretionary judicial award of maintenance. The latter approach is a twentieth-century development now often found in commonwealth countries.
. . . In addition to its use in England, this discretionary approach -- often referred to as testator's family maintenance -- is used in Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, commonwealth colonies, parts of Australia, and parts of Canada. "

Among the countries or their political subunits that provide minor and adult children with protection from parental disinheritance through the civil-law forced share are:

Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Some modern American probate scholars share the view underlying the civil law forced share for children, see Ronald Chester, "Should American Children Be Protected Against Disinheritance" 32 Real Prop. Prob. and Tr. Journal 405, 434 (1997)

(I'd already read the above paper and it is excellent.)

SJG

STELLA: There weren't any papers, she didn't show any papers, I don't care about papers. STANLEY: Have you ever heard of the Napoleonic code? STELLA: No, Stanley, I haven't heard of the Napoleonic code, if I have, I don't see what it-- STANLEY: Let me enlighten you on a point or two, baby. STELLA: Yes? STANLEY: In the state of Louisiana we have the Napoleonic code according to which what belongs to the wife belongs to the husband and vice versa. For instance if I had a piece of property, or you had a piece of property--

Brashier, page 99

" Not long ago, however, Louisiana did protect all of a testator's children from disinheritance. But after a long and downright ugly struggle in the 1990s, Louisiana changed its laws. Today a Louisiana testator can disinherit his children if they are able children who are at least twenty-four at the parent's death. In other words, only young or disabled children now receive a forced share ( or legitime ) under Louisiana law. This limited protection is the only vestige of a true forced share for children existing within the United States today. Moreover, the dwindling popular support for the legitime in Louisiana does not augur well for those who would like to see a forced share for American children. . . . Even before being whittled down to its present form, Louisiana's legitime did not guarantee an inheritance the child in every instance. Moreover, a Louisiana testator can still disinherit any child for just cause. . . . For instance, a Louisiana parent can disinherit a child who has done any of the following: attempted to take the parent's life; accused the parent, without reasonable cause, of committing certain egregious crimes; used violence or coercion to prevent the parent from kaing a will; committed a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death...

TO BE CONTINUED

SJG

Continuing from Brashier page 99

" For instance, a Louisiana parent can disinherit a child who has done any of the following: attempted to take the parent's life; accused the parent, without reasonable cause, of committing certain egregious crimes; used violence or coercion to prevent the parent from making a will; committed a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death; married while a minor without consent of the parent; failed (without just cause) to contact the parent for two years after attaining the age of majority; raised his hand to strike his parent; or been guilty of cruel treatment or grievous injury toward his parent. "

Also amazon.com

aaml.org

Ronald Chester's outstanding paper jstor.org

SJG

I had not known of these debates in Louisiana during the mid 90's.

Now this is getting into a complex subject, but Brashier insists that as recently as the 14th Century, children were completely protected from disinheritance by the Magna Carta.

en.wikipedia.org

But then somehow in the decades which followed, that protection was removed, and so it never existed in the United States, except for in Louisiana.

Brashier feels that this loss of the protection my have been accidental, and so then restoring it would be a much needed correction.

I am already sure that the situation is otherwise. If you read someone like Thomas More, he would never have gone along with the removal of such protections. He would not have supported capitalism.

Capitalism needed to delete such protections, in order to create a sense of unworthiness, so that people could be subjugated. This potential for disinheritance and parental blacksheeping is what Christianity had already opened the door for, with its doctrine of Original Sin.

If capitalism didn't have this, then people would not accept it and they would join forces and fight back. But as it was they were driven off of feudal lands and into the cities and into the factories to work at starvation wages.

So today, within the family, children are broken, their wings shattered, so that they will submit and not try to fly. Blacksheeping and disinheritance are the tools used to enforce this.

So I want to look more at Brashier's references and then into these debates in Louisiana.

SJG

A Street Car Named Desire youtube.com this is a later film adaptation, with Ann Margaret and Treat Williams. I've not ever seen this. Watch soon as this sort of stuff does not stay up long.

Louisiana, Napoleonic Code youtu.be

So looking at Brashier's refs, most are law reviews. But we should still be able to get access to some of them.

So for authors we have

1. Ralph C. Brashier
2. Ronald Chester
3. J. Thomas Oldham

Civil Law vs Common Law law.berkeley.edu

Law of Louisiana en.wikipedia.org

Louisiana, Forced Heirship

If a parent tries to disinherit a child under 24 years of age, Louisiana imposes something called forced heirship. This means that if a child under 24 years old is left out of his parent's will, he will receive one-fourth of his parent's community property; if there is more than one forced heir, the portion they inherit is equivalent to one-half of their parent's community property. If a child is over 24 years old, his parent may disinherit him in a will; however, the parent must explicitly give "just cause" -- as listed in Louisiana's Civil Code -- as to why he's disinheriting his child. For example, if a child ever hit his parent, accused his parent of a capital crime or failed to get his parent's consent to marry as a minor, he may be disinherited.

info.legalzoom.com

Disinheritance Law Kindles Passion in Louisiana nytimes.com

BO

I was unemployed several months after graduating from college during a recession. Companies were sending me letters saying they were cutting back 1.5 billion dollars and not hiring anyone. I did not have any work experience in the field I graduated in. After several months I found a local company hiring in that field but the pay wasn't good but I got experience. Only time I was unemployed after that was when I accepted a job for a new position at another company if that can count. I had less than 2 weeks between resigning and then moving and starting my new job in another state.

I interviewed at a gazillion places, many of which I'm glad didn't hire me because several went out of business over time.

The first company I worked for I thought had major problems as far as recruiting good people. I estimated 5 years maybe after I left before someone wanted to shut the place down unless they hired good help. I heard one of my old friends say the operations manager said he should have never let me go. The place got shut down about 5 years after I left. I was actually a long term employee there in just 5 years compared to others. The director of engineering in another state was asking to speak to me to find out what was going on and I wasn't even considered a manager. I was like the only one left in an entire office at one point. I was happy to leave.

I had the key to the facility and had responsibility to lock up the entire facility for several months. I did not want to become a supervisor in a new job so I left all the extra information off my resume. There is such a thing as being overqualified. Even if you get hired, people wonder how long you'll stay. I think that's better than staying in a job so long everyone takes you for granted. That's the way I feel now. If I didn't have a relative in the area, I might be actively looking to move and work elsewhere. I guess I should get ready because I could easily become unhappy with a lack of significant pay increases and over demanding bosses. Unemployment could be as easy to get as saying I've had enough and quit. I need to get my house ready. Some could argue that the real reason I've been going to strip clubs was because I never intended to stay here and set up any roots. I'm just not sure where I might want to move if I do. I probably need a vacation.

The easiest thing to do to stay employed if you have experience is to let recruiters find appropriate jobs for you. At least that worked for me over a decade ago. If anyone knew I might be interested, I'd probably be getting a bunch of phone calls from recruiters. I'm not ready yet. Now a lazy ass nephew of mine has a poor role model with the laziest mother I ever heard of. Strippers are hard workers in comparison to her. These relatives have a lot of money problems. I just hope they don't try to visit me. I don't want them even attempting to move in with me. I'd rather live with two or 3 dancers rather than that.

More about Louisiana, where family blacksheeping and disinheritance have been fought over. Not a pretty picture at all.

Disinheritance Law Kindles Passion in Louisiana nytimes.com

en.wikipedia.org

jstor.org

law.uh.edu

amazon.com

For years disgruntled parents have tried to abolish the law, but none as wealthy and canny as Mr. Perez, who learned the intricacies of Louisiana politics at the knee of his father, a master strategist who helped lead the fight against civil rights in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's.

The bill's sponsor, State Senator Sydney Nelson, whose northern district borders East Texas and includes Shreveport, had tried for a decade to abolish the law. But this year he gained a strong ally in Mr. Perez and changed strategy. Rather than seeking outright abolition, Mr. Nelson proposed changing the law to exclude adult children.

Cynthia Samuel, a Tulane law professor

''Chalin is very bright and capable and when he wanted to get something done, he knew how to go after it,'' said State Representative Jim Donelon, a suburban lawyer who opposed the bill. Lobbyists ''like Bubba Henry,'' Mr. Donelon said, are usually employed ''by major corporations, by well-heeled types and not by mom-and-pop types.''

Mr. Donelon said others favoring the bill included ''three dozen testators, each involved in some down-and-dirty family fight.'' Advocates also included The Shreveport Times, but the bill was barely noticed by many other newspapers until after it was enacted.

Mr. Donelon said he fought the bill because ''we have a system that has worked well for hundreds of years.'' He added, ''I am a card-carrying Republican who respects private property, but I'm also aware of the effectiveness of forced heirship in keeping litigation down as opposed to the other 49 states, which do not have this ancient law.''

Professor Samuel of Tulane and other law professors who fought the change, testifying before legislative committees, say much of the world outside the United States has kept similar forced heirship laws.

law.tulane.edu

tulane.edu

law.tulane.edu

Louisiana Code csmonitor.com

Louisiana Law Review, 2003, support for removing forced heir ship was coming from people on Air Force Base, Bossier City, people from common law states. To avoid having to change state constitution they decided to change definition of heir. digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu

In the summer of 1995, those favoring abolition of forced heirship were successful in obtaining just such an amendment. By two-thirds vote of the Louisiana legislature, an act was passed resulting in placing a constitutional amendment on the state ballot the following October, which, in essence declared forced heirs to be children under the age of twenty-four or those mentally or physically incapable of taking care of their person or estate.72 Included was an "implementation" act contemplated to go into effect in case the constitutional amendment were to pass.73 The latter was subsequently replaced with another act which was much more extensive in its breadth,74 and purported to revise, amend, and re-enact the entire chapter of the Civil Code dealing with the disposable portion and its reduction. 7' The new act defined forced heirs as "descendants of the first degree who, at the time of the death of the decedent, are twenty-three years of age or younger or descendants of the first degree of any age who, because of mental incapacity or physical infirmity, are permanently incapable of taking care of their persons or administering their estates at the time of the death of the decedent."76

Thomas Oldham What does the US System Regarding Inheritance Rights of Children Reveal About American Familes? jstor.org

ABA Probate and Property Magazine Disinheritance of children. Brian C. Brennan explores whether the United States has failed by permitting Disinheritance of Dependent Children: Why Isn't America Fulfilling Its Moral Obligation?, 14 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 125 (1999). J. Thomas Oldham offers his theories on why state laws do not ban disinheritance of children in What Does the U.S. System Regarding Inheritance Rights of Children Reveal about American Families?, 33 Fam. L.Q. 265 (1999).

SJG

Interview with Tennessee Williams youtube.com

Louisiana Constitution senate.legis.state.la.us

But look at how many revisions they have had en.wikipedia.org

Then look at how many amendments they have made senate.la.gov

Never seen anything like this!

en.wikipedia.org

Succession of Lauga (1993) 624 So.2d 1156 say Art 1493 is unconstitutional so the 23 year age limit does not apply. The Louisiana Constitution was subsequently amended to overcome the Lauga decision.

See La. Const. art. XII, s. 5

Here, this is it, no more forced heirship:

§5. Successions; Forced Heirship and Trusts

Section 5.(A) The legislature shall provide by law for uniform procedures of successions and for the rights of heirs or legatees and for testate and intestate succession. Except as provided in Paragraph (B) of this Section, forced heirship is abolished in this state.

(B) The legislature shall provide for the classification of descendants, of the first degree, twenty-three years of age or younger as forced heirs. The legislature may also classify as forced heirs descendants of any age who, because of mental incapacity or physical infirmity, are incapable of taking care of their persons or administering their estates. The amount of the forced portion reserved to heirs and the grounds for disinherison shall also be provided by law. Trusts may be authorized by law and the forced portion may be placed in trust.

Amended by Acts 1995, No. 1321, §1, approved Oct. 21, 1995, eff. Nov. 23, 1995.

I'm not picking on Louisiana here. 49 other states are worse. But it is just that Louisiana is where the matter has recently been debated. Understand this and the idea which underly it, and you'll see why so many people feel that they have no place in this world, and so they opt to stay out of view and on the sidelines. For most of the developed world, the system used in the US is an abomination.

Getting this: From here to eternity? : property and the dead hand / by Ronald Chester, 2007

Remember that Chester has written advocating protection from disinheritance, via either the British Columbia model or the Civil Law system.

SJG

“How long have you been unemployed?”

in the case of san_jose_guy there can only be one very obvious answer: HIS ENTIRE FUCKING LIFE

J. Thomas Oldham amazon.com

Contents I. The current legal structure. Child support comes of age : an introduction to the law of child support / June Carbone -- The goals and limits of child support policy / Marsha Garrison -- The impact of welfare reform on the child support enforcement system / Paul K. Legler -- II. The current social structure and its relevance to reform. Child support and child access : experiences of divorced and nonmarital families / Judith A. Seltzer -- Fathers and the child support system / Daniel R. Meyer -- III. Improving the present system. Guideline review : the search for an equitable child support formula / Marygold S. Melli -- New methods to update child support / J. Thomas Oldham -- IV. Child support : the experience elsewhere. Child support as distributive and commutative justice : the United Kingdom experience / John Eekelaar -- A comparative approach to child support systems : legal rules and social policies / Mavis Maclean and Andrea Warman -- V. Replacing the current system. The limits of private child support and the role of an assured benefit / Irwin Garfinkel -- Why child support assurance won't work / Allen M. Parkman -- Why child support assurance won't work : a rejoinder / Irwin Garfinkel -- Child support is not the answer : the nature of dependencies and welfare reform / Martha

law.uh.edu

jstor.org

litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com

lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu

SJG

Just got:

ABC of Child Protection, 2007, edited by Roy C. Meadow etal.

Meadow is the one who invented the term Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, though now they are calling it Disease Falsification. I believe it can be applied much further than it is, to all sorts of situations where parents are pathologizing a child.

There was a recent Arizona CPS case where with the help of the Phoenix Children's Hospital, they removed 5 children from such a situation.

SJG

Some problems you can't detect until long after the fact. But if you want to know why the world is the way it is, you have to try and understand what is happening.

At least as the very back end, far too late and far too little, but still so very important, Trevor Todd of Vancouver is trying to do something about it, by taking it to court.

disinherited.com

Once there are victories at the back end, then more can be done earlier on.

SJG

I'm going now to present something from a different angle, a list of indicators that I found.

EMOTIONAL STATE lack of response or extreme response to separation from parents

Unhappy/depressed/withdrawn

Self soothing/rocking

Frightened/distressed

Very anxious

Low self esteem

BEHAVIOUR Attention seeking

Oppositional/aggressive

Age-inappropriate responsibility for younger children or for parent

Antisocial/delinquent

PEER RELATIONSHIPS Isolated

Aggressive

DEVELOPMENTAL/EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Developmental delay

Educational underachievement

Non-attendance at school or persistent lateness

PHYSICAL STATE Small stature or poor growth

Physically neglected or unkempt

Unexplained pains

Very disturbed sleep

Ecopresis without constipations

Well to me this looks pretty close to a good list for the indicators of Autism / Aspergers, and maybe for ADHD too. It certainly would fit the Autism advocates John Elder Robison and Nick Dubin.

Only problem is that that is not what the list is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a list of the indicators of emotional abuse.

ABC of Child Protection, ed by Roy C. Meadow, forth edition, 2007,

Chapter 16, Emotional Abuse, by Danya Glaser

"Emotional abuse is the persistent emotional ill-treatment of a child such as to cause server and persistent effects on the child's emotional development. . . . Emotional abuse cannot therefore be recognized by the presentation of the child. There are, however, various manifestations of the harm caused to children who are, or have been, emotionally abused. "

Then it shows the above list, which to me looks very close to a list for Autism / Asperger's symptoms. Isn't that interesting.

SJG

We know about U Wisconsin's Mad Scientist, Harry Harlow youtube.com

Well now we also have U California's Mad Scientist, Lynn Kern Koegel youtube.com

The stuff she is doing is actually very similar to Harry Harlow experimenting with his monkeys. It is also similar to what John Elder Robison writes about being done with his aspergerian son Cubby ( Jack ). Except of course John Elder Robison doesn't seem to think there is anything wrong about it.

Someone asked me once, "Has anyone ever recovered from Autism?"

As far as I can see, most people recover from it as soon as they are away from their parents, therapists, and peer culture groupings. And with Cubby Robison, he learned to read as soon as he was away from his mother who had been trying to make him read every single day for years. It is not just caretaker coldness, it is caretaker narcissism and abuse, building to compound some difference which may or may not have been there in the first place.

It is too late to do anything about Harry Harlow. It is not too late to do something about Lynn Kern Koegel and her husband Robert Koegel.

SJG

Chicken Wire Mother users.rcn.com

SJG

More Harlow darkwing.uoregon.edu

SJG

Harry Harlow, The Pit of Despair, early isolation youtube.com

SJG

Harry Harlow, playlist youtube.com

SJG

Ignorance breeds arrogance. Seems to be especially true here, just because you found a job in a month doesns't mean everyone can. Young people have it worst of all. Just out of high school or college, they don't have much experience. Hell if they have 6 years of work experience and many different sorts of jobs, from paper pushing to dollar counting at the grocery store, the opportunity to get the job they want/need is thinned because all their experences are thin lined. If you got lucky and your first job was a job related to exactly what you wanted, and years later you had to go, you can have no problem just getting up and finding another similar job to it, because after all, that's all you do. And the economy currently is not bouncing back, it's more stagnant currently. So a guy who did cashier for 4 years and went to college for something totally left field like accounting is going to have a hard time because college degree is only a 5th of the requirements for his desired job. Hopefully what I said makes sense.

@Tiburon, I've been posting stuff here on Shailynn's thread in order to eventually make the case that our society is saturated with child abuse, with people who use their children as scape goats. And so if you want to change anything, you need to start there.

Your text is most interesting, but I am not sure just who or what you are responding to.

SJG

Responding to OP

There is a lot of stuff which just does not work well about our economic system. But then there are also things which are done to people which deny them a place.

I agree with what JS69 said about how big a factor drugs are, and also what clubber said about background checks.

I also agree with GACAclub talking about how many of these strippers want a guy who will be there when they want them, on the girl's schedule. The girl and the guy are both broken people.

I am involved in various community groups. Many of these try to reach out to the poor, the unemployed, and the homeless. Many of these people have lived on alcohol, drugs, and psychiatric medication for decades. Unfortunately many of those who want to get involved have this moral reform view. They blame it all on the victim. Or they just plain come from pity.

I am constantly telling people, "Someone raised with dignity and respect, and who has been given the chance to develop and apply their abilities, is not going to have any interest in alcohol or drugs."

Unfortunately many of the Born Again ministries are putting out this message of innate moral defect.

The new Mayor of San Jose, Sam Liccardo, is behind these sickening programs designed to humiliate the poor via case management and below minimum wage employment. He sees the poor as a societal disease, people he just wants to get out of sight.

So what it all comes down to is that those who should be fighting back because they have been denied a place, don't. Instead they accept pity, or they make themselves pitiful via alcohol, drugs, born again Christianity, and psychiatric medication.

What will change things is political consciousness, letting people see how things have worked and why many have no future, and even don't get the chance to have a past.

Understanding the nature of familial child abuse is a first step.

SJG

Rock-A-Bye Baby, Harry Harlow's Monkey Experiements youtube.com

I was unemployed for the past 5 years because I had no way of getting to most jobs, no car, the associate's degree was in a field I HATED, and there were almost no jobs hiring at all even if you had work experience. Most of the jobs here were firing people left and right every year to the point a guy who had been working hard and successful for 20 years in a nice job was out of work for 7 years.

Want to know how me and him got a job ?, a new and I mean brand new place opened up in my area and the hiring manager took a gamble hiring both of us and it's only been 5 days since we started.

I am 27, the years I had no job I did everything I could to get to interviews, go to job fairs, and all the BS people who are 40, 50 and up claim "is how you get work" but that shit is not true anymore. The old farts do not understand how insanely hard it is to get a job now being a young person if you did not piss away 5 plus years right out of high school doing college and being a no life college slave going for a bachelor or higher cause now "everyone and their brother" goes to college/has an associate's degree.

The sad irony is atleast 5 and 6 people at my job I talked to have had 3 or more jobs prior to this one and either have no car still, no funds to get a new car as the old one died, or have that bachelor's degree that they slaved away to get but are in the same place as me. Most stupid people claimed that all I did was "be lazy, play video games all day, and not put real effort into finding a job" yet anyone who knows me would see how shitty the job market really is.

Thank you Eagle1191 for that account. As more and more people are posting I feel that this topic continues to become more interesting.

Experts say that 1 in 4 girls will be sexually molested, and within the family, and then 1 in 6 boys. These numbers far surpass what is done in institutions or at the hands of strangers. But we never hear about it. Criminal prosecutions and civil suits are rare. Most people just have to forget about in order to live.

Why is this?

page 78

"In one sense, the control that American testators exert over their children by the threat of disinheritance is more about lifetime power over them than it is about dead hand control. It may get children, at least superficially, to toe the line and to do things in a way more pleasing to the parent while the parent is alive. Whether it fosters family harmony and true respect for the elder is highly debatable.

Since estate planning documents may be kept secret until the parent's death, children in many families have little idea how they will be treated by the parent's estate plan. The threat of disinheritance may or may not be carried out or may be carried out only partially. Under our system, the child will just have to wait and see. . . . Commentators have noted that disinheriting children virtually invites a will contest under such vague doctrines as "undue influence" and "lack of testamentary capacity." Do we really want to protect the family through nasty, strife-producing will contests? A country which talks so incessantly about "family values" ought, perhaps, to value the family in its laws, even at the expense of its fondness for individualism. "

From Here to Eternity? Property and the Dead Hand

by Ronald Chester Professor of Law New England School of Law Boston Massachusetts

Vandeplas Publishing, 2007

Chester has also taught at Indiana University and Southern Methodist University. He was also chair of the Section on Donative Transfers, Fiduciaries, and Estate Planning of the American Association of Law Schools.

page 20,

" Thus, America's view of dead hand control, though generally located within the Western tradition, has extended the concept's reach beyond that found in other Western nations. After puzzling a bit over this phenomenon, I have concluded that the reasons are to be found in what de Tocqueville termed "American exceptionalism" -- a "unique mixture of liberty egalitarianism, populism, and laissez-faire values." . . . Another factor is the strong and unique religiosity of the American people and its connection with American attitudes toward wealth and its acquisition. Andrew Kohut has noted that the lack of strong commitment to a social safety net, "may appear surprising in a country that is both the most religious and the richest -- indeed the only religious rich country in the world." . . Thus "if people don't succeed in life," the majority of Americans believe, it is because of their own individual failures."

So the way I am seeing this is as follows. Most all societies have had stratification, into social classes. But America is different, because it is self evident that all White Male Land Owners have been created equal. So everyone is middle class, more a state of mind than an income level.

But there are still some who are forced out, not into a working class as that would require class consciousness. But they are forced out because their life stories are not legitimated. They are forced into an under class or an untouchable caste.

Child sexual abuse, physical abuse, and psychological abuse are only some of the ways people are forced out. But as the dominant American myth does not recognize this, anyone who does not support the middle-class family is completely delegitimated.

BO

1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys sexually molested within the family, far exceeding what is done by both institutions and strangers, and yet you very rarely hear about specific cases. No criminal prosecutions, no civil suits.

It is the perfect crime, as it works via bribery, as there is no prohibition on disinheriting children. So most are kept silenced, and the rest know that they would only be hurting themselves if they talked, so they stay in denial and express it in other ways.

So here, looking at Ronald Chester's references.

Critical Legal Studies was a movement devoting to what can be gleaned by examining what seems to underlie our laws. To bad it has lost momentum.

amazon.com

amazon.com

en.wikipedia.org

amazon.com

deals with en.wikipedia.org

researchgate.net

papers.ssrn.com

www2.gcc.edu

kvwp.net

ncpa.org

Ralph C. Brashier, Inheritance Law and the Evolving Family, 2004

Ronald Chester, Disinhertitance and the American Child: An Alternative from British Columbia, 1998 Utah Law Review

Professor John Langbein, 2007 converence

J. Thomas Oldham

papers.ssrn.com

j thomas oldham "what does the us system regarding inheritance rights of children reveal about american families" family law quarterly 1999

americanbar.org

papers.ssrn.com

should be able to read this online: jstor.org

Oldham has written law school text books washburnlaw.edu

researchgate.net

like:

Child support : the next frontier / edited by J. Thomas Oldham and Marygold S. Melli University of Michigan Press, c2000

amazon.com

from Ronald Chester, in Boston and J. Thomas Oldham is in Houston

So I finished up this book:

From Here to Eternity? Property and the Dead Hand

by Ronald Chester Professor of Law New England School of Law Boston Massachusetts

Vandeplas Publishing, 2007

Chester quotes Ralph Brashier, saying that to the rest of the world the American system which allows parents to disinherit their children is unthinkable.

Most of the rest of the world uses the Civil Law system, where it is very hard to disinherit a child. Chester gives the example of France. If there is one child, then 1/2 of the testators estate is reserved for that child. If there are two children, then 2/3 is reserved for them. If there are 3, then 3/4 is reserved, and so on.

Not all the countries are exactly like this, but there is always a forced share and very few ways out of it.

Chester explains that in America with the implicit and sometimes explicit threat of disinheritance, we are undermining the self reliance ethic we claim to support. We are also disrespecting the parent child bond. Chester explains that there should be some guaranteed share, no matter how strained the relationship has become.

Now in the Common Law countries, the United States is the only one which has not enacted some provision for Wills Variation. It started in England in 1938, out of the recognition that their system was unfair.

Today the place where they go the furthest is British Columbia. There judges favor equal share inheritance and will make it this way unless there is compelling reason not to. A mid 90's case precedent made it clear that there does not have to be any proof of establishment of need. So it makes sense that we would there find the outstanding lawyers, like Trevor Todd of Vancouver.

In one case a mother left $4Meg,and very little to one daughter. It was over the daughter alleging sexual molestation by the mother's boyfriend.

The court gave the daughter an equal share and wrote a decision which chastised the mother for not trying to make amends with her daughter. Very different from common attitudes about such matters in the US.

In B.C. judges are really looking into the nature of family relations, going way beneath the surface, and understanding that if there is animosity it must have come from the parents. They will always look for a justification to award equal shares, no matter what the will says.

In one case a wealthy man disinherited his son because of the son's homosexual orientation. The court just about shredded the guys will. Then as it went to Canada's Supreme Court, that highest court went even further.

It is here that you get the sense that the judges are seeing disinheritance as an offensive act and indicative of familial abuse, and so they are acting to censor the testators.

So clearly a forced share or legitime civil law system, but with this B.C. sort of Wills Variation provision would be best.

Chester says that in B.C. there are far more quality controls on judges than what we have, especially for Probate Judges. But this could be changed.

If you say you care about familial child sexual molestation, which is the predominant form of child sexual abuse, then you must want to resolve this injustice. It is the reason victims stay silent and so the public does not understand what the issues are.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Certainly I would advise no one to ever talk to any kind of a therapist until that person has shown proof of their activism in obtaining justice for the victims of familial abuses, rather than just trying to have them talk themselves out so that they can then be subjected to a kind of second rape.

SJG

So I feel now that I am ready to reply to Shailynn's original post.

While it has long been held as self evident that white male land owners are all created equal and have certain inalienable rights, that system has always depended upon keeping huge numbers of people disenfranchised. It is actually a property of capitalism that it will always be trying to expand without limit, because it creates problems and so the lie is always that if it can expand, then the problems will be solved. What actually happens though is just that the problems are also expanded and shifted off somewhere temporarily out of sight.

One huge group of Americans who are disenfranchised are those who have survived abuses within the middle-class family. It is these abused children who are the exploited workers in our system. And because we do not see this, as those children grow into adulthood and are still denied justice, they are also denied even the basic dignity of having a biography.

So as such they will always have to operate on the margins. And this will not change until these types of familial abuses are exposed and the perpetrators sanctioned and the victims restored to legitimacy through compensation.

And I point here again to Trevor Todd who obtains justice in court for those who have been scapegoated:

disinherited.com

SJG