Is the Dem mayor barret still forcing people to live in Milwaukee?

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by Kchomps

Logic is nothing more than an assumption in this case, pure supposition, a declaration on your part.

an example of logic:
Trees are tall.
I am tall.
therefore, I am a tree

That's cute, but that isn't the logic I employed. You're entitled to interpret things as you wish, right or wrong.

Silly yet again, speaking in vague generalities, bumpersticker words.

Silly to you, perhaps. That's why not everyone thinks alike regarding multiple issues. Imagine that.

Packer fans can be seen as a community.
Kenosha and milwaukee can be seen as a community.
The midwest can be seen as a community.

In some ways, all of these things are communities. But none is an exclusive community--a person can belong to several overlapping communities at once. Is that surprising?

The State of Wisconsin and the United States of America are also communities of some kind, and both have some set of residency requirements (and in the case of the U.S., citizenship requirements). You think cities shouldn't have similar options?

Boarding schools are communities of a sort, and they require that all or most students and faculty reside on campus. Do you think that's unfair?

Many apartment companies require that their managers live on site, for the purpose of maintaining and watching over the property (= "community"). Do you think that's unfair?

Wishing, feeling, on your part that someone born and raised in the richest part of milwaukee will feel a sense of 'community' with the poorest, crime riddled area of milwaukee is patently absurd, and I've not even brought in the racial and/or cultural component.

You seem to think that I have some kind of naive sense of what it means to be a member of a community, but you have already shown yourself more interested in an either/or approach to the problem, rather than a more nuanced understanding. By your logic, only associations with members abiding by the strictest criteria (as determined by you, probably) could be considered a community. In any case, I never said that the city wants its employees to "feel" community--no one can force a "feeling" like that onto someone. I also never claimed that the rich would "feel" community with poor, on so on (though the former help subsidize services for the latter). My concept of "community" here is not Unicorns and Rainbows; it's primarily functional at an economic and political level. Please don't put words and definitions in my mouth for the dubious purpose of advancing your own argument.

The residency requirement concept, as applied to the city, is purely tactical: it ensures a control of votes and property taxes, it ensures a few more people for the occasional census count and redistricting game, but it (and its proponents) can only hope that some of the people involved will go beyond that and shop in the city, and so on and so forth.

So if an employer says you must be straight, or male, or christian, or ? in order to get a job in their company, you'd be OK with that?

Wouldn't it depend on the company? Many christian schools require that their employees live a life that is basically compatible with hetero, christian precepts. Though I'm neither straight nor christian, I don't see why that's so wrong. (But I do think non-straights and non-christians can often do a great job at such schools, if the schools are willing to permit.)

Some companies require certain kinds of education, others require a drug-free work force, others require that their employees know how to drive a car, and some require that the employees actually use their own car. So what?

Quoting you, you aren't "entitled to a job", right? If you're not a white christian male, then you have to look elsewhere for work.
And you're OK with that?

Depends on the category.

White people cannot change their color, so I'm not OK with using race as a term of employment. Males cannot easily change their gender, so I'm generally not OK with using gender as a term of employment. Same with gay/straight, short/tall, etc., though there may be some exceptions depending on the job, and clearly some jobs are better for some traits than for others. A blind person probably cannot do anything about the blindness, but I don't want that person driving a bus.

Being christian (or not) is a choice. That shouldn't matter in most cases, but there are some jobs for which it is an issue. Being the Pope, for example, is probably best left to a christian (though many priests and ministers are in fact agnostic or atheist).

Being a resident of Milwaukee (or not) is a choice. Those who are not residents cannot compete for city jobs. Those who are residents can. But--this is important--being a resident of Milwaukee is not in itself an exclusive precondition for city employment. Education, experience, and many other factors play into it as well. This should not be surprising.