Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may not owe me a job, but society sure as heck does.
No.. society doesn't.
Quote:
How will I eat, clothe and house myself? Oh yeah, there's the government to help folks like me.
That's all fine and dandy until people like you start b*tching about how your taxes go to support deadbeats like me
Society owes itself some insulation from the effects of your unproductive existence.
We do NOT owe you a job. There's a big difference.
Quote:
Either hire one or two people out of fifty or a hundred that really could use a job, and prevent those people from going on the dole, or put us "undesirables" out on the street, leaving us *no choice* but to get the government to support us.
There are other alternatives to systems designed around temporary needs...
being used as a means of decades long chronic support.
I can see remodeled Army Bases with barracks and mess halls. Food, clothing, shelter and medical
care all covered and some training offered to those inclined and/or who want some spending cash.
Over a period of some years a few may even decide that working is a better life.
Do you think that might suit you?
Eliminate these 20-40Millions of low/no skilled people from the pool of job seekers and suddenly,
instantly the balance will have greater market value. Maybe they'll even be paid well enough to get
the taxes needed to support the others removed for their benefit.
In a nutshell, what is your job experience?
What education level have attained? Degree? In what?
Also realize, the purpose of a company or employer isn't to provide jobs. The purpose is to make money (for you and me, the stakeholders). If firing people means I'll make more money, then that is what I want. Efficiency and profits and increase in share value.
This is a legitimate point that cannot be negated.
However, it is a short-sighted argument that is often used. Perhaps it's not an employer's place to create jobs (though they do like to take responsibility as being the "job creators"). But without jobs, people don't have money to spend. And without money to spend, the products these companies are putting out cannot be purchased thus eliminating the ability to make profit. Whose responsibility is it then to create the means to, at the very least, provide a living for one's self? Sure, part of it falls on the individual, no doubt. But where there is a will, there must be a means. There needs to be opportunity for one to provide for themselves. Jobs need to be available. If companies aren't willing to create them (in the interest of making more profit), then who needs to create them? The government perhaps? It's either you allow people an opportunity to make the money, or you take care of them by way of welfare. It's your choice. But there is no sweeping this problem under the rug and ignoring it.
Even if you take the humanitarian element out of this argument (as in we can't just let people starve on the streets), there is still an economic element that is equally of value. Without jobs, people don't have the money to spend that, in turn, props up the companies and the macro economy as a whole.
Perhaps it's not an employer's place to create jobs... (beyond the utility/need of operations).
But without jobs, people don't have money to spend.
(and)... the products these companies are putting out cannot be purchased (by those people)
No argument.
Quote:
There needs to be opportunity for one to provide for themselves.
Jobs need to be available.
This has been the assumption: an ever expanding economy able to absorb any number of citizens.
That there would always be enough adequate jobs available for any who might show up.
The question that I see is whether that assumption requires conditions that no longer exist.
In particular whether we have reached (passed) a saturation point.
I suspect that we have.
Ok seriously people need to understand economics, and that you are part of an economy. The economy is based on people providing their labor/resources in exchange for resources. It was said on here that people arent owed a job. That is false. People in an economy must participate in the labor pool/ or contribution of resources (investing), otherwise they become a burden on the economy in the form of publicly funded assistance and/or crime. An economy is simply all of the people working and exchanging resources, if a multitude of participants in a society are unable to find work....its because the economy is broken. There is a void. The cause of the void needs to be corrected.
The question that I see is whether that assumption requires conditions that no longer exist.
In particular whether we have reached (passed) a saturation point.
I suspect that we have.
It's a possibility, especially when you consider the efficiency of the workforce as a result of modern technology. If this is the case, what are our options?
If companies aren't willing to use their record profits to hire people, perhaps the government will need to step in and create a program where it taxes these companies and uses that money to make jobs for those without them. At least then, it won't be a complete welfare state.
Small government advocates might not be a fan of this, but consider what the alternative is if there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. We can let people starve to death, we can exterminate the unemployed masses until we get to our equilibrium again, and we can force people to not have children against their will.
It's a possibility, especially when you consider the efficiency of the workforce as a result of modern technology. If this is the case, what are our options?
If companies aren't willing to use their record profits to hire people, perhaps the government will need to step in and create a program where it taxes these companies and uses that money to make jobs for those without them. At least then, it won't be a complete welfare state.
Small government advocates might not be a fan of this, but consider what the alternative is if there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. We can let people starve to death, we can exterminate the unemployed masses until we get to our equilibrium again, and we can force people to not have children against their will.
Any other ideas?
Taking money from someone else, to hand to others, through the government is not welfare?
That is the problem, it is not socialism, corporations are run to make a profit, the CEOs pay is often based on the bottom line, they are not in existence to take car of you
And it's your people that work UNDER you that help make that profit! You dont take a crap on them and say thanks but no thanks and reap the benefits of their misfortune by giving yourself a raise. It's greed to the most disgusting, and to the most vile level and it infuriates me that this doesn't get more Americans upset. But lets kick the poor and unfortunate while they're down and remind them it's nobody job to take care of you.
And it's your people that work UNDER you that help make that profit! You dont take a crap on them and say thanks but no thanks and reap the benefits of their misfortune by giving yourself a raise. It's greed to the most disgusting, and to the most vile level and it infuriates me that this doesn't get more Americans upset. But lets kick the poor and unfortunate while they're down and remind them it's nobody job to take care of you.
Sure people produce the profit, however if hiring 1 more person means they are costing the company money as their is no production to be expected from them, then am I helping the people who work for me? What about shareholders?
You can complain about greed all you want, I will just complain about entitlement attitude that you are showing that a company cannot choose how many employees they need in a free country, and you want to decide for them. Is that another kind of greed anyways? Power hunger/greed, wanting the power to control how others operate while not putting in any effort to decide?
Taking money from someone else, to hand to others, through the government is not welfare?
Actually, I'm very concerned about this nation's deteriorating infrastructure. The power grid, the roads, the bridges... All this stuff has to be maintained, yet companies are diverting huge some of profits out of the country so they don't have to pay taxes here... Yet without that infrastructure, it would not have been possible for these companies to make those profits, at least not in this country.
If the government went after these mega corps and clamped down on corporate taxes, I wouldn't mind. The issue I have is, our government is obnoxiously inefficient. The money collected would almost certainly be squandered instead of being effectively used. More than likely, politicians would simply use these tax dollars to write bigger promises and buy more votes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
