- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Oh. So you think everyone has the right to a job, but you're immune to providing it. Gotcha.
I'll go shovel an inch of snow off the street outside for an hour. That'll be a thousand dollars. I hope they have direct deposit - I hate going to the bank.
You're making arguments which have nothing to do with the idea of a true "right to work" bill. I guess that's what happens when a thread turns into a echo chamber.
No no, I'm really interested. I'd like to hear more about your plan to bloat the state to a level that gives them not only the chance, but the obligation to employ all who want employment.
You know what they say about a government big enough to give you all you want, don't you?
Well I'm pretty interested in why you think individuals that can/want to work shouldn't have means of employment. Generally when you have people that want to work...and things that need to get done you kind of match the two together. I'm not sure what the benefit is of having millions of people that want to work unable to find work. Maybe I just don't fully understand the pain is good crowd.
Well I'm pretty interested in why you think individuals that can/want to work shouldn't have means of employment.
Generally when you have people that want to work...and things that need to get done you kind of match the two together.
I'm not sure what the benefit is of having millions of people that want to work unable to find work. Maybe I just don't fully understand the pain is good crowd.
No one is arguing that people should not be able to work. What they're saying is that we can't force any one person to hire another.
Only the employer and the employee do that matching. They are the only two parties who are trading one thing for another.
No one is saying there is a benefit. What they're saying is we can't force one person to hire another person. You are softly suggesting that some third party set the terms of individuals' contracts with one another. That is not good faith and fair dealing. That is a major infringement on people's right to trade with one another. Deal or no deal is up to the parties doing the actual trading.
The underlying theme is that government should be the employer of last resort which would be a disaster...
The underlying theme is that government should be the employer of last resort which would be a disaster...
What about a society in which vast numbers of people are increasingly NOT needed in an economic system where a smaller and smaller number of people aided by technology can basically do the work for all the rest of us?
When the Industrial Revolution happened, there was a lateral transference of labor from agriculture to Industry. heck, in the USA there was not even enough of that and we had to go overseas in an immigration binge just to man the machinery. The less than intelligent, the less than skilled, could find employment and live a decent and productive life as a member of our society with pride.
For far too many today, that opportunity is gone as technology has made tens of millions of people simply not needed any more. And this will most likely only get worse over time.
What do we do with those people who are simply no longer needed in the labor force? That is the true challenge we face as a society.
First, you put in place policies that would encourage employers to set up shop here rather than transporting their products several thousand miles overseas. Next you might get rid of the PC education processes implemented over the past decades and train the population of students for the jobs that actually will be available...
What about a society in which vast numbers of people are increasingly NOT needed in an economic system where a smaller and smaller number of people aided by technology can basically do the work for all the rest of us?
When the Industrial Revolution happened, there was a lateral transference of labor from agriculture to Industry. heck, in the USA there was not even enough of that and we had to go overseas in an immigration binge just to man the machinery. The less than intelligent, the less than skilled, could find employment and live a decent and productive life as a member of our society with pride.
For far too many today, that opportunity is gone as technology has made tens of millions of people simply not needed any more. And this will most likely only get worse over time.
What do we do with those people who are simply no longer needed in the labor force? That is the true challenge we face as a society.
The right to a job doesn't necessarially require the input of anyone else.
I can be self employed.
I agree that we need to do both things. But we will not do both things or even one of them.
I suspect while we may agree on those two broad points, we may disagree on the details of how to do them - and therein lies the rub and the reason why nothing will get done.
Which provision is violated?
Yes...if you want a job it should be provided. Whatever your talents be it a doctor or a ditch digger. If there's not enough jobs we have things we can find for you to do. It's a basic principle that if someone gives a best effort to work and be an employee they should have an employer.
Like I said, the true colors of the Libertarians are out! :lamo :lamo
People must be goods, then, which also doesn't surprise me coming from a Libertarian. I sure wouldn't mind having a couple of movie stars and I'm sure lots and lots of other people want them, too.
I just haven't enough time to get back to that thread. Don't feel left out, I have about four others on hold as well. :shrug:
I'm sorry you feel like you've "won" something --- and for that you get another ... :lamo
First, you put in place policies that would encourage employers to set up shop here rather than transporting their products several thousand miles overseas. Next you might get rid of the PC education processes implemented over the past decades and train the population of students for the jobs that actually will be available...
its unlawful in our constitution to take from one and give to another.
i cant be given a right to a house, food, water, because those things have a value, in order to give them to you, i have to take thing of value from someone else, maternal goods and services do not create themselves.
and its unlawful to use force against a person to make that person serve another.
No one is arguing that people should not be able to work. What they're saying is that we can't force any one person to hire another.
Only the employer and the employee do that matching. They are the only two parties who are trading one thing for another.
No one is saying there is a benefit to high unemployment (except perhaps those who think high unemployment helps fend off inflation -- NAIRU). What they're saying is we can't force one person to hire another person. You are softly suggesting that some third party set the terms of individuals' contracts with one another. That is not good faith and fair dealing. That is a major infringement on people's right to trade with one another.
Trade is integral to people's right to pursue happiness. That's HOW people pursue happiness. They turn inputs into more valuable outputs and trade with others. When government is mandating business relationships between employers and employees or between producers and consumers (as in PPACA, for example), that is an act of commercial enslavement of the people, to terms of contracts with which they do not necessarily agree.
I wouldn't necessarily call it input or approval, but to be employed in more than the most abstract concept of the word requires the willingness of someone to buy your services. I wouldn't really call someone who has never done nor will ever do any mechanic work a mechanic no matter what trade school he graduated from. A mechanic with no customers for life is really just an unemployed guy calling himself a mechanic.
then who are you going to apply force to, to make the other person supply that job?
in other words your going to violate the 13th amendment.
The job gaurantee is about society promising a job for people that can't find work. That job benefits society...
TVA and other New Deal style work programs. Put people to work doing things that provide long term benefits for society during times of mass unemployment.
If you mean "benefits society" in a net sense, then already you make a strange assumption, which is that the value of a job always exceeds its cost.
.
Former farmers were building dams. It's not like the only problems this country calls for high tech solutions that require a highly skilled workforce.And that assumes that 1) there exists work that provides long-term benefits to society that isn't already being done, and 2) that the people who are worst at finding work will be able to do those types of things.
This idea is just a variation of welfare. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a worse idea than plain old cradle-to-grave welfare. It's just that it's inherently not that much better of an idea.
Surfing the net, I came across this.
The Right to a job | Socialist Equality Party
Interesting point of view. What do you think? Is having a job a right?
Adding the poll right now. Answers will be yes, no and I don't know.
I'm talking specifically about the US where we have a lot of things that need to get done. Sure maybe in some rare case of a country that has completely maxed out whatever infrastructure improvement they could make you hit a point where there's not net benefit but in our country that isn't the case.
Former farmers were building dams. It's not like the only problems this country calls for high tech solutions that require a highly skilled workforce.
First of all working itself has postivie effects on individuals. Outlook, confidence etc. Being productive makes individuals feel better about themselves. people learn skills and refine abilities. Even if you never use those skills specifically for what you do now certain principles carry over. Then of course there's the actual work. A more efficient method of medical record keeping or laying wire to improve bandwidth or even working on a road crew provides long term benefits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?