They're spoiled, John. They don't even realize how much freedom, opportunity, and luxury they (*)(*)(*)(*) away everyday that plenty of people in the world would kill to have access to. They are unenlightened, and they are blissfully intoxicated by their ignorance. Sad but true. The more they have, the less they appreciate.
shouldn't have to work for someone you don't want to either, and not be denied and disparaged an income.
Agreed that is why i am against union and government domination of an industry. A free and voluntary labor force is the way to go. Right to work all the way, I am not licking any union bosses feet to be allowed to work I will have my free speech instead. Let others unionize if they want and let companies fire them if they want.
Liberals seem to appreciate the value and worth of our tax dollars, unlike the right. - - - Updated - - - I don't have a problem with freedom of association or unions. I am merely advocating for true witness bearing concerning a federal doctrine regarding employment at will and State at-will employment laws, simply for the sake of a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.
This is not an anti-union comment...it is a common sense comment; An employer should be able to hire and fire anyone they wish at any time for any reason excluding obvious discrimination based on race, color and gender. An employer should be able to pay any wage and any benefits or no benefits, etc. It is 100% up to the potential employees to decide which companies they want to work or not. An employer should be able to offer $5/hour pay, and either workers will show up or they won't. If workers don't show up then the hourly pay will increase until they show up. If a person wishes to work in their home, part time or full time, inserting a flyer into an envelope and sealing it, and they are happy earning $5/hour with no benefits...why is this a problem?
It would not be a problem if labor has recourse to unemployment compensation merely for claiming to be unemployed in any at-will employment State.
what do you mean by "real" definition? the earth was once defined as flat; we now know that isn't true. - - - Updated - - - How do you account for Hoover Dam or any State and its organs?
It isn't about being stuck with one employer, but about a natural rate of unemployment engendered by capitalism, that can be corrected for with socialism.
How did you reach your conclusion regarding socialism? Full employment of resources is a form of promoting the general welfare and providing for the general prosperity.
It isn't about being stuck with one employer, but about a natural rate of unemployment engendered by capitalism, that can be corrected for with socialism. We can solve for the inefficiency of a natural rate of unemployment engendered by capitalism through existing infrastructure and existing laws.
They tried that, called it a stimulis. Found out that if you take money from productive ventures and give it to unproductive ventures the productive ventures grow slower and the unproductive ventures soon are back to where they started. It also takes a lot of people to administer these programs, people who could otherwise be doing useful things, growing the amount we produce so we all have more, or people could work less. Remove the minimum wage entirely and you will know where natural unemployment really is.
Europeans take as much vacation as they do to keep incomes lower, thus taxes lower (they haven't found a way to tax vacation - yet) And welfare, and unemployment, and SSI (if you think SSI is your own money, then you can save your own money for retirement). We will find social programs reduce employment far more than capitalism.
The stimulus was mostly a bailout so the wealthier could keep more of their money, even if the wealthiest are unwilling to pay wartime Tax rates even for a War on Drugs; it had nothing to do with actually solving capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.
Socialism sounds ideal in theory, but it will never work for the following reasons: 1.) Lack of Incentive -- In a truly socialist society, there is no need for money. What incentive is there for people to perform 'undesirable' yet necessary work? Why should somebody pick up your trash every week, or clean your septic tank? (I suppose that the argument could be made that every citizen of a socialist society would have to volunteer some of their time once in a while to perform these tasks, but even that would be problematic.) 2.) No Way to Preserve Altruism In the Leadership -- The first generation CHOSE the socialist way of life. Why would the second or third generations hold the same ideals? Why should they? If human nature is any precedent, than leaders in such a society will eventually become greedy and hoard as much wealth as possible, leaving the populace to starve. There are more reasons, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. - - - Updated - - - Are you implying that tax is a form of punishment? Punishment for having money??
In my opinion, we are merely not yet moral enough to be better Angels on Earth who have not the need, for the Expense of Government. - - - Updated - - - How does sparing the Tax (rod) engender fiscal forms of responsibility in wealthy (children). It is about fiscal forms of responsibility.
