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.
Many would say that the right to be employed is socialist, but if you think about it, rights for everyone is socialist. Economic rights should be part of a country's constitution.
You seem to miss the point that in the US, our rights are not supposed to be granted by the government and are therefor not socialist. They are innate rights and the Constitution is established for the purpose of limiting the ability of the government to infringe upon those rights. When the government says something like employment is a right, then it's taking rights from someone else. Why should you be entitled to the efforts and access to someone else's business? Why do your rights (wishes) outweigh their rights to do as they wish? Because you're asking the question and never thought about how it might effect other people. People forget that things like this come from someone, and it's your fellow citizen that's forced (meaning a lost right to choose) to hire you. What if you're a terrible employee? Are you still entitled to their money?
You seem to miss the point that in the US, our rights are not supposed to be granted by the government and are therefor not socialist. They are innate rights and the Constitution is established for the purpose of limiting the ability of the government to infringe upon those rights. When the government says something like employment is a right, then it's taking rights from someone else. Why should you be entitled to the efforts and access to someone else's business? Why do your rights (wishes) outweigh their rights to do as they wish? Because you're asking the question and never thought about how it might effect other people. People forget that things like this come from someone, and it's your fellow citizen that's forced (meaning a lost right to choose) to hire you. What if you're a terrible employee? Are you still entitled to their money?
That can't be correct, since your property rights are limited to those which government deigns to allow you to have.
...data show clearly that unemployment dropped in every single year except the one in which he and others convinced FDR to end the WPA programs...
Unemployment may have dropped, but that doesn't necessarily represent prosperity. And even still, high unemployment and (especially) underemployment loomed from 1929 until WWII (because of the draft).
That's not to say that employment equals prosperity. The United States had an austere economy until well into the 1940s. Hoover's and later FDR's policies and "works projects" lead to a decade of poverty.
Prosperity requires stable rules and real market prices, not government bailouts and central planning.
Unemployment may have dropped, but that doesn't necessarily represent prosperity.
You cannot have prosperity with 1 out of 4 people looking for work. FDR put people to work, and in the process made prosperity possible.
Quote:
And even still, high unemployment and (especially) underemployment loomed from 1929 until WWII (because of the draft).
It loomed, but it was much better in 1940 than it was in 1932. Unemployment decreased every single year except for one when FDR was in power - every single year but one. Before his arrival, the jobs situation got worse and worse.
Quote:
That's not to say that employment equals prosperity. The United States had an austere economy until well into the 1940s. Hoover's and later FDR's policies and "works projects" lead to a decade of poverty.
That is a completely unsupported claim. That's an opinion, but one not based on fact.
Quote:
Prosperity requires stable rules and real market prices, not government bailouts and central planning.
It's real simple, bro. In order for capitalism to work, you need an economy of able consumers. You cannot consume unless you have cash or the means to consume, and since most of us don't have inheritances or winning lotto tickets, that means a stable job. FDR put people to work. Employment and incomes are the key to economic prosperity, not tax cuts for people who already have it made.
We are equating work with income. What would happen if everyone was provided with enough income that they did not have to work to survive? Not live well but just survive.
We are equating work with income. What would happen if everyone was provided with enough income that they did not have to work to survive? Not live well but just survive.
It would be politically destabilizing to have millions of people living in absolute destitution, and the public would not tolerate it. However, just giving people income wouldn't be a sound long-term strategy, either. Public sector employment has to get bang for the buck, which is why using public funding to develop infrastructure that everyone can use is preferable to just giving out money.
We're in a real mess right now. Obviously, we shouldn't be in this position and nobody, rich, middle class or poor, likes being in this position. But seeing that this sort of prolonged crisis is a potentially destabilizing situation, the question is one of how can we best get out of it while preserving the domestic tranquility. The wealthiest and strongest of Americans have been taken care of for the past two or three decades now. For those who've made it, they've been pampered. It's time for them to start giving back to the economic system that has made it possible for them to have so much wealth.
Incidentally, looking at the tax code, if one looks at it historically, we can see that certain things tend to happen when taxes are lowered. In the 1920s the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans went from 70 percent to about 25 percent. Because of this, a disproportionate amount of wealth began to accumulate among fewer and fewer people in the U.S. The same thing has happened over the last 20-25 years. In both cases, they were followed by deep economic crises triggered by financial collapse. By contrast, the economy has done quite well during periods of increased taxation. I don't think that's a fluke.
No,you will either obtain work or you won't .The government should have no say in it.
But you can't get around the fact that the government is a huge employer, and its economic effects are mostly positive. Look at the thread in the Alabama section and see all of the Red Staters who are sniffling over the possibility of losing a federal employer. The same thing happens whenever the military threatens to shutter bases. Hell, even the lefties in Northern California who are always quick to condemn war were bawling over the closure of Fort Ord.
Now, mind you, if a federal agency or branch office has outlived its utility, then so be it. We cannot create an economy that is solely dependent on public expenditures. I agree that there needs to be a strong private sector. But those who say "cut, cut, cut" as if that will have no consequences on the private sector are seriously misguided and know next to nothing about economics.
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.
