danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #141
I agree to disagree. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement.UBI makes more sense than unemployment insurance, if you end all other forms of welfare (including corporate welfare).Not at all. In this case, persons would have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. It is about full employment of capital resources for the general welfare.AhhhhhA market friendly manner would be one that solves for actual economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary social phenomena. The only thing socialistic about it would be equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. And, socialism is also about equality and the "equality of protection of the laws".Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is better for our economy and more cost effective as a public policy.I'm not saying that we can exactly replicate their success, but we can certainly aim for similar approaches.You're not speaking of making unions "redundant," you're simply describing a different form of the same animal.There are various reasons for the cutthroat nature of business here, but one aspect rarely discussed is that Germany (and the EU as a whole) operates as a cartel. They limit who is able to enter their market. This allows for some protection of industry there. We engage in similar tactics, but not to the same extent.
Germany also has a far superior education system that divides children by academic and technical talents. They don't have a shortage of blue collar labor, for example.
If we reformed our education system to resemble theirs, it would then allow us to push a corporate culture that would be more democratic in nature. That would make unions redundant, because labor reforms would be internal.
Germany, in general, is not a good example. Two world wars and and the privation following both made sociological changes within German unseen elsewhere.
Useful, perhaps as a case study, but not as a direct comparison.
No idea what you mean by a "market friendly" manner since owners feel any penny conceded to labor is a dollar out of their pocket. They'll call your "market friendly" reforms the "next step to socialism" and your ideas will evaporate.
Any changes along the lines you propose would required both sides to respect the contributions of the other.
Owners don't respect that contribution so it becomes a permanent war between the respective parties.
And owners fight that war by destroying unions.
They know that the individual worker is powerless but together? The can run the world.
A professor in college (OH GOD over 50 years ago) proposed that when a business is started the owner could get back his investment +15%. then the business belonged to the workers. Part of me says NO WAY! But, consider, where they gonna put all that money? Under their beds? Guarantee 15% profit +100% ROI for all new businesses? Lots of guys would take that offer. Especially if the option is .02% on a govt bond.
You mean a "solution" wherein only the greedy owners get to make money while others starve.
I guess it's "market friendly" till you run out of customers.
Actually, your response said nothing. The "economic phenomena" is that worker salaries for the bottom 1/2 of earners has been flat for 20 years. That, combined with inflation in housing, food, medicine, has pushed people out of the middle class and closer to poverty.
There you go Mr. Market Friendly. Your turn.
A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.[