1) Yes of course they wouldn’t and that’s the point. I am dispelling the narrative that poor people should work harder to eliminate poverty itself. Working hard doesn’t necessarily give you a living that is kept up with the current cost of living. Again, even if they did, we would still have widespread vacant jobs that are the backbone of the economy.
2) It would have been better had I not used “entry level” as the description I am talking about. What I am referring to is any job that doesn’t require an education of any kind to do. Teenagers could not possibly be adequate for this market.
3) Why are you so convinced that the current government regulations are hindering capitalism? Based on what facts? If you look up the actual labor statistics, you will see that regulations are insignificant when it comes to creating jobs. The number one reason a business can’t create jobs is that the demand for their products is inadequate to expand their business. That’s what business comes down to: demand.
Also, Wal-Mart is a company worth BILLIONS. They choose to pay their workers shit so that they maximize profit for their shareholders. That’s the ugly side of capitalism that Fox won’t tell you.
- Even if they did, the point can't be reached that everyone will be in upper level jobs. Teenagers and College Students will always exist. That said, your statement that hard work doesn't mean anything is also false, as the hardest working are the ones selected for the upper level jobs, barring affirmative action of course. That said, barring the government's red tape preventing the creation of new businesses, the said skilled labor can also create their own business, or find an expanding job market.
- If it's unskilled labor and there's no age restriction, then anyone old enough for a job is old enough for THAT job. Even if that wasn't the case, the turnover rate at unskilled jobs is massive, people are only willing to drive a limited range, giving them limited employment pools, and the army is always an option.
- Because, by default, regulations restrict business' actions, thereby preventing them from functioning optimally. That is literally the point of regulations in the first place. Not a single regulations helps businesses function better, and you can not cite a single example otherwise. Regulations are not insignificant, even the smallest regulation damages business functions and forces them to change the way they operate. At BEST a regulation FORCES the creation of a new business that there was never a demand for, and it gets propped up by the government, creating non-self-sustaining jobs. At WORST, said regulations force the creation of a monopoly, which tends to be the case, as no monopoly has EVER been created without government assistance, and are otherwise impossible, due to the fact that a monopoly can only otherwise exist by controlling ALL resources associated with that business.
As a matter of fact ALL businesses attempt to maximize profit, and that's not the ugly side, it's the beautiful side. Without government involvement, businesses will naturally pay their employees what is needed, as they would otherwise find another business to work for, and their previous boss would be forced to either shut down, or start paying a wage people are willing to work for. Government involvement is what makes it possible for a business to pay less, either by regulating their competition into oblivion or by creating Federal Aid, which allows a person to make a living wage off of less. Either option, again, requires government involvement.
Furthermore, I do not watch Fox News, they're owned by the same people as the DNC Controlled news sources, preventing any of them from being reliable. That said, YOU need to stop looking to the economically illiterate for YOUR information. There's a reason Socialism has never succeeded, and continuing to push it is the literal definition of insanity.
1) Um no teens and college kids aren’t nearly enough to carry the entire market of low wage jobs. Again, many of them could only work seasonally anyway. And no, government red tape has an insignificant effect on business growth. The BLS data proves this.
2) The turnover rate is high because these jobs are shit: low pay and shitty benefits for a job that isn’t worth the effort. Oh and these millions of poor people joining the army doesn’t make any sense. Sorry.
3) Successful businesses launch already prepared for regulation. While some may be misguided, the point of them is to protect the consumers or the population at large.
4) See here’s what you’re not getting: there is a feduciary responsibility to benefit shareholders as much as possible. How, in part, is this done? By attempting to spend as little as legally possible on the labor force. This means a company can pay their employees minimum wage and many of them do. This minimum wage puts people in the red as far as the cost of living. All of this has NOTHING to do with government red tape except for the fact these workers are saved from getting paid less than the national minimum wage of $7.25 or the state minimum wage which at most is $9.00 per hour.
And again, you fail to accept the actual definition of socialism. See while you might want to point to Venezuela as proof it doesn’t work, you would have to ignore the socialist Nordic countries who have better quality of life for their citizens and a higher median wage after taxes than we do. Oh and a lower poverty rate.
- Actually, yes they are, and some retired people go back to providing unskilled labor for extra pocket change. A citation is needed for the claim that they can only work seasonally, as last I checked, college kids need money for more than just a season, especially if they're living on their own, and seasonal jobs are only for extra money when not taking classes. Furthermore, Low-income entrepreneurs suffer most when government makes it harder to start a business no, they are not, and this is ignoring the massive cost a business has to pay to insure all of their employees. Government red tape is FAR from insignificant, and in fact, is becoming the first and last reason as to why businesses are starting more slowly. It bothers me that the left never stops to wonder why the big cooporations are the ones asking for regulations and taxes.
- Actually, poor people joining the army makes perfect sense, as the army will pay for their education after they've done their time, and the only requirement is that they're physically able. Actually, the turnover rate is high because other people around my age don't want to work, they simply don't follow the rules and are incredibly lazy. Most of them don't even show up for orientation.
- Only those who have already made enough money, and as noted in my link above, it's very difficult to get a list of rules that have to be met before launching. People in the middle ad lower class find it nearly impossible due to all the costs and regulations, and again, that's ignoring the massive cost to insuring employees. All of this is also assuming that you haven't chosen a business that the government has already split into area monopolies with regulations.
- That must be why only 3% of employees across America are paid minimum wage. Maybe it's something you're not getting, not me. If businesses only paid their employees the bare minimum, they'd lose their skilled labor to other businesses, and their service and products would be poorly reviewed, losing them customers that they didn't need to lose otherwise. Businesses can't cut corners unless mommy government bails them out, otherwise they're at the mercy of their competition and consumers. Employees aren't saved by the government, the government only makes life harder. Wage laws, in fact, only increase the cost of living, California being a shining example of this, with the highest cost of living in the entire US. Furthermore, Puerto Rico, which is even more Left than California, managed to double their cost of living.
Socialism's name came from Social Control, which is what defines the model. The one not getting it is the self-professed Socialist.
Actually, I can point to an entire list of Socialist failures.:
Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.
Denmark is not Socialist, their businesses are required to report to the government, and while their economy is sub-optimal, it still isn't Socialist. Although, their taxes are Socialist level, at 59%. Something to be expected of a Nation that punishes success and rewards failure. Their tax rate also increases every year.
Finland is is more Socialist than the other Nordic Countries, but still not really their, however like Denmark, their massive Tax Rate does scream Socialist, at about 51%. Again, typical of a place that punishes success and rewards failure.
Tax rate in Norway is also massive, at 41%, I'm seeing a trend here, it's like Socialist Countries have a massive tax rate, so that the people who still work can carry those who don't. These places aren't even fully Socialist, I can certainly see why fully Socialist countries collapsed.
44% in Greenland, still extremely high. 56% in Sweden. I wonder how the 'quality of life' can be supposedly better in a place where half of their income is stolen. Besides that, Quality of Life hardly measures a place's economy, our poor already has it REALLY good. As far as I can see, I don't really think that your life should be any better if you're choosing not to work, otherwise there's no incentive to get a job, especially since the trade-off is losing half of your income when you ARE working. It looks to me like there's more incentive to never get a job. On the same train of thought, lower poverty rate? I suppose it would make sense if your jobless are stealing so much money from those who do have jobs. Not much of a measuring tool.
You can likely only point to one or two 'successes' which are either sub-optimal capitalist, or either not Socialist, or not Successful.
1) Uh again high school students typically only work seasonally and many college students do as well. Not only that but both of these demographics would only do part time work.
2) Obvously joining the army is a good solution for some. The point is that it is dumb solution to anyone in poverty.
3)
Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs?
“But the idea that regulations stunt job growth more broadly is not supported by research. Many of the academic studies that have explored the question find that regulations don’t decrease jobs in the overall economy. They sometimes reduce jobs in certain sectors, but they create new jobs in others. A factory that makes lead additives for gasoline might be shut down because regulations have banned lead additives. But new jobs will then be created at a factory that makes catalytic converters, which are emissions-control devices for cars. Some workers, then, benefit from regulation, while others lose. That doesn’t mean that the losses aren’t real and painful for the people who held those jobs, but the overall picture is not one that can be accurately characterized by the phrase “job-killing.””
4) Christ. If the federal wage was raised high enough, it would raise all STATE minimum wages as well. Ya get me? Oh and California’s wage was raised AFTER the cost of living became too high.
5) Again what you don’t seem to get is that every nation around the world including the US has socialist aspects. How governments choose to be run is why they fail - it isn’t the concept of socialism that is at fault.
6) You’re just making things up by saying Denmark isn’t socialist lol. Of course it is. Norway and Denmark are socialist and their median wages are higher AFTER taxes than ours is. Their poverty rate is also much lower than ours.
