Your Government Owes You a Job

[SAYIT]

What the gov't owes us is the OPPORTUNITY to get a job and the best way they can do that, constitutionally, is to get out of the way of the market.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country.

"Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

"This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible.

"The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity."

Do you agree?

90% of which Americans? The 800 or 900 people the Pew center contacted over two days asking leading questions designed to illicit a predetermined result?
Cut the shit.
Equality of opportunity? Is this the latest lib buzz term to compel government to exact further control over the private sector?
At least you had the balls to admit you believe in equality of outcome.

I think you (or I) misinterpreted. It seems instinctive that the vast majority of Americans would want a level playfield (of opportunity) and if laws are required to establish and maintain one, I for one am all for them.

 

[Erand7899]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

"A right to a job may sound outlandish, but it’s common sense. You need dollars to eat, and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.

"If the government wants to protect property with cops, courts, and prisons, issue a single, common currency, and tax and fine us in it, it should at least guarantee we can work for our own dollars.

"Politicians ramble about equality of opportunity and the dignity of work, but to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we need boots.

"And lest our boots stomp each other’s necks in senseless competition for too few jobs, we need a job guarantee.

"A job guarantee isn’t that radical.

"Thomas Paine proposed one in 1791.

"In 1944, FDR included the right to a living wage job in his Second Bill of Rights and his Republican opponent promised state-ensured employment.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the right to work and philosophers Rawls and Dewey advocated government provide enough work.

"LBJ deliberated a JG and Martin Luther King Jr., demanded one."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Since US Capitalism prefers extracting wealth as opposed to producing wealth leading to a situation where median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1989, it becomes clear that US capitalism no longer delivers the goods for a majority of its citizens.

The democratic solution calls for government to provide what the private sector is no longer capable of providing.

What the gov't owes us is the OPPORTUNITY to get a job and the best way they can do that, constitutionally, is to get out of the way of the market.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country.

"Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

"This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible.

"The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity."

Do you agree?

Government today is the largest obstacle to equality of opportunity. When regulations favor existing businesses, then opportunity to participate in that market is severely reduced, right along with competition in that market. Regulations are the major limiting factor in the establishment of a new business. Just the cost of ensuring compliance with all of the local, state and federal regulations eats up the small amount of capital that new businesses can put together.

 

[Unkotare]

I wonder if the OP ever spent any time in a communist country where everyone was 'guaranteed' a job?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wrong, again.
You are!

"The 1978 Humphrey-Hawkins Act mandates that if the private sector does not create full employment, the public sector will provide the missing jobs."

Federal Law Requires Job Creation - NYTimes.com

The problem facing this is two fold...One, finding work for these new employees to perform.
Two...Funding the wages and benefits.
You figure out how to put millions of people on the public payroll without punishing the private sector with tax increases and we have a deal. Otherwise, you are having a socialist pipe dream.

There's no shortage of work or job applicants for a public jobs program, and the richest citizens, natural and corporate, are sitting on billions of dollars susceptible to a financial transaction TAX or a property TAX on intangible property like stocks and bonds. It's time to stop punishing productive elements of society in order to fund the lifestyles of parasites.

"In short, we have proposed the formation of a National Investment Employment Corps similar to the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps developed in response to the unemployment crisis of the Great Depression.

"The employment corps could address a host of national human and physical infrastructure needs including the building and restoration of roads, highways, dams, museums, parks, the postal service, child care centers, health clinics and schools.

"It could serve as a pilot site for the implementation of innovative green technologies that would enhance our environmental health. And the jobs could offer decent pay and benefits."

Federal Law Requires Job Creation - NYTimes.com

Yeah yeah yeah..Someone's pie in the sky notion that "if we just let the federal government hire 100 million people everything will be just fine."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

"A right to a job may sound outlandish, but it’s common sense. You need dollars to eat, and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.

"If the government wants to protect property with cops, courts, and prisons, issue a single, common currency, and tax and fine us in it, it should at least guarantee we can work for our own dollars.

"Politicians ramble about equality of opportunity and the dignity of work, but to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we need boots.

"And lest our boots stomp each other’s necks in senseless competition for too few jobs, we need a job guarantee.

"A job guarantee isn’t that radical.

"Thomas Paine proposed one in 1791.

"In 1944, FDR included the right to a living wage job in his Second Bill of Rights and his Republican opponent promised state-ensured employment.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the right to work and philosophers Rawls and Dewey advocated government provide enough work.

"LBJ deliberated a JG and Martin Luther King Jr., demanded one."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Since US Capitalism prefers extracting wealth as opposed to producing wealth leading to a situation where median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1989, it becomes clear that US capitalism no longer delivers the goods for a majority of its citizens.

The democratic solution calls for government to provide what the private sector is no longer capable of providing.

What the gov't owes us is the OPPORTUNITY to get a job and the best way they can do that, constitutionally, is to get out of the way of the market.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country.

"Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

"This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible.

"The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity."

Do you agree?

Do I agree that 90% of Americans are idiots? Not really, I would have to see the questions before I formed that opinion.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

"A right to a job may sound outlandish, but it’s common sense. You need dollars to eat, and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.

"If the government wants to protect property with cops, courts, and prisons, issue a single, common currency, and tax and fine us in it, it should at least guarantee we can work for our own dollars.

"Politicians ramble about equality of opportunity and the dignity of work, but to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we need boots.

"And lest our boots stomp each other’s necks in senseless competition for too few jobs, we need a job guarantee.

"A job guarantee isn’t that radical.

"Thomas Paine proposed one in 1791.

"In 1944, FDR included the right to a living wage job in his Second Bill of Rights and his Republican opponent promised state-ensured employment.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the right to work and philosophers Rawls and Dewey advocated government provide enough work.

"LBJ deliberated a JG and Martin Luther King Jr., demanded one."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Since US Capitalism prefers extracting wealth as opposed to producing wealth leading to a situation where median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1989, it becomes clear that US capitalism no longer delivers the goods for a majority of its citizens.

The democratic solution calls for government to provide what the private sector is no longer capable of providing.

Libtards effed this country up with their libtard socialist hand-outs. All you have to do to get people back to work is turn off the hand-outs. The jobs are there and people can start their own businesses. It's not hard. Children know how to do it. The only reason people are not working is cause they are being paid to be disabled and/or paid to be out of work and/or paid to work for less than the poverty level to retain welfare checks.

We punish success and reward the lazy, that's not a free market.

 

[regent]

This may be the way things change, someone suggests a change, others show why no change should take place and then as people think it through more people become backers of the change.
Think of the changes America has gone through: break with Britain, end of slavery, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, minimum wage, labor unions and on and on. Some for the better, and for some, for the worse, but changes occurred. In another hundred years we may have jobs for all that can work. We may even have a thirty hour work week, and medical care for all.

 

[Kondor3]

The government doesn't owe any of us a job.

In the context of the so-called Social Compact, we don't owe each other jobs, either.

But I'm all in favor of using tax-dollars to train or re-train workers, rather than going to the outside (offshore job relocation, skilled immigrants, etc.) where practicable.

If I spend a one-time front-end load of $5K or $10K in tax dollars on worker training, and that money results in a self-sufficient worker (for the first time, or once again) and metaphorical paying customer, and avoids recurring tax-dollar expenditures of $25K or $50K per year in safety-net handouts, well, the job (re-) training seems like the wiser of the two investments.

There are a lot of folks out there who might benefit from such assistance; a hand-up rather than a hand-out; in cases where they can't afford to pay for the training themselves.

Anyone interested can look up their local County-level Workforce Investment Board and its subsidiary agency(ies) - usually some sort of County Workforce Development Agency - and usually connected to the Federal W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct) programming; one of the few Liberal -leaning initiatives that usually gets comprehensive bipartisan support.

 

[RKMBrown]

The government doesn't owe any of us a job.

In the context of the so-called Social Compact, we don't owe each other jobs, either.

But I'm all in favor of using tax-dollars to train or re-train workers, rather than going to the outside (offshore job relocation, skilled immigrants, etc.) where practicable.

If I spend a one-time front-end load of $5K or $10K in tax dollars on worker training, and that money results in a self-sufficient worker (for the first time, or once again) and metaphorical paying customer, and avoids recurring tax-dollar expenditures of $25K or $50K per year in safety-net handouts, well, the job (re-) training seems like the wiser of the two investments.

There are a lot of folks out there who might benefit from such assistance; a hand-up rather than a hand-out; in cases where they can't afford to pay for the training themselves.

Anyone interested can look up their local County-level Workforce Investment Board and its subsidiary agency(ies) - usually some sort of County Workforce Development Agency - and usually connected to the Federal W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct) programming; one of the few Liberal -leaning initiatives that usually gets comprehensive bipartisan support.

Or we can eliminate the recurring tax dollar expenditures (hand-outs). And the people that want to buy training can get a frigging loan.

 

[thereisnospoon]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country.

"Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

"This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible.

"The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity."

Do you agree?

90% of which Americans? The 800 or 900 people the Pew center contacted over two days asking leading questions designed to illicit a predetermined result?
Cut the shit.
Equality of opportunity? Is this the latest lib buzz term to compel government to exact further control over the private sector?
At least you had the balls to admit you believe in equality of outcome.

I think you (or I) misinterpreted. It seems instinctive that the vast majority of Americans would want a level playfield (of opportunity) and if laws are required to establish and maintain one, I for one am all for them.

Here's the rub. No one can define 'equality of opportunity'...It is subjective. Open to interpretation. Which leads to ....wait for it.....Civil litigation.
Yep..
Let us suppose for a moment there is by some crazy chance that a federal labor regulation is added that 'guarantees the right to equal opportunity to procure employment'..
Now, just what do you think will happen the first time an applicant is denied employment?
They will file a suit using that regulation.
The possibilities of revolving door to the courtroom lawsuits are unimaginable.

 

[dblack]

The government doesn't owe any of us a job.

In the context of the so-called Social Compact, we don't owe each other jobs, either.

But I'm all in favor of using tax-dollars to train or re-train workers, rather than going to the outside (offshore job relocation, skilled immigrants, etc.) where practicable.

If I spend a one-time front-end load of $5K or $10K in tax dollars on worker training, and that money results in a self-sufficient worker (for the first time, or once again) and metaphorical paying customer, and avoids recurring tax-dollar expenditures of $25K or $50K per year in safety-net handouts, well, the job (re-) training seems like the wiser of the two investments.

There are a lot of folks out there who might benefit from such assistance; a hand-up rather than a hand-out; in cases where they can't afford to pay for the training themselves.

Anyone interested can look up their local County-level Workforce Investment Board and its subsidiary agency(ies) - usually some sort of County Workforce Development Agency - and usually connected to the Federal W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct) programming; one of the few Liberal -leaning initiatives that usually gets comprehensive bipartisan support.

This is the flipside of "government owes you a job", wherein government assumes the role of "encouraging" productive employment. We might think of it as "you owe government a job".

 

[dblack]

90% of which Americans? The 800 or 900 people the Pew center contacted over two days asking leading questions designed to illicit a predetermined result?
Cut the shit.
Equality of opportunity? Is this the latest lib buzz term to compel government to exact further control over the private sector?
At least you had the balls to admit you believe in equality of outcome.

I think you (or I) misinterpreted. It seems instinctive that the vast majority of Americans would want a level playfield (of opportunity) and if laws are required to establish and maintain one, I for one am all for them.

Here's the rub. No one can define 'equality of opportunity'...It is subjective. Open to interpretation.

I suspect that 90% would drop off radically if they gave much thought to what it would take to truly equalize opportunity. The only thing that would really work would be to have a random lottery to fill every job opening.

 

[Kondor3]

The government doesn't owe any of us a job.

In the context of the so-called Social Compact, we don't owe each other jobs, either.

But I'm all in favor of using tax-dollars to train or re-train workers, rather than going to the outside (offshore job relocation, skilled immigrants, etc.) where practicable.

If I spend a one-time front-end load of $5K or $10K in tax dollars on worker training, and that money results in a self-sufficient worker (for the first time, or once again) and metaphorical paying customer, and avoids recurring tax-dollar expenditures of $25K or $50K per year in safety-net handouts, well, the job (re-) training seems like the wiser of the two investments.

There are a lot of folks out there who might benefit from such assistance; a hand-up rather than a hand-out; in cases where they can't afford to pay for the training themselves.

Anyone interested can look up their local County-level Workforce Investment Board and its subsidiary agency(ies) - usually some sort of County Workforce Development Agency - and usually connected to the Federal W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct) programming; one of the few Liberal -leaning initiatives that usually gets comprehensive bipartisan support.

This is the flipside of "government owes you a job", wherein government assumes the role of "encouraging" productive employment. We might think of it as "you owe government a job".

And is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your mind?

 

[natstew]

Sounds outlandish, doesn't it?

"A right to a job may sound outlandish, but it’s common sense. You need dollars to eat, and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.

"If the government wants to protect property with cops, courts, and prisons, issue a single, common currency, and tax and fine us in it, it should at least guarantee we can work for our own dollars.

"Politicians ramble about equality of opportunity and the dignity of work, but to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, we need boots.

"And lest our boots stomp each other’s necks in senseless competition for too few jobs, we need a job guarantee.

"A job guarantee isn’t that radical.

"Thomas Paine proposed one in 1791.

"In 1944, FDR included the right to a living wage job in his Second Bill of Rights and his Republican opponent promised state-ensured employment.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined the right to work and philosophers Rawls and Dewey advocated government provide enough work.

"LBJ deliberated a JG and Martin Luther King Jr., demanded one."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Since US Capitalism prefers extracting wealth as opposed to producing wealth leading to a situation where median household income today, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1989, it becomes clear that US capitalism no longer delivers the goods for a majority of its citizens.

The democratic solution calls for government to provide what the private sector is no longer capable of providing.

There's this pesky little 'fly in the milk' of you commie's ideas, Americans call it the Constitution!!

 

[natstew]

"In 1977, the Senate proposed legislation guaranteeing employment, allowing residents to sue the US government should it fail to provide it. The litigation provision was cut, but the final Humphrey-Hawkins Act authorizes Uncle Sam to 'create a reservoir of public employment.'

"According to legal scholar Cass Sunstein, in 1990, an overwhelming 86 percent of respondents expressing an opinion wanted that reservoir. This January, the JG still polled high at 47 percent—even higher among people of color—despite its relative unfamiliarity."

Your Government Owes You a Job | The Nation

Ah..........a follower of the avowed commie, , Cass Sustein, that tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[natstew]

Who is going to pay all these workers with their 'guaranteed jobs'?

When I was in High School, in the late fifties, I thought long and hard about it and came up with a brilliant idea; The Government Schools would give aptitude tests to all students and forcibly educate students in the fields they scored best in on the tests, then the Government would place the graduates in jobs they were best qualified for. This would eliminate all the time, money, and resources being wasted in this Country, making the U.S. not only a military superpower, but also the masters of the World economically, forever! me and my follows would debate this for hours and hours, never coming to a workable agreement on it. (that should have opened my eyes as to why it wouldn't work)

When I entered the Adult World and saw the nature of man at work in real time, I changed my mind about it. It will never work as good as free enterprise capitalism, regulated only as required to offset the reedy nature of mankind.

 

[natstew]

Let's try to remember, the United States Government was created to protect our "Unalienable Rights", given us by our Creator.

All the rest of the crap our government "does for us" is the result of our Constitution being spun to mean what it does not mean!

Example: there is no freedom from religion clause in the first amendment. The first amendment prohibits Congress from creating a State Religion and guarantees me the right to practice my religion without Government interference as long as my doing so doesn't invade anyone else's rights.

The first amendment does not prohibit the posting of the ten commandments on public property or the erection of crosses on public property, or a manger scene on public property. Oh, and BTW, it does leave the power to do such things to the States, with the approval of the people of each State.

Now, have at it you Libtards!!

 

[alan1]

The government doesn't owe any of us a job.

In the context of the so-called Social Compact, we don't owe each other jobs, either.

But I'm all in favor of using tax-dollars to train or re-train workers, rather than going to the outside (offshore job relocation, skilled immigrants, etc.) where practicable.

If I spend a one-time front-end load of $5K or $10K in tax dollars on worker training, and that money results in a self-sufficient worker (for the first time, or once again) and metaphorical paying customer, and avoids recurring tax-dollar expenditures of $25K or $50K per year in safety-net handouts, well, the job (re-) training seems like the wiser of the two investments.

There are a lot of folks out there who might benefit from such assistance; a hand-up rather than a hand-out; in cases where they can't afford to pay for the training themselves.

Anyone interested can look up their local County-level Workforce Investment Board and its subsidiary agency(ies) - usually some sort of County Workforce Development Agency - and usually connected to the Federal W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct) programming; one of the few Liberal -leaning initiatives that usually gets comprehensive bipartisan support.

Or we can eliminate the recurring tax dollar expenditures (hand-outs). And the people that want to buy training can get a frigging loan.

There are actually a lot of people that buy training while they are still employed, just to make sure they don't become obsolete in the work force.

 

[alan1]

Who is going to pay all these workers with their 'guaranteed jobs'?

When I was in High School, in the late fifties, I thought long and hard about it and came up with a brilliant idea; The Government Schools would give aptitude tests to all students and forcibly educate students in the fields they scored best in on the tests, then the Government would place the graduates in jobs they were best qualified for. This would eliminate all the time, money, and resources being wasted in this Country, making the U.S. not only a military superpower, but also the masters of the World economically, forever! me and my follows would debate this for hours and hours, never coming to a workable agreement on it. (that should have opened my eyes as to why it wouldn't work)

When I entered the Adult World and saw the nature of man at work in real time, I changed my mind about it. It will never work as good as free enterprise capitalism, regulated only as required to offset the reedy nature of mankind.

When I was in high school, we all took a combination aptitude/interest test that scored our abilities and our interests. It then suggested possible career paths for us.
I distinctly remember that computer technology was listed as one of my "fits" for a career path. I remember thinking that only nerds worked with computers, so I took a different path. Some 25+ years went by and I made a career change... to IT, at a Fortune 500 company. Hehe, I love my work and I'm good at it. I should have payed attention to that test 30+ years ago when I took it.

 

[dblack]

The government doesn't owe any of us a job.

In the context of the so-called Social Compact, we don't owe each other jobs, either.

But I'm all in favor of using tax-dollars to train or re-train workers, rather than going to the outside (offshore job relocation, skilled immigrants, etc.) where practicable.

If I spend a one-time front-end load of $5K or $10K in tax dollars on worker training, and that money results in a self-sufficient worker (for the first time, or once again) and metaphorical paying customer, and avoids recurring tax-dollar expenditures of $25K or $50K per year in safety-net handouts, well, the job (re-) training seems like the wiser of the two investments.

There are a lot of folks out there who might benefit from such assistance; a hand-up rather than a hand-out; in cases where they can't afford to pay for the training themselves.

Anyone interested can look up their local County-level Workforce Investment Board and its subsidiary agency(ies) - usually some sort of County Workforce Development Agency - and usually connected to the Federal W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct) programming; one of the few Liberal -leaning initiatives that usually gets comprehensive bipartisan support.

This is the flipside of "government owes you a job", wherein government assumes the role of "encouraging" productive employment. We might think of it as "you owe government a job".

And is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your mind?

Very bad