Your Government Owes You a Job

[eagle1462010]

"The richest one percent of Americans owned over a third of all American assets.

"Such wealth concentrated in the hands of a few limits economic growth.

"The wealthy tended to save money that might have been put back into the economy if it were spread among the middle and lower classes.

"Middle class Americans had already stretched their debt capacities by purchasing automobiles and household appliances on installment plans.

"The unprecedented prosperity of the 1920s was suddenly gone, the Great Depression was upon the nation, and breadlines became a common sight.

"There were fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economic system. Banks operated without guarantees to their customers, creating a climate of panic when times got tough.

"Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks.

"Agricultural prices had already been low during the 1920s, leaving farmers unable to spark any sort of recovery. When the Depression spread across the Atlantic, Europeans bought fewer American products, worsening the slide."

The Great Depression [ushistory.org]

So what?

Oligarchs control the government today to the same extent they did in 1928.
Do we tax the rich of drown government in the closest bathtub.

And you want the same ones to control everything.................

That's not the OP's original post or intent is it.

If you want to talk about the Oligarchs, that's a different subject.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Why would you think only communism could guarantee all workers a job?

It's possible that there are other ideologies that are equally stupid, but so far communism is the only one that promised to end unemployment.

 

[bripat9643]

"The richest one percent of Americans owned over a third of all American assets.

"Such wealth concentrated in the hands of a few limits economic growth.

"The wealthy tended to save money that might have been put back into the economy if it were spread among the middle and lower classes.

"Middle class Americans had already stretched their debt capacities by purchasing automobiles and household appliances on installment plans.

"The unprecedented prosperity of the 1920s was suddenly gone, the Great Depression was upon the nation, and breadlines became a common sight.

"There were fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economic system. Banks operated without guarantees to their customers, creating a climate of panic when times got tough.

"Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks.

"Agricultural prices had already been low during the 1920s, leaving farmers unable to spark any sort of recovery. When the Depression spread across the Atlantic, Europeans bought fewer American products, worsening the slide."

The Great Depression [ushistory.org]

So what?

Oligarchs control the government today to the same extent they did in 1928.
Do we tax the rich of drown government in the closest bathtub.

We've already established that when you say "oligarchy" you mean nothing more sinister than representative democracy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Farmers were paid to NOT plant crops on a portion of their land; this doesn't imply any perfectly good food was destroyed. Excess livestock was killed because the market couldn't deliver the meat to hungry consumers, thanks to Wall Street speculators and other vulture capitalists.

Thanks to wall street?
Do you think the price for example, beef cattle should be 'fixed' by an outside agency?
Excess livestock?....You are clueless. The concept of 'excess livestock' is just a made up term to make people feel better.
The fact is government interfered in the marketplace by mandating a ceiling of supply of livestock to market.
Those hungry consumers to which you referred were priced out of the market by government actions.
The government limited the supply thus artificially increasing demand. The prices were forced upward.

"The richest one percent of Americans owned over a third of all American assets.

"Such wealth concentrated in the hands of a few limits economic growth.

"The wealthy tended to save money that might have been put back into the economy if it were spread among the middle and lower classes.

"Middle class Americans had already stretched their debt capacities by purchasing automobiles and household appliances on installment plans.

"The unprecedented prosperity of the 1920s was suddenly gone, the Great Depression was upon the nation, and breadlines became a common sight.

"There were fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economic system. Banks operated without guarantees to their customers, creating a climate of panic when times got tough.

"Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks.

"Agricultural prices had already been low during the 1920s, leaving farmers unable to spark any sort of recovery. When the Depression spread across the Atlantic, Europeans bought fewer American products, worsening the slide."

The Great Depression [ushistory.org]

"Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks.
BY forming the SEC and other financial regulatory agencies, these problems in theory have been alleviated.
What does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread?

 

[SAYIT]

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

Why would you think only communism could guarantee all workers a job?

It's possible that there are other ideologies that are equally stupid, but so far communism is the only one that promised to end unemployment.

And as comrades in the fallen "workers paradise" once said: "we pretend to work and the gov't pretends to pay us."

 

[Unkotare]

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

Why would you think only communism could guarantee all workers a job?

 

[Unkotare]

Hilarious ignorance aside, it seems the OP never has experienced it and like so many of his ilk is just talking out his ass about ideology, the consequences of which he isn't interested in or equipped to consider.

 

[dblack]

The way I see it, setting up government as our employer (of last resort, or otherwise), is really bad mojo. At the very least, it's a disturbing conflict of interest. To put it another way, would your really want your boss to be in charge of the police?

 

[georgephillip]

So what?

Oligarchs control the government today to the same extent they did in 1928.
Do we tax the rich of drown government in the closest bathtub.

And you want the same ones to control everything.................

That's not the OP's original post or intent is it.

If you want to talk about the Oligarchs, that's a different subject.

Oligarchs control governments today just as they have for thousands of years. Invariably, oligarchs prefer rent seeking and monopolist practices in lieu of wage labor, and when the returns on their investments exceed the growth of the economy, workers suffer rising unemployment and stagnant wages.

From the OP:

"The 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."

For the last forty years the US Government has been creating tax and trade policies that benefit 10% of workers by outsourcing labor and shifting the burden of taxation from unearned income to earned income.

Since US oligarchs find it advantageous to create new jobs in places like India and China with no regard for US living standards of millions of workers, the government should step up as an employer of last resort, which was the original intent of this thread.

 

[percysunshine]

As unemployed people get discouraged and stop looking for work, the unemployment rate goes down. So, logically, when everyone is unemployed, the unemployment rate will go to zero, and we will have a fully employed economy.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Why would you think only communism could guarantee all workers a job?

It's possible that there are other ideologies that are equally stupid, but so far communism is the only one that promised to end unemployment.

Capitalism promises to end the Middle Class :

"Since 2000 more than 50,000 manufacturing facilities in the U.S. have closed and roughly 50,000 industrial jobs have been lost each month. Now service sector jobs, where the remaining two-thirds of all workers are currently employed, are disappearing.

"Because of, but not limited to technology advances, these middle-income jobs are not likely to come back, effectively hollowing out the America’s middle class and leaving millions of unemployed and underemployed workers with limited future prospects.

"The effect of these trends on American jobs were significantly aggravated by the 'Great Recession.'

"Meanwhile, in spite of the Great Recession, the wealthiest 1% of Americans has become even richer.

"The share of income taken by the top 1% has more than doubled by 2007, U.S. corporations became flush with record profits, and the stock market has rebounded to all-time highs. All while stagnate wages for the working poor and middle-class remained and, in some cases declined, over the same time period.

"During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt’s New Deal put millions of Americans back to work building roads, dams, bridges, parks and electrification systems."

H.R. 1000, the "Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act" | John Conyers for Congress Michigan ? Dedicated to Jobs, <br> Social Justice and Peace

 

[georgephillip]

So what?

Oligarchs control the government today to the same extent they did in 1928.
Do we tax the rich of drown government in the closest bathtub.

We've already established that when you say "oligarchy" you mean nothing more sinister than representative democracy.

Not exactly:

"Oligarchy (from Greek &#8000;&#955;&#953;&#947;&#945;&#961;&#967;&#943;&#945; (oligarkhía); from &#8000;&#955;&#943;&#947;&#959;&#962; (olígos), meaning 'few', and &#7940;&#961;&#967;&#969; (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.

"These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control.

"Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term."

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think we've established when you say "representative democracy" you mean Republican or Democrat

 

[RKMBrown]

Oligarchs control the government today to the same extent they did in 1928.
Do we tax the rich of drown government in the closest bathtub.

And you want the same ones to control everything.................

That's not the OP's original post or intent is it.

If you want to talk about the Oligarchs, that's a different subject.

Oligarchs control governments today just as they have for thousands of years. Invariably, oligarchs prefer rent seeking and monopolist practices in lieu of wage labor, and when the returns on their investments exceed the growth of the economy, workers suffer rising unemployment and stagnant wages.

From the OP:

"The 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."

For the last forty years the US Government has been creating tax and trade policies that benefit 10% of workers by outsourcing labor and shifting the burden of taxation from unearned income to earned income.

Since US oligarchs find it advantageous to create new jobs in places like India and China with no regard for US living standards of millions of workers, the government should step up as an employer of last resort, which was the original intent of this thread.

ROFL government can solve it by being our employer... ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL gasp ROFL ROFL

 

[eagle1462010]

Oligarchs control the government today to the same extent they did in 1928.
Do we tax the rich of drown government in the closest bathtub.

And you want the same ones to control everything.................

That's not the OP's original post or intent is it.

If you want to talk about the Oligarchs, that's a different subject.

Oligarchs control governments today just as they have for thousands of years. Invariably, oligarchs prefer rent seeking and monopolist practices in lieu of wage labor, and when the returns on their investments exceed the growth of the economy, workers suffer rising unemployment and stagnant wages.

From the OP:

"The 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."

For the last forty years the US Government has been creating tax and trade policies that benefit 10% of workers by outsourcing labor and shifting the burden of taxation from unearned income to earned income.

Since US oligarchs find it advantageous to create new jobs in places like India and China with no regard for US living standards of millions of workers, the government should step up as an employer of last resort, which was the original intent of this thread.

And again you are asking those who caused the problem to fix it. That doesn't make since to me. The Status Quo needs to go so they can stop their BS. You are again wanting the same arsonist to rebuild your house.

 

[georgephillip]

Thanks to wall street?
Do you think the price for example, beef cattle should be 'fixed' by an outside agency?
Excess livestock?....You are clueless. The concept of 'excess livestock' is just a made up term to make people feel better.
The fact is government interfered in the marketplace by mandating a ceiling of supply of livestock to market.
Those hungry consumers to which you referred were priced out of the market by government actions.
The government limited the supply thus artificially increasing demand. The prices were forced upward.

"The richest one percent of Americans owned over a third of all American assets.

"Such wealth concentrated in the hands of a few limits economic growth.

"The wealthy tended to save money that might have been put back into the economy if it were spread among the middle and lower classes.

"Middle class Americans had already stretched their debt capacities by purchasing automobiles and household appliances on installment plans.

"The unprecedented prosperity of the 1920s was suddenly gone, the Great Depression was upon the nation, and breadlines became a common sight.

"There were fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economic system. Banks operated without guarantees to their customers, creating a climate of panic when times got tough.

"Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks.

"Agricultural prices had already been low during the 1920s, leaving farmers unable to spark any sort of recovery. When the Depression spread across the Atlantic, Europeans bought fewer American products, worsening the slide."

The Great Depression [ushistory.org]

"Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks.
BY forming the SEC and other financial regulatory agencies, these problems in theory have been alleviated.
What does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread?

Theory and practice are widely divergent concepts in DC:

"Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

"Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called 'captured agencies.'"

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe government fails when it allows watchdogs like the SEC to serve Wall Street interests instead of Main Street, and when it allows Wall Street to hollow out the US middle class by sending millions of productive jobs overseas.

Using government to redress finance capitalism's inability to supply enough good quality US jobs requires government to serve as employer of last resort, IMHO

 

[georgephillip]

And you want the same ones to control everything.................

That's not the OP's original post or intent is it.

If you want to talk about the Oligarchs, that's a different subject.

Oligarchs control governments today just as they have for thousands of years. Invariably, oligarchs prefer rent seeking and monopolist practices in lieu of wage labor, and when the returns on their investments exceed the growth of the economy, workers suffer rising unemployment and stagnant wages.

From the OP:

"The 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."

For the last forty years the US Government has been creating tax and trade policies that benefit 10% of workers by outsourcing labor and shifting the burden of taxation from unearned income to earned income.

Since US oligarchs find it advantageous to create new jobs in places like India and China with no regard for US living standards of millions of workers, the government should step up as an employer of last resort, which was the original intent of this thread.

And again you are asking those who caused the problem to fix it. That doesn't make since to me. The Status Quo needs to go so they can stop their BS. You are again wanting the same arsonist to rebuild your house.

Who or what is the Status Quo, oligarchy or democracy?

 

[georgephillip]

The way I see it, setting up government as our employer (of last resort, or otherwise), is really bad mojo. At the very least, it's a disturbing conflict of interest. To put it another way, would your really want your boss to be in charge of the police?

Have you ever used a government unemployment office?
I have, and I would have found the experience far more useful if it had been a government employment office. Could you elaborate on why working in a government jobs program requires a conflict of interest between you and the police?

 

[eagle1462010]

Oligarchs control governments today just as they have for thousands of years. Invariably, oligarchs prefer rent seeking and monopolist practices in lieu of wage labor, and when the returns on their investments exceed the growth of the economy, workers suffer rising unemployment and stagnant wages.

From the OP:

"The 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."

For the last forty years the US Government has been creating tax and trade policies that benefit 10% of workers by outsourcing labor and shifting the burden of taxation from unearned income to earned income.

Since US oligarchs find it advantageous to create new jobs in places like India and China with no regard for US living standards of millions of workers, the government should step up as an employer of last resort, which was the original intent of this thread.

And again you are asking those who caused the problem to fix it. That doesn't make since to me. The Status Quo needs to go so they can stop their BS. You are again wanting the same arsonist to rebuild your house.

Who or what is the Status Quo, oligarchy or democracy?

They are the very ones you complain about. Those career politicians who serve themselves rather than the people. How? By creating policy that favors those that donate to their cause irregardless of the consequences. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

We didn't create a pure Democracy because of the history of the abuses in that system. It is talked about in the Federalist Papers. We allowed Gov't too much power and they have used that power for capital gain and political power. They have abused the powers of the Federal Gov't giving orgs like the EPA, BLM, and IRS to make policy decisions based on BROAD LAWS, and create new rules and regulations at their pleasure whether it represents the Republic or not.

That is Tyranny. Not a Republic. And when they dictate the rules without the consent of the people, no matter how they cherry pick the data, you go to dictatorial Rule and the Oligarchy.

You condemn with a broad brush and use this broad brush to justify your view of Gov't with all the power, which means you are for an Oligarchy whether you like it or not.

Why can't you try to RESTORE THE REPUBLIC with your views instead of giving the beast more power than it already has now?

 

[eagle1462010]

The way I see it, setting up government as our employer (of last resort, or otherwise), is really bad mojo. At the very least, it's a disturbing conflict of interest. To put it another way, would your really want your boss to be in charge of the police?

Have you ever used a government unemployment office?
I have, and I would have found the experience far more useful if it had been a government employment office. Could you elaborate on why working in a government jobs program requires a conflict of interest between you and the police?

I have used this system twice in my entire life. Only for a couple of weeks, even though I could have used it more often over this time. Back then, and I don't know about now, we had to go to the employment office as well as the unemployment office. The jobs listing back then were a joke to me, but it was a requirement for the small payments of a couple of weeks. I did my on calling and research and found my next job.

Even if that meant being in another State for a while. You do what you have to do to survive.

Again, you are twisting to push your view of the op that the Gov't owes us a job. I disagree with your stance period. I want them to stop butting into every damn thing, and go back to the principles of the Republic.

They are the problem. Have been and always will be when we give them too much power.

 

[dblack]

Could you elaborate on why working in a government jobs program requires a conflict of interest between you and the police?

Because the police are the primary enforcement arm of government policy. I can see all kinds of incentive for a government that is responsible for your employment taking a keen interest in your personal habits. I certainly recall bosses in the past who would have loved to have been able to pass laws forcing me to do various things. As it is, I can refuse any demand an employer makes - the worst they can do is fire me. Government can do much more to compel behavior.

This is the same sort of road we're going down with health care. As it becomes more and more of public responsibility, government will have more and more interest in dictating our health habits. It will be the same for employment.