Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
The problem is she doesn't want to work in any capacity. She wants to sit at home all day and watch TV and play video games and do whatever she wants. Working in a day care would still be working. She once said, "Working just isn't for me."
|
Then fine, she does it without benefits. no force is required or applied. Simple choice, contribute towards society for the help from society or don't and not get anything. Her choice.
This will kill the growing cultural problem we have today. When I was her age there was jobs for everyone as the West still manufactured so much. Now those jobs have gone we've seen a change in culture of people not having to work and therefore not expecting to work. And worse is to come. Like Mother, like child. the next generation will be worse.
This article makes interesting reading.
http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/Crit...mployment.html
Some good points.
Quote:
|
"The demand for low-skilled workers will not increase in the future, but will decrease or remain static. As a result, we can predict that there will come to be a surplus of unskilled workers in the next decade or two, and that this surplus will prove to be unemployable."
|
It will IMO grow as the West ships out more jobs to the Third World and automates more plants at Home.
Quote:
|
According to experts, companies still in state hands have 30- 50% over employment, that is to say, inner unemployment. Half of everyone's salary returns to the state purse through social security payments and taxation. With such burdens, entrepreneuerialism cannot be competitive. A dynamic economy would ensure that a large portion of the unemployed will find work, and will also increase the amount of money available for social programs."
|
So take those people who do work out of work, lower their income to base level and who pays for it and what effect does it have on the Home economy? Where does the extra cash come from to fuel entrepreneuerialism and will that movement ensure more jobs at Home?
The private sector is about maximising profits. Salaries are something they will cut if possible and have no intention of increasing. They will outsource to a cheaper country rather than employ people at Home.
Long Term we should not put our future into the hands of the private sector. If I need to explain why, look at Detroit for the answer. Just one example of the private sector chasing the bottom line and the employees over estimating their worth.
Quote:
|
It is not the responsibility of the state to take the unemployed by the hand, and lead them to a desk or a machine. As in any market, in the labor market "it takes two to tango." The unemployed worker himself must take steps to improve his situation. Also, people must get used to the fact that, as with every commodity, labor has a market value that can rise as easily as it can decrease. The state's role in the labor market should be to assist the private sector. For people to have any hope for the future, they should have access to loans, not handouts.
|
Agree and that's where today's system is wrong. We give people the choice, give something and get something back. Give nothing and get nothing back.