• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Have a Right to a Job?

Do You Have a Right to a Job?


  • Total voters
    128
Oh. So you think everyone has the right to a job, but you're immune to providing it. Gotcha.

I'll go shovel an inch of snow off the street outside for an hour. That'll be a thousand dollars. I hope they have direct deposit - I hate going to the bank.

You're making arguments which have nothing to do with the idea of a true "right to work" bill. I guess that's what happens when a thread turns into a echo chamber.
 
You're making arguments which have nothing to do with the idea of a true "right to work" bill. I guess that's what happens when a thread turns into a echo chamber.

No no, I'm really interested. I'd like to hear more about your plan to bloat the state to a level that gives them not only the chance, but the obligation to employ all who want employment.

You know what they say about a government big enough to give you all you want, don't you?
 
No no, I'm really interested. I'd like to hear more about your plan to bloat the state to a level that gives them not only the chance, but the obligation to employ all who want employment.

You know what they say about a government big enough to give you all you want, don't you?

Well I'm pretty interested in why you think individuals that can/want to work shouldn't have means of employment. Generally when you have people that want to work...and things that need to get done you kind of match the two together. I'm not sure what the benefit is of having millions of people that want to work unable to find work. Maybe I just don't fully understand the pain is good crowd.
 
Well I'm pretty interested in why you think individuals that can/want to work shouldn't have means of employment. Generally when you have people that want to work...and things that need to get done you kind of match the two together. I'm not sure what the benefit is of having millions of people that want to work unable to find work. Maybe I just don't fully understand the pain is good crowd.

Wanting to work and "can" work does not equate to being qualified or skilled, and it doesn't equate to an employer needing to hire someone.

I'm not Marxist enough to contribute to a complete devaluation of labor because of social pressure.

If someone can't get a job, maybe there's a very distinct reason for that...
 
Well I'm pretty interested in why you think individuals that can/want to work shouldn't have means of employment.

No one is arguing that people should not be able to work. What they're saying is that we can't force any one person to hire another.

Generally when you have people that want to work...and things that need to get done you kind of match the two together.

Only the employer and the employee do that matching. They are the only two parties who are trading one thing for another.

I'm not sure what the benefit is of having millions of people that want to work unable to find work. Maybe I just don't fully understand the pain is good crowd.


No one is saying there is a benefit to high unemployment (except perhaps those who think high unemployment helps fend off inflation -- NAIRU). What they're saying is we can't force one person to hire another person. You are softly suggesting that some third party set the terms of individuals' contracts with one another. That is not good faith and fair dealing. That is a major infringement on people's right to trade with one another.

Trade is integral to people's right to pursue happiness. That's HOW people pursue happiness. They turn inputs into more valuable outputs and trade with others. When government is mandating business relationships between employers and employees or between producers and consumers (as in PPACA, for example), that is an act of commercial enslavement of the people, to terms of contracts with which they do not necessarily agree.
 
Last edited:
No one is arguing that people should not be able to work. What they're saying is that we can't force any one person to hire another.



Only the employer and the employee do that matching. They are the only two parties who are trading one thing for another.




No one is saying there is a benefit. What they're saying is we can't force one person to hire another person. You are softly suggesting that some third party set the terms of individuals' contracts with one another. That is not good faith and fair dealing. That is a major infringement on people's right to trade with one another. Deal or no deal is up to the parties doing the actual trading.

The underlying theme is that government should be the employer of last resort which would be a disaster...
 
The underlying theme is that government should be the employer of last resort which would be a disaster...

You're right, it would be a disaster, because theoretically that is the same as any other scheme to artificially boost employment. It is the American taxpayer that is the real employer of last resort in that scenario, and they aren't agreeing to there being a legitimate need to hire those people (just for the sake of hiring them). The People in general are still being forced to employ others who, under any other circumstances, they don't really need to employ. It's still forced employment, it just makes the compensation difficult to trace because it's not direct from one to another. That's the basis on which all big leftist government schemes rely -- all funding sources lead back to the general fund.
 
The underlying theme is that government should be the employer of last resort which would be a disaster...

What about a society in which vast numbers of people are increasingly NOT needed in an economic system where a smaller and smaller number of people aided by technology can basically do the work for all the rest of us?

When the Industrial Revolution happened, there was a lateral transference of labor from agriculture to Industry. heck, in the USA there was not even enough of that and we had to go overseas in an immigration binge just to man the machinery. The less than intelligent, the less than skilled, could find employment and live a decent and productive life as a member of our society with pride.

For far too many today, that opportunity is gone as technology has made tens of millions of people simply not needed any more. And this will most likely only get worse over time.

What do we do with those people who are simply no longer needed in the labor force? That is the true challenge we face as a society.
 
What about a society in which vast numbers of people are increasingly NOT needed in an economic system where a smaller and smaller number of people aided by technology can basically do the work for all the rest of us?

When the Industrial Revolution happened, there was a lateral transference of labor from agriculture to Industry. heck, in the USA there was not even enough of that and we had to go overseas in an immigration binge just to man the machinery. The less than intelligent, the less than skilled, could find employment and live a decent and productive life as a member of our society with pride.

For far too many today, that opportunity is gone as technology has made tens of millions of people simply not needed any more. And this will most likely only get worse over time.

What do we do with those people who are simply no longer needed in the labor force? That is the true challenge we face as a society.

First, you put in place policies that would encourage employers to set up shop here rather than transporting their products several thousand miles overseas. Next you might get rid of the PC education processes implemented over the past decades and train the population of students for the jobs that actually will be available...
 
First, you put in place policies that would encourage employers to set up shop here rather than transporting their products several thousand miles overseas. Next you might get rid of the PC education processes implemented over the past decades and train the population of students for the jobs that actually will be available...

I agree that we need to do both things. But we will not do both things or even one of them.

I suspect while we may agree on those two broad points, we may disagree on the details of how to do them - and therein lies the rub and the reason why nothing will get done.
 
What about a society in which vast numbers of people are increasingly NOT needed in an economic system where a smaller and smaller number of people aided by technology can basically do the work for all the rest of us?

When the Industrial Revolution happened, there was a lateral transference of labor from agriculture to Industry. heck, in the USA there was not even enough of that and we had to go overseas in an immigration binge just to man the machinery. The less than intelligent, the less than skilled, could find employment and live a decent and productive life as a member of our society with pride.

For far too many today, that opportunity is gone as technology has made tens of millions of people simply not needed any more. And this will most likely only get worse over time.

What do we do with those people who are simply no longer needed in the labor force? That is the true challenge we face as a society.

I agree with you that this is a true challenge. If people are simply no longer needed in the labor force, then how can there possibly be any hope of them living productive decent lives with pride, as they once did? Technological regression? Because if people are doing things that aren't needed, but are taken care of by the system (whatever system that is), then they are nonetheless living a life of dependence. I have deep concerns about how well that works. I don't think it does. It's fundamentally incongruent with our industrious natures.

I actually think some sort of regression is the only way to address this, but it would be very painful for all involved, and would have an economically protectionistic effect, which would probably spark wars. Big business loses its customers because they're all fending for themselves to a greater degree. The poorer classes, while more independent, have to adjust to a reversion to living standards similar to those of bygone eras after having been spoiled with modern comforts. It is extremely difficult. But there is no alternative that makes long term sense, economically, environmentally or psychologically.
 
The right to a job doesn't necessarially require the input of anyone else.

I can be self employed.

I wouldn't necessarily call it input or approval, but to be employed in more than the most abstract concept of the word requires the willingness of someone to buy your services. I wouldn't really call someone who has never done nor will ever do any mechanic work a mechanic no matter what trade school he graduated from. A mechanic with no customers for life is really just an unemployed guy calling himself a mechanic.
 
I agree that we need to do both things. But we will not do both things or even one of them.

I suspect while we may agree on those two broad points, we may disagree on the details of how to do them - and therein lies the rub and the reason why nothing will get done.

I don't think agreement would be difficult at all. The sticking point would be; what do we do with those not up to the task as to educational attainment...
 
Which provision is violated?

its unlawful in our constitution to take from one and give to another.

i cant be given a right to a house, food, water, because those things have a value, in order to give them to you, i have to take thing of value from someone else, maternal goods and services do not create themselves.

and its unlawful to use force against a person to make that person serve another.
 
Yes...if you want a job it should be provided. Whatever your talents be it a doctor or a ditch digger. If there's not enough jobs we have things we can find for you to do. It's a basic principle that if someone gives a best effort to work and be an employee they should have an employer.


then who are you going to apply force to, to make the other person supply that job?

in other words your going to violate the 13th amendment.
 
Like I said, the true colors of the Libertarians are out! :lamo :lamo

People must be goods, then, which also doesn't surprise me coming from a Libertarian. I sure wouldn't mind having a couple of movie stars and I'm sure lots and lots of other people want them, too.



I just haven't enough time to get back to that thread. Don't feel left out, I have about four others on hold as well. :shrug:

I'm sorry you feel like you've "won" something --- and for that you get another ... :lamo


my friend your attempts to make people look bad, or get your jollies visiting this forum, does not bother me, i have already witness you inability to understand the constitution, rights privileges.
 
First, you put in place policies that would encourage employers to set up shop here rather than transporting their products several thousand miles overseas. Next you might get rid of the PC education processes implemented over the past decades and train the population of students for the jobs that actually will be available...

It would be a monumental task that no one has yet stepped forward to address. Sad that Ross Perot was correct! :wow:

Good evening, AP. :2wave:
 
its unlawful in our constitution to take from one and give to another.

i cant be given a right to a house, food, water, because those things have a value, in order to give them to you, i have to take thing of value from someone else, maternal goods and services do not create themselves.

and its unlawful to use force against a person to make that person serve another.

I'm asking WHERE in the Constitution it says that?
 
No one is arguing that people should not be able to work. What they're saying is that we can't force any one person to hire another.



Only the employer and the employee do that matching. They are the only two parties who are trading one thing for another.




No one is saying there is a benefit to high unemployment (except perhaps those who think high unemployment helps fend off inflation -- NAIRU). What they're saying is we can't force one person to hire another person. You are softly suggesting that some third party set the terms of individuals' contracts with one another. That is not good faith and fair dealing. That is a major infringement on people's right to trade with one another.

Trade is integral to people's right to pursue happiness. That's HOW people pursue happiness. They turn inputs into more valuable outputs and trade with others. When government is mandating business relationships between employers and employees or between producers and consumers (as in PPACA, for example), that is an act of commercial enslavement of the people, to terms of contracts with which they do not necessarily agree.

As Alabama Paul mentions yes government should be the employer of last resort.

I don't agree with him that's it's a disaster.

In normal situations there's not mass unemployment but in cases with mass unemployment....

We have things that need to be done, borrowing is cheap, and labor is cheap.
 
I wouldn't necessarily call it input or approval, but to be employed in more than the most abstract concept of the word requires the willingness of someone to buy your services. I wouldn't really call someone who has never done nor will ever do any mechanic work a mechanic no matter what trade school he graduated from. A mechanic with no customers for life is really just an unemployed guy calling himself a mechanic.

I agree completely.

Part of the "job" of being self employed is atttracting and keeping customers.

Everyone certainly has the right to at least that much.

If I have the right to gain skills, the right to hang out a shingle and go to work for myself, and the right to attract customers and provide them with whatever service my skills qualify me to provide, then by logical necessity I have the right to a job.

Again, I'm not arguing that anyone else has an obligation to provide me with a job, and neither do prospective customers have an obligation to employ me.

I don't have a right to be successful at my job.

But I have a right to one.
 
Last edited:
then who are you going to apply force to, to make the other person supply that job?

in other words your going to violate the 13th amendment.

The job gaurantee is about society promising a job for people that can't find work. That job benefits society so it would be public in nature. TVA and other New Deal style work programs. Put people to work doing things that provide long term benefits for society during times of mass unemployment.

Honestly I'm not sure about a 100% employment program. If anything it should be a gauranteed work program when you pass some unemployment threshold.
 
The job gaurantee is about society promising a job for people that can't find work. That job benefits society...

If you mean "benefits society" in a net sense, then already you make a strange assumption, which is that the value of a job always exceeds its cost.

TVA and other New Deal style work programs. Put people to work doing things that provide long term benefits for society during times of mass unemployment.

And that assumes that 1) there exists work that provides long-term benefits to society that isn't already being done, and 2) that the people who are worst at finding work will be able to do those types of things.


This idea is just a variation of welfare. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a worse idea than plain old cradle-to-grave welfare. It's just that it's inherently not that much better of an idea.
 
If you mean "benefits society" in a net sense, then already you make a strange assumption, which is that the value of a job always exceeds its cost.
.

I'm talking specifically about the US where we have a lot of things that need to get done. Sure maybe in some rare case of a country that has completely maxed out whatever infrastructure improvement they could make you hit a point where there's not net benefit but in our country that isn't the case.

And that assumes that 1) there exists work that provides long-term benefits to society that isn't already being done, and 2) that the people who are worst at finding work will be able to do those types of things.
Former farmers were building dams. It's not like the only problems this country calls for high tech solutions that require a highly skilled workforce.

This idea is just a variation of welfare. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a worse idea than plain old cradle-to-grave welfare. It's just that it's inherently not that much better of an idea.

Ehh...I agree with you too a point. Sure it's a form of safety net like welfare but I believe it's a much better idea.

First of all working itself has postivie effects on individuals. Outlook, confidence etc. Being productive makes individuals feel better about themselves. people learn skills and refine abilities. Even if you never use those skills specifically for what you do now certain principles carry over. Then of course there's the actual work. A more efficient method of medical record keeping or laying wire to improve bandwidth or even working on a road crew provides long term benefits.
 
I'm talking specifically about the US where we have a lot of things that need to get done. Sure maybe in some rare case of a country that has completely maxed out whatever infrastructure improvement they could make you hit a point where there's not net benefit but in our country that isn't the case.

What makes you think our infrastructure improvement projects are going to be adequately done by the hodge podge bunch of unemployed-and-can't-get-a-job bunch of folks?

Former farmers were building dams. It's not like the only problems this country calls for high tech solutions that require a highly skilled workforce.

What kinds of government projects do you see out there that could be satisfactorily staffed by the millions of unemployed folks scattered all across the country? You seem to be sort of shooting blind here. In reality, big infrastructure projects nowadays require expertise. Even something as seemingly simple as digging a hole and dropping a residential septic tank into it requires a team of engineers to design the system, permitting from the state's environmental conservation department, etc. etc. If you think our infrastructure needs can employ millions of our least-employable people, then you must be advocating for projects that embrace a technological regression in terms of how we get things done. To make sweeping infrastructure improvements that will benefit us long-term, you think we can just give millions of people some hand tools and it'll all get done? Hell, in that case let's build some pyramids.

First of all working itself has postivie effects on individuals. Outlook, confidence etc. Being productive makes individuals feel better about themselves. people learn skills and refine abilities. Even if you never use those skills specifically for what you do now certain principles carry over. Then of course there's the actual work. A more efficient method of medical record keeping or laying wire to improve bandwidth or even working on a road crew provides long term benefits.

Let me be clear, I would of course rather people be productive than idle. I do wish for that. But even more specifically, I wish for self-sufficiency. People who work hard to produce value (for themselves even) such as by growing more of their own food, re-learning homesteading and food storage and preservation and other crucial life skills, rather than having and expecting things be provided to them by the external. Having "a right to a job" is inherently a dependent set-up. You depend on the government to provide you with something to do, or to force someone else to provide something for you to do. Your sense of choice and self-reliance and pursuit of happiness is constrained by that sort of notion. Real productivity and lifestyle independence requires strategy and voluntary trade, not coercion and administrative management.

"Right to a job" notions are an ideological misfire. They are not about pursuit of happiness. They are about receipt of happiness.
 
Back
Top Bottom