• 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
Mach said:
Please clarify though. In the non-socialist state of the U.S., we have the right to a job. Self employment.
Do you mean by "right to a job", that everyone collectively must involuntarily pay for anyone who claims to "want a job", if technically they currently do not have a job?

Because that is the right to force other people to pay you...
Click to expand...

They think that because money materializes through various debt and banking transactions, with some legislative help from Washington, that it burdens no one. That's basically what they're saying -- federal spending burdens no one.
 
Federalist said:
The federal government is just the name we give to a group of people.
Click to expand...

The federal government is a formal institution. Bureaucrats is a name we give to people that work for the feds.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The federal government is a formal institution. Bureaucrats is a name we give to people that work for the feds.
Click to expand...

Who pays for the things the federal government gives away? And hint - it isn't the federal government.
 
Gaius46 said:
Who pays for the things the federal government gives away? And hint - it isn't the federal government.
Click to expand...

Citizens of the US and A.
Why are we doing a basic government lesson here?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The federal government is a formal institution. Bureaucrats is a name we give to people that work for the feds.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that if someone can't find a job then it is the responsibility of these bureaucrats to hire the person and give them a wage. No one else is responsible? The bureaucrats are on their own to find jobs and provide wages? Where do these bureaucrats get the money to do all this?
 
soot said:
You mean like maybe provide them with 12 years or so of public education, then make funding available so they can borrow at a (relatively) reasonable rate in order to continue their education at the post secondary level, maybe incentivize service in the military by including educational funding as a "fringe benefit", add to that the ability to learn a trade while serving the country in case book learnin' ain't their thing, and all the while maintain a national dialog related to the importance of education in getting ahead?

Don't take this as me being flip or obnoxious because that's not the way I intend it.

But when you consider those things, and the many others which we do in this country already to provide people with skills or otherwise facilitate their getting a job I'd be curious how much more you think we can do or how successful any additional actions would be.

Something like 14% of Americans don't even have a high school diploma and dropout rate in recent years has been in the neighborhood of 7% or 8%.

It's one of those "you can lead a horse to water" type situations.

The "tools" are there, but some people can't or won't make use of them.
Click to expand...

Sure, but don't you think most of that unwillingness to work is due to how unnecessary working has become?

The tools are there but they don't really have to make use of what you and I have generously provided them with.

That is what I take issue with. I'm not calling for all hand out programs to end at midnight tonight but it would be in everyone's benefit, including the poor, to gradually phase out these programs over a reasonable period of time.
 
Federalist said:
So you're saying that if someone can't find a job then it is the responsibility of these bureaucrats to hire the person and give them a wage. No one else is responsible?
Click to expand...
State institutions, public work programs.

Where do these bureaucrats get the money to do all this?
Click to expand...
Taxes...

Are we seriously having an elementary government conversation right now?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The fourth option might be to enact policies that encourage employers to move and or return to the country that could utilize their skills in a productive endeavor...
Click to expand...

So, you're calling for a totalitarian regime then?

Brilliant. How is Intro to Political Science going this semester?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Citizens of the US and A.
Why are we doing a basic government lesson here?
Click to expand...

Okay, so as I said before, if there is a right to a job then it means that someone else has a legally enforceable obligation to provide a job and wages. I then asked who would you say has a legal obligation to provide others with a job and pay?

You said the federal government, but after some further examination, the real answer is that you think I have a legal obligation to provide others with a job.

And I obligated myself how exactly?
 
Federalist said:
Okay, so as I said before, if there is a right to a job then it means that someone else has a legally enforceable obligation to provide a job and wages. I then asked who would you say has a legal obligation to provide others with a job and pay?

You said the federal government, but after some further examination, the real answer is that you think I have a legal obligation to provide others with a job.
Click to expand...

Yes i believe people do have a right to job. Meaning that the government will hire them to work on some public works program if they cannot themselves find a job through the "private market place". Is it that hard to understand?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes i believe people do have a right to job. Meaning that the government will hire them to work on some public works program if they cannot themselves find a job through the "private market place". Is it that hard to understand?
Click to expand...

No, it's not hard to understand at all.

I understand; I just happen to disagree, because I consider such a scheme to be unethical. These government people are not justified in turning around and demanding that I and others pay for their choice to hire these people.
 
Federalist said:
No, it's not hard to understand at all.

I understand; I just happen to disagree, because I consider such a scheme to be unethical. These government people are not justified in turning around and demanding that I and others pay for their choice to hire these people.
Click to expand...

Then we will have to agree to disagree
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Then we will have to agree to disagree
Click to expand...

Okay, we'll disagree on when interpersonal violence is justified.

I will continue to hold that the ONLY justification for violence is in RESPONSE to someone acting to uninvitedly affect another's person or property. You may continue to hold that interpersonal violence is okay to use against those who have harmed no one.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes i believe people do have a right to job. Meaning that the government will hire them to work on some public works program if they cannot themselves find a job through the "private market place". Is it that hard to understand?
Click to expand...

That's understandable, I mean, I think people are free to have a job WITHOUT that today, and I think from my perspecitve "right to a job" how you describe it, is a perversion, but I do understand it. And that yo would fund it by taking from others who have a job/income, and paying it.

Do you think this is the most efficient way? What about all that government authority and power, isn't pooling of power bad? Isn't pooling power into a government authority, the one that makes the laws and can involuntarily force us to give them things...isn't that too much in one basket?

Regardless of the above, what effect do you think handing out jobs will have on the job market? Do you think some people will not take private jobs in favor of public jobs if the public jobs are nicer based on their job selection criteria? If such jobs are less efficient (they are overall), won't this just compound the reduction in the overall economy, meaning less jobs, meaning more taxes to pay for public jobs, in a downard spiral?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes i believe people do have a right to job. Meaning that the government will hire them to work on some public works program if they cannot themselves find a job through the "private market place". Is it that hard to understand?
Click to expand...

It is to me. You couldn't be more inefficient if you tried.

Well, maybe you could.
 
Mach said:
Regardless of the above, what effect do you think handing out jobs will have on the job market? Do you think some people will not take private jobs in favor of public jobs if the public jobs are nicer based on their job selection criteria? If such jobs are less efficient (they are overall), won't this just compound the reduction in the overall economy, meaning less jobs, meaning more taxes to pay for public jobs, in a downard spiral?
Click to expand...

That's a great question, and it requires doing a cost-benefit analysis. Does the cost to hire, supervise/administer, and pay these people outweigh the value of the work they do, or does the work they do outweigh said cost?

In the case of government jobs, I would argue that the cost of the job almost always outweighs the value of the work completed. Like a vast majority of cases. This means government jobs are by their nature inefficient. Sometimes that's a necessary evil, because in some cases the alternative is that it wouldn't get done at all, but for a confluence of reasons it needs to get done.

And when it comes to "right to be handed a job to do" notions, it's an order of magnitude worse in that regard, because the process goes like this: Step 1) hire unemployed people... Step 2) figure out something for them to do. To do what work is an afterthought. The primary goal of right-to-a-job advocates is to stuff money into unemployed people's pockets, and the secondary goal is to get some sort of use out of them while we're at it. This is far from efficient. Efficient means you identify what actual work needs to be done and then you strategize to meet the need in the optimal way.

I could not possibly disagree more with the idea that our federal government should be the employer of last resort. It is straight out of a dystopian sci-fi story, except that people increasingly seem to want it.
 
Last edited:
The sentences were not meant to go together.
I'll break next time.

Thatcher was no fan of the common man and vice versa.

Constitutional experts on both sides are rigid until they need to be loose for their own issues.

infraRED---ROY G. BIV---ultraVIOLET

Shadow Serious said:
Thatcher was British and not American and has no oath to the Constitution or any responceablity to it.
Click to expand...
 
Federalist said:
And where does the federal government get the goods that it exchanges for the food, shelter, and clothing that it acquires from the private sector?
Click to expand...
The federal government is monetarily soveriegn. IT would simply add numbers to the bank accounts of the people they are buying from. It happens all the time that way.
 
So 1,000 years of political study has resulted in a society where everyone has a right to a job but no duty to support themselves or however many kids they choose to have? :2no4::inandout:
 
X Factor said:
Surfing the net, I came across this.

The Right to a job | Socialist Equality Party

Interesting point of view. What do you think? Is having a job a right?

Adding the poll right now. Answers will be yes, no and I don't know.
Click to expand...

I won't answer the poll because it lacks the nuance of my answer. A right to something simply means that the government cannot legally restrict you from whatever the right is. It is not a guarantee that the object of the right is granted to you. You have a right to free speech and freedom of press, but that doesn't mean that someone has to provide you with a podium, or a radio/tv slot or a printing press, or space on their private land for you to exercise said right. You have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that someone has to give you a gun. You have the right to freedom of assembly, but that doesn't mean that someone must provide you with a meeting room. And there are many other unwritten rights, that are things that simply present by supposed lack of authority of the government to have power over them. You have a right to medical care, but that doesn't mean that someone must provide it. It only means that the government cannot legally prevent you from obtaining it, nor, for that matter, a non-medical provider stop you from obtaining it.

So likewise you have the right to a job insofar as the government cannot legally prevent you from seeking employment, but that doesn't mean that anyone is required to provide you a job....especially if you have no qualifications and you've done nothing to obtain them.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
The federal government is monetarily soveriegn. IT would simply add numbers to the bank accounts of the people they are buying from. It happens all the time that way.
Click to expand...

So the government steals from everyone and hands this wealth to those it wishes to hire. So you're saying that we should all pay to feed, clothe, and shelter those who cannot find jobs.

Does the government have a right to demand that others feed, shelter, and clothe them. Does this imply that someone out there has a legal obligation to feed, shelter, and clothe them?
 
Federalist said:
So the government steals from everyone and hands this wealth to those it wishes to hire.
Click to expand...
Stop here. The government isn't stealing, it doesn't need tax revenue to spend.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Stop here. The government isn't stealing, it doesn't need tax revenue to spend.
Click to expand...

you are right-sort of

the government proves it spends without having enough revenue to do it

stealing is a matter of opinion.
 
I don't want a job,thank god i'm retired!
 
JP Hochbaum said:
The federal government is monetarily soveriegn. IT would simply add numbers to the bank accounts of the people they are buying from. It happens all the time that way.
Click to expand...

JP Hochbaum said:
Stop here. The government isn't stealing, it doesn't need tax revenue to spend.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that spending this way is just a different sort of "tax," e.g. a prospective tax (debt) or retrospective one (tax against savers)?

I assume no, but I don't entirely understand why not.

Anyway, overall it's unbelievable that 3 out of 20 around here think people have a right to be furnished with some sort of job to do, doing who-cares-what. I think these people do not understand basic human psychology. Adult humans are not psychologically capable of being this utterly helplessly dependent on the external for all their needs. It's just not healthy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom