• 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
I think you have a right to go out and look for a job, as well as be afforded the same training and financial aid that anyone can legally be afforded. I do not think however that public funding or laws should be used to give people of different ethnic groups, sex, handicaps more or less money however, including immigrants should not be given a better chance than an American citizen could be given.

Now if a private organization wants to give people money for school for being left handed, that's their business.
 
You just said the same thing I did, please stop typing.

Then apparently you're not in fact arguing for a jobs guarantee, because you described a contract preceding the terms, whereas I described the terms preceding the establishment of the contract.

You're saying that the federal government can acquire goods by printing money and that this doesn't harm anyone, which is a load of manure.

Even if you're one of those who thinks printing money does not result in inflation, there's still the issue of the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment), or the rate of unemployment below which inflation rises. How does maxing out employment (even if artificially) NOT cause inflation?

In the end, for the middle class and savers, the effect is the same, and they bear the brunt of loose fiscal and monetary policies.
 
Last edited:
Describe what you mean by useful, and then I could explain if it is useful or not.

The value of the dollar is determined just as much by production as it is by currency management. And when you add money to banks accounts of those who consume, more than save, it increases production.

How bout "useful work yields products or services at a cost that a consumer would be willing to pay."
 
Then apparently you're not in fact arguing for a jobs guarantee, because you described a contract preceding the terms, whereas I described the terms preceding the establishment of the contract.



Even if you're one of those who thinks printing money does not result in inflation, there's still the issue of the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment), or the rate of unemployment below which inflation rises. How does maxing out employment (even if artificially) NOT cause inflation?

In the end, for the middle class and savers, the effect is the same, and they bear the brunt of loose fiscal and monetary policies.

NAIRU is a made up myth, there is no historical data to back up it happens.
 
Those who consider a job to be something you're entitled to have provided to you do. Such as those referenced in the OP.

And while I disagree with ernst barkmann on many things, that's what he's saying. You're misunderstanding him, and you're trying to smear libertarians with the misunderstanding.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding his position at all.


As for the Libertarian position, well, it's about as wide as the Atlantic from what I've seen. I have no doubt that most Libertarians do not see a job the same way ernst barkmann does. IMO, he gives your cause a bad name - but, hey, if you want to apologize for him that's your prerogative.
 
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.
You mean my refusal to accept your interpretation of it, don't you? Generally speaking the courts are on my side, so there are many jurists who agree with me even if you don't.


And, yes, your posts can be quite entertaining at times! LOL!
 
I don't think I'm misunderstanding his position at all.


As for the Libertarian position, well, it's about as wide as the Atlantic from what I've seen. I have no doubt that most Libertarians do not see a job the same way ernst barkmann does. IMO, he gives your cause a bad name - but, hey, if you want to apologize for him that's your prerogative.

I do not know why you need to be dishonest here. I'm not even going to bother to correct you, because it's all there above and I have no patience for another go-around.
 
I do not know why you need to be dishonest here. I'm not even going to bother to correct you, because it's all there above and I have no patience for another go-around.
I have no idea why you think I'm being dishonest.
 
NAIRU is a made up myth, there is no historical data to back up it happens.

I could as easily say MMT has no substantial historical data to suggest it's sustainable.

I suspect you're just balking at whatever doesn't support your theory of sovereign central bank invincibility.
 
I could as easily say MMT has no substantial historical data to suggest it's sustainable.

I suspect you're just balking at whatever doesn't support your theory of sovereign central bank invincibility.
Well then tell me what in MMT this has to do with it, lol. Or point out an MMT theory that is not backed by historical data, lol. I will be waiting.
 
Well then tell me what in MMT this has to do with it, lol. Or point out an MMT theory that is not backed by historical data, lol. I will be waiting.

Don't the principles of MMT make up your arsenal? I figured that's why you would balk at the idea that printing money (or as you put it, adding zeroes to people's bank accounts) causes inflation.

Considering the Phillips curve, how is it that universal employment wouldn't lead to inflation?
 
Don't the principles of MMT make up your arsenal? I figured that's why you would balk at the idea that printing money (or as you put it, adding zeroes to people's bank accounts) causes inflation.

Considering the Phillips curve, how is it that universal employment wouldn't lead to inflation?

Actually "inflation" is considered the principal risk to government printing, so once full employment is reached inflation concerns then become the underlying issue, but it is not an issue until we hit full employment. The tenet of MMT is that we would rather have inflation concerns, than unemployment concerns, because unemployment is much more harmful than inflation ever could be.

I hate to refer you to reading, but this is a great piece by Bill Mitchell that will help you further understand that MMT doesn't disregard inflation, in fact we fear it just as much.

I wonder what the hell I have been writing all these years | Bill Mitchell – billy blog
 
Actually "inflation" is considered the principal risk to government printing, so once full employment is reached inflation concerns then become the underlying issue, but it is not an issue until we hit full employment. The tenet of MMT is that we would rather have inflation concerns, than unemployment concerns, because unemployment is much more harmful than inflation ever could be.

I hate to refer you to reading, but this is a great piece by Bill Mitchell that will help you further understand that MMT doesn't disregard inflation, in fact we fear it just as much.

I wonder what the hell I have been writing all these years | Bill Mitchell – billy blog

MMTer's do not understand the root causes of inflation. Full employment is a laudable goal, but it's not realistic...
 
MMTer's do not understand the root causes of inflation. Full employment is a laudable goal, but it's not realistic...
If there is one thing MMT does understand it is inflation. You should try adding substance to a post and not just type out random words.
 
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.

Violence? :confused:
 
I speed read the first 4 pages and the last 2.

Does anyone actually know what this Act is? Does anyone actually know what this Act stands for? Or are they just title readers who can't think and join a party that doesn't require you to?

"The Right to Work" is a UNION bill. It doesn't simply mean "the right to work" ....................I swear I'm not friends with these Americans...
 
I speed read the first 4 pages and the last 2.

Does anyone actually know what this Act is? Does anyone actually know what this Act stands for? Or are they just title readers who can't think and join a party that doesn't require you to?

"The Right to Work" is a UNION bill. It doesn't simply mean "the right to work" ....................I swear I'm not friends with these Americans...

The **** you talking about?
 
You didn't know "Right To Work" was a Union movement?!?
I think you need to go back and read the OP. It sounds like you missed something.


The Right to Work laws are anti-union, if anything, but this discussion is not about unions or the so-called "Right to Work" laws as passed by various States. It's about putting people to work that want to work but can't find a job.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a right to a job now? Likely not.

Should you have a right to a job? Absolutely.
 
Do you have a right to a job now? Likely not. Should you have a right to a job? Absolutely.

You do have the economic right to a job right now, it's called self employment. You can choose to use your labor, for your economic endeavours.

What you do NOT have the right to do is force someone else to purchase your labor if they do not want to. That's the right people are trying to gain with such "right to work" nonsense, not the right to be employed, but the right to FORCE someone to employ them.
 
You do have the economic right to a job right now, it's called self employment.

No, I'm quite sure I was thinking of something else.

Also, self-employment isn't something that realistically exist as an option for everyone.

What you do NOT have the right to do is force someone else to purchase your labor if they do not want to.

You assume the best means to acquiring work for everyone is to force employment on private enterprises?

That's not what I was thinking at all.
 
No, I'm quite sure I was thinking of something else. Also, self-employment isn't something that realistically exist as an option for everyone.
We're not talking disabled people. So who can't do some work themselves? Can you clean houses? Can you cut grass/landscape? What's unrealistic about it? My mother cleaned houses for a few years, you think its beneath you?

You assume the best means to acquiring work for everyone is to force employment on private enterprises? That's not what I was thinking at all.

By all means, reveail what it is you WERE thinking about. And please understand that if you intend to tax a private business, and use that to pay for a public works job, in reality you are forcing employment on private enterprise indirectly. They pay for it, involuntarily. That is what you meant yes? And you see the implication I made is correct?
 
You know, I hadn't thought of it that way. The poor and jobless can just fight amongst each other to find someone who doesn't cut their own grass.

I suppose that's sort of a solution to a problem, though I'm not entirely sure it's a reasonable one.
 
Also, I have to chuckle at the notion that the government "forces employment on employers" by...employing people with the money it taxes from employers.

It's the sort of thing that sounds like it would kind of make sense in your head...until you take three seconds to think about it and realize it's nonsense.
 
Back
Top Bottom