• Bernie Sanders to announce plan to guarantee every American a job
    56 replies, posted
I, too, am not an economist, but "more people than jobs" sounds like it benefits businesses and corporations much more than people.
Why is it that doing something for regular people in this country is always pie in the sky when we have a government bought by corporations that ruthlessly exploits workers and has trillions of dollars to spend on tax cuts for the rich, war, and subsidies to the country's biggest banks and oil companies? Why is that never challenged?
More jobs than people means that the cost of labor goes up and people are less likely to go into a certain market because of its saturation and cost to start a business. You need to have a balance between high enough wages for people to live on and reasonable enough wages for employers to make a profit. Businesses are the ones that create jobs in this country, not the government
Sure, I agree balance is important; I'm arguing erring more on the side of "more jobs than people" is ultimately more beneficial to the lower and middle class than the "more people than jobs" side.
answered your own question.
You would have to be more specific A shitty inflexible market will hurt everyone by being less efficient, and by driving labor costs way up (these driving up prices.)
Yes, it's only ambitious because we have a government that is actively against what's right. That doesn't mean it's not the correct policy, and it doesn't mean we just sit on our hands and say "welp, guess we can't do anything."
The general gist of it is that if you have more jobs than workers you put companies in a position where smaller businesses are unable to compete and thus collapse, as they can't offer the benefits of larger companies which effectively halts commercial growth and makes any sort of expansion into a new area very difficult.
Bro I live in Alabama and can't afford to be on my own at 20,000 a year.
it doesn't make sense to me that we are trying to push for guaranteed jobs so that people can survive instead of guaranteeing that people can survive. i know its a crazy socialist idea to have a unconditional basic income but i really wish that nation as wealthy as the united states would start making progress towards it. however in the mean time, getting more jobs for people is fine. the main concern is eradicating poverty and the more money you put into the lower class people the more you eradicate poverty.
More than half the country is currently happily shoveling "any socialism in our government whatsoever will immediately lead to starving families having to eat their clothes to survive" rhetoric into eachother's gullets. As much as it sucks that people NEED to have jobs just to survive, UBI really is a pie-in-the-sky idea in this current political climate.
Not necessarily related, but my mother told me of her experience in communist Romania. They would give everyone a job and tell them to show up for it even though everyone in the room knows there is nothing to be done. It was just so that Big brother could keep an eye on you and your conversations at least once every couple weeks. I'm not saying this is the case as there certainly is work to be done, but just the idea of guaranteed jobs rings alarm bells in my subconscious.
If you believe we have a government that doesn't represent its populace then why do you keep voting for politicians that support big government policies?
Maybe because they're the only politicians that run for government anymore these days.
Honestly stretching my mind to try and remember if you've ever made a good post. I'd imagine giving people jobs is far more palatable to the American people than UBI, even if in the end where the money comes from is the same.
Considering how terrible our infrastructure is and in need of repair. Probably at least 2 decades of work.
Probably because the scary "big government" isn't the problem, its the "corrupt, right-winged ultra-rich and corporation serving government" that people have a problem with. They're rather unrelated things.
This would all be true except it is missing a pretty critical component. The middle and lower class both spend money. If you give them more money, they may save a fraction of it, but the fraction is a tiny amount compared to the amount the wealthy save. This money then goes back into the economy. This in turn bolsters small business. Living wages means people SPEND MONEY. This is why research into increased minimum wages has time and time again found virtually none of the detrimental effects that people predict. It is hard to understate how powerful of an effect granting the lower classes liquid funds is.
It's sad as well because this rugged individualism of the working class totally plays into the hands of the corrupt wealthy elite. It becomes turkeys voting for Christmas.
Socalism is akin to the devil in Republican rhetoric, they have the idea that if anything close to socalist ideals get implemented then we'll end up like the USSR or some shit
if we throw away all the machines i can guarantee everyone a job too
Remember that having some level of unemployment doesn't mean you have an unchanging group of people who can't get a job. It might very well mean that, say, 4% of the population is out of work at any given time, but that each individual is only out of work for a week or two at a time.
what did he mean by this
"The United States discovers "Civil service",increasing crop yield and unlocking the pikeman unit!" look out russia
But who perpetuates this? Politicians, both democrats and republicans, who are bought and paid for by special interest groups who are elected by the people. Once elected, they pass big government legislation that benefits those special interest groups. If you quit voting for these types of officials then maybe you'll get what you want out of government. Not true. Anyone can run for office, even yourself. At the very least you can support someone who is running/wishes to run that shares your views.
Just taking a look across our shop floor, we're going to have a serious shortage of machinists in like... now. Everybody is retiring, and there's just not enough metal workers in training to replace them all.
you cant say "anoyone can run for office" and then also say int he same breath that both parties are bought out by the rich. it contridicts itself. we saw what happened in 2016. Bernie sanders, I strongly believe, had a very good chance of winning, and likely would have won if the playing field was level. Instead, we saw the Democratic party shove Hillary in everyones faces, with the superdelegates situation, and with the frankly obvious bias in the media. It was always Hillary clinton this, Hillory clinton that, and later reporting of how bad trump was (which was fair). On the other hand, Sanders routinely BROKE RECORDS with the number of people that would attend his rallies, but not a peep out of anyone major media channel, in one instance cutting to trumps speech stand for a few minutes while they were getting ready whilst Sanders gave his speech. Even comedy shows like steven colbert and the such, which are generally more open with these kinds of things, never said anything, And like him or not, Sanders held a power of being popular and well experienced with YEARS in government. And he stole lost. How can you say that "just anyone can run?" Thats not to say that our voice is dead, to give up, etc. We still hold power to potentially make a change in the future, but drop this whole peachy "both parties suck vote someone else" rubbish. if it worked, we would have done it eons ago
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.