h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Once those six months are over, they take over the full burden of your salary." - excuse me, employment isn't charity. It is the employer paying for a service provided by the employee. Something the conservatives especially need to realise.

Number two of your examples was made illegal. Under the employment contracts act (brought in by the National party 1990) employers would hire people for 3 or 6 months and then either re-hire the same person or another person for the same position under a new contract. People are entitled for the minimum legal benefits like holidays after 12 months continus contract. This practise was made illegal when national was finaly dumped. The new legislation also said that both parties had to be truthful in contract and employment negotiations. Something loudly protested by the employers federation (has americam lawyers expert in riping off employees), conservatives and libertarians.

You're excused. But what's your point?

And apparently you don't understand example #2. I was talking about people quitting the job because the employer sucked. Thus, new people have to be hired to fill the void.

I'd like to know what your overall point is. Are you against the government having anything to do with employment.

Unlike yourself. Many people don't have the option to bludge off family.

I didn't have an overall point. I've primarily been occupied with addressing the hasty inaccuracies you've presented.

But, since you asked, and because it's becoming increasingly obvious that you're asking all these questions without having read (or perhaps without having understood) the article, here's another quote from the article, with the relevant bit in big capital letters, so it doesn't get past you: "Government exists to PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL FROM ABUSES BY BIG BUSINESSES or from physical harm."

Protecting people from employers does include enaction and enforcement of labor standards, such as a minimum wage and health and safety regulations. It also includes things like the breaking up of monopolies and stockholder protections like insider trading regulations. I believe I've also said that I believe limited safety nets like unemployment insurance are, overall, a pretty good idea.

But every employment program has to be evaluated in terms of return on investment, just like a business. After all, high employment is good business for the government, since it means more tax revenue. The return on investment for that temporary government subsidy to your company is nil. The return on investment for your $20/week program is next to nil.

But you defend them, naturally, because you enjoyed the benefits at one time. But how much are you paying now, in terms of higher taxes, so that others can continue to enjoy those benefits? I'd be willing to bet you pay back that $20/week in your first year of employment. And as for that government subsidy, I've already demonstrated that you got nothing out of it you wouldn't have gotten without it. Both programs are examples of government waste, and your country would be better off without them.

"But you defend them, naturally, because you enjoyed the benefits at one time. But how much are you paying now, in terms of higher taxes,"

my taxes are at 23% I don't think that's high

"But you defend them, naturally, because you enjoyed the benefits at one time. But how much are you paying now, in terms of higher taxes,"

my taxes are at 23% I don't think that's high

"And as for that government subsidy, I've already demonstrated that you got nothing out of it you wouldn't have gotten without it. Both programs are examples of government waste, and your country would be better off without them."

You didn't demonstrate very well. you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding my explaniations.

I notice you chose not to respond to my comment that unlike you, most people don't have the option to bludge off family.

You sound like many conservatives the damaged my country's economy with ill thought out and short sighted ideas that don't work in practise. I could use as example 32 million people in poverty in your country.

The policies you love earned my country 10% unemployment during the 1990's. It's now around 5%. Even you have to see the large increase in taxpayers.

All this talk of the evils of redistribution is fine, but it doesn't address that wealth redistribution is what government is all about. It's the driving force behind all government activity! Just because no one calls spending billions on defense projects "wealth redistribution" doesn't mean that it isn't just that. Where did the funds come from? They came from somebody's pocket and into somebody else's. I am crazed that my tiny wallet is hijacked so that my all knowing government (U.S.) can have redundant defense systems and that a few groups of fat cats are the main beneficiary of this defense department largesse.

The subsidies, tax breaks, and outright gifts to corporations are another form of wealth redistribution, but I haven't seen any criticism of these particulars. Only the poverty stricken need to be taken off the teat, I suppose. I'm all for severely limiting access to welfare, but all hand-outs need to be reined in; pork barrel spending, subsidies, tax reductions to entice business, elimination of offshore tax shelters, public funding of research that is then given over to corporations for profit, and a taxing system that allows for favorable treatment of the wealthiest persons and businesses because of their ability to hire specialized legal and accounting guidance.

The last seems to me to be the most important. In a true Libertarian society, the government should not only be limited, but also blind to the status of the individual. Libertarians do wish for a society that is tough on crime, but I never see white collar crime showing up in the debate. The agenda is almost always preset, "Criminals should be treated tough, and the poor need to stop feeling entitled to welfare". It's just assumed that the poor make up both the criminal class and the welfare class. And if the argument is that the poor engage in a disproportionate of criminal activity, I say take a look at the wealth and status of the folks who are creating and implementing the legal statutes. The big money stuff, like insider trading, "creative" accounting, outright plundering of institutions (think S&L scandal, which was bailed out on the public dime), and corporate disregard for environmental and workplace safety never seems to get the outraged hand wringing that always accompanies calls for "taking back the streets". I am certainly not suggesting that the poor should be absolved of their portion of criminal acts, I'd just like to see a real acknowledgment that white collar crime is at least equally dangerous for civil society and in fact causes more economic damage than a petty criminal ever could.

Alright, I'm really starting to froth now and my moustache is a mess, but one more point before I have an attack of some sort. The poor are usually blamed for their own predicament, but they get a lot of help maintaining their low position. "Equality of opportunity doesn't mean equality of outcome", I'd like to see anyone who makes that claim send their kid to those wonderful establishments of equal opportunity in education, oh say... a Harlem middle school, or one in the minority section of Chicago's inner city. Something tells me that those bulwarks of "opportunity" are a little too equal for their taste. How about the poor getting off their duffs and getting a job? Well, that grand disciple of Ayn Rand, none other than Alan Greenspan, sets interest rates so that 5% unemployment is guaranteed. It dips below 5% and bells and whistles go off so that the interest rates get a "healthy" uptick. This is swell for corporate and Wall Street interests who love keeping wages low by having a permanent slack in the workforce, but I do think that there is a certain class of people who might suffer from just such policies, and of course, "it's their own fault".

Well, this didn't work like I planned. I apologize folks. I'm new here and thought I was posting a reply to an individual entry. Some forums work like that. That post I made is out of context.

I'll learn.

Welcome to H2G2 Seamus

And well done on posting to a live thread - the first place I posted to was an entry that hadn't been looked at for months...and looking at what you've posted it doesn't look *that* out of context either

I wouldn't worry about it, Seamus. I think you've given new life to a conversation that had faded. And you've raised some valid points.

This conversation has gone on for some time and ranged over a variety of topics, so I can't be sure if I've addressed this before. I'm going to save myself some time digging through the backlog and just go ahead and say it anyway.

I agree with you, Seamus. 100%

I don't make any distinctions between blue collar and white collar crime. If a poor criminal gets "grand theft" for stealing $5000, then a white collar individual who embezzles $5000 should also get "grand theft."

And as for corporate welfare, that is completely against the Libertarian philosophy. Bad companies should go out of business, and create room in the marketplace for good ones to grow. Welfare is welfare, and I don't make any distinctions about who gets it.

I am coming late but had a lot of reading.
I have a few comments.

"Poor people are not there because they had no opportunities... they're there because they squandered the opportunities that are available to everyone."

Most of the poor are children, and elderly,disabled by mental or physical or both disabilities. Minimum wage is not livable.,most poor are working poor without benefits,insurance of any kind, retirement or emergency money. One health emergency can take a family down for a long time. Many of the poor are also students.

"In the american dream, the poor can go up fast, and the rich can go down fast - given that, shouldn't everyone be seeking to make the life of the poor tolerable, given that the worst could easily happen to them next?"

YES! Good point! compassionate thinking.

"know that many people from privileged backgrounds are exactly the same, and they don't end up on the streets"

G.W BUSH & (brother Neil too& some others close) for two well known names, they failed at every business, did some arguably questionable thngs had addictions and MUCH family and financial help, medical attention,insurance and LAWYERS and politics behind them. Look at all the poor rich kids that fail!

Lots of big doors & frequently appearing doors open with :Who u know and Who's your daddy?

"End result: The rich hate you, the lower-middle class hates you, a handful of poor rise above their station, while the rest remain unchanged, but perhaps better clothed."

They ALREADY do hate, though many live a substandard humane existance. That is the point! I do notthink equal is sought. I IMO poor people should be able to come closer to having the food clothing and shelter,bed medical care a (wealthy owned) dog does.


"income was in 'voucher' form for education, health insurance"

This is a good way to distribute much without cash handed.
This is a pet peeve of mine, the middle class people that *can* eek out money for insurance but do not! They add a tremedous uneccesary debt by not having their priorities straight.


"take some responsibility for where the money ends up"
Yes!


"I was not a burden to anyone. And Mom was glad for the company"

How nice for U not everyone is so lucky as to have a free home and a welcome!


Education=employment?

NO over age 50 are over the line for gainful employment should they lose ther jobs to name one group!


"There are lots of headhunter services here in the US, and they actually make a profit."

There are a lot of rip off ones for low to medium pay and benefits. Many are scams that drop u after 3 months or whenever u are done paying them. You are fired as when you are finished paying the employment company. The persons who hire get cheap workers. The provider of workers makes a killing.

Temp employment- by the day(no benefits) & government are the biggest employers.


"pork barrel spending, subsidies, tax reductions to entice business, elimination of offshore tax shelters, public funding of research that is then given over to corporations for profit"

Those plus taxes from soft drugs now illegal and from prostitution now illegal. Just think of all the money from just these sources.

"Poor engage in a disproportionate of criminal activity"

NOT in $$ amounts ! The corporate crime that is non violent rarely gets punishment that hurts. We spend too much time and money jailing the poor for non voilent offences. If a Corp. man can steal from thousands of families and retain his life, so should the poor without appropriate representaion equal to the priveledged.

The private prison system is a growing industry. They are into *research* now too. It has proven profitable in medical areas. Because the jails are overcrowded and you are likely to leave with HIV or Hepatitis C they have many new companies springing up to invent protection from health hazards. They are doing nothing to actually stem the disease which ends up on the streets and back home with the families.

Violent crimes going down but we have more in jail all the time and more jails needed! The Corporations of jails owned by the rich will be needing residents. The will be able to pay to do studies to prove it

This jailing society can change and be less expensive & safer for society all the way around. The generations or whole families will not be put into a postion for all to be supported by the government because a parent is jailed.

Whew ,I hope I said what I came to say!

Teehee I got caught up in an old thread again
Oh well it was interesting & worth it!