Unemployed? Tough ѕhit

[Peikko 1,575]

At least one of the posters we have heard from today relishes that self same tyranny, presumably because they firmly believe they would never be subject to the terrors of it, because they are not 'lazy'.

and or foolish

[mawilson 2,133]

Your loss might be no inconvenience at all (they can go out and replace you immediately) or a minor inconvenience (replacing you will take a few days/weeks, if you are truly special months). That's fine, but it doesn't give the individual much in the way of a bargaining chip when it comes to determining value

If it takes months to replace you, it's one hell of a bargaining chip.

Plus there's no guarantee that after months of searching, they will be able to find someone

with a similar set of skills willing to do the same work for less pay. Despite what you believe,

most people - even the poorest - know what they're worth and don't need the government

to hold their hand. If they are treated with disrespect and have the choice, they will go elsewhere.

[Ali G. 37]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. You're saying it's better to have vast areas of nothing between cities? That would be the USA. I drove across it and went hours upon hours of seeing nothing but empty countryside.

The trouble with letting the state plan rather than the city is that the larger the state, the less efficient it's going to be. If you live in some podunk town with a population of 1200 people, the state isn't going to do much for you. They simply don't care. They're too busy doing other stuff. Texas alone is half the population of Canada. And I wouldn't want to have to drive across the state to talk to a government rep about some issue that could be settled at city hall.

This is the problem with you big government fans. You think there is no such thing as charity. If a company wants to buy 100 acres of land and make a nature sanctuary, why not let them? I grew up swimming at a huge man made lake. The shaded treed walking trail surrounding it was 5.7 kms long. The land was donated by a citizen under the agreement that it never be subdivided or turned into residential or business.

How about big endevors like sports arenas and stadiums? Should those be built by government? I don't see any trouble with a private company buying land, building an olympic sized swimming pool or an ice rink and then running it as a business. Governments in the last decade or two have slowly gotten rid of wading pools and replaced them with sprinklers. And life guards are no longer provided in government outdoor swimming areas. But they are in privately owned swimming areas.

The constitution has been changed many times. How do you think they got income tax put in there? Or any of the bill of rights for that matter.

The point was in response to your limited space argument, as Melbourne is a massive metro area and has plenty of room to grow, yet you still need the equivalent of three Houston homes to purchase one house there.

Canada is actually a federalist country. Australia on the other hand has states rights like the US. You also missed the point, I was referring to state and local planning regulations that must be meet in various first world countries. Even the townhouse I am building there must meet both state and local planning rules. As such it has to have certain energy efficiency, and meet a range of other guidelines. I cannot build anything I want just because it's my land. Doesn't work that way nor should it. If I build something that looks like #######, it affects my neighbors and I could sell up and leave, leaving someone else to deal with it. Hence, why being proactive prevents problems, which seems to be a concept many miss here.

Have you actually seen or lived under another system or just solely going on opinion?

The Texas Medical Center is the largest medical center in the world. Privately run. But they're all non profit hospitals. The whole thing was started by donated land and money by private individuals. It flourishes.

Yes because Texas is renowned for knowledge and quality health care.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

The only reason and need for minimum wage comes from the fact that the government has had its way in devaluing currency and causes inflation.

In all reality if a dollar was still actually a dollar the way it was 100 year ago, we'd be perfectly fine..... When you change the system and how it works though and you privatize money, you end up with what we have today.... The current system we have is quite unconstitutional for that very reason.

Essentially, blame the banks.

You lost me there, what does the dollar have to do with minimum wage? Minimum wage is there to ensure people are paid a fair wage for a days work.

Enough with the"unconstitutional" stuff. That really proves nothing.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

If it takes months to replace you, it's one hell of a bargaining chip.

Plus there's no guarantee that after months of searching, they will be able to find someone

with a similar set of skills willing to do the same work for less pay. Despite what you believe,

most people - even the poorest - know what they're worth and don't need the government

to hold their hand. If they are treated with disrespect and have the choice, they will go elsewhere.

What are you talking about? Every individual has a little leeway if they have marketable skills and a reasonable personality but that's not what we have been discussing, we have been discussing whether leaving things to the free market would inevitably lead the fre market paying what people's skills are worth when realisitically, individuals are not calling the shots. The numbers don't add up.

No one, least of all me, is asking for the government to hold any hands either.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh and not really re bargaining chip. Either you are being paid less than the company is prepared to pay, or you are at the ceiling and they will suggest, politely that you seek employment elsewhere unless you take on more responsibility.

[Ali G. 37]

What are you talking about? Every individual has a little leeway if they have marketable skills and a reasonable personality but that's not what we have been discussing, we have been discussing whether leaving things to the free market would inevitably lead the fre market paying what people's skills are worth when realisitically, individuals are not calling the shots. The numbers don't add up.

No one, least of all me, is asking for the government to hold any hands either.

Libertarianism seem to assume allowing the free market to take care of business is groundbreaking. Wrong! The free market works when it's an equitable playing field.

We already went through having no regulation, no minimum wage, no health and safety laws and that resulted in kids being worked to death and paid a few cents for an hours work.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Libertarianism seem to assume allowing the free market to take care of business is groundbreaking. Wrong! The free market works when it's an equitable playing field.

We already went through having no regulation, no minimum wage, no health and safety laws and that resulted in kids being worked to death and paid a few cents for an hours work.

The free market is a good "general principle" but doesn't always work effectively without some regulation. Case in point you could say the economy is stuck in an under-consumption trap. The principle behind a free market is that if everyone thinks as an individual and puts their best interests at heart and that then creates balance in supply/demand.

Unfortunately, when your in our current trap thinking as individuals it is actually counterproductive. In order to maximise profits a company will cut labor to keep the margin. That's good for them when thinking as an individual, the problem is that when they do that they contribute to a suppression of spending due to a weak job market which then hurts their profits later on. Again thinking like an individual they again cut labor to protect profits and then profits take another hit.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You lost me there, what does the dollar have to do with minimum wage? Minimum wage is there to ensure people are paid a fair wage for a days work.

Research and understand value of currency and maybe you would understand....

Enough with the"unconstitutional" stuff. That really proves nothing.

Actually that has EVERYTHING to do with it.

If you don't like the constitution, I would suggest you leave

[Ali G. 37]

Research and understand value of currency and maybe you would understand....

Actually that has EVERYTHING to do with it.

If you don't like the constitution, I would suggest you leave

Wrong answer. Just because you say something is not constitutional means squat.

I don't know what your background is in but it's clearly not in finance or economics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The free market is a good "general principle" but doesn't always work effectively without some regulation. Case in point you could say the economy is stuck in an under-consumption trap. The principle behind a free market is that if everyone thinks as an individual and puts their best interests at heart and that then creates balance in supply/demand.

Unfortunately, when your in our current trap thinking as individuals it is actually counterproductive. In order to maximise profits a company will cut labor to keep the margin. That's good for them when thinking as an individual, the problem is that when they do that they contribute to a suppression of spending due to a weak job market which then hurts their profits later on. Again thinking like an individual they again cut labor to protect profits and then profits take another hit.

Not to mention that there aren't any countries that operate a wholly unregulated free market. The reason for this is obvious - without some regulation to ensure that the tax payer and the employee aren't taken for a ride you would end up with the modern equivalent of feudalism.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wrong answer. Just because you say something is not constitutional means squat.

I don't know what your background is in but it's clearly not in finance or economics.

awww, hitting a nerve by bringing up the constitution.

A few classes on US Government, Economics, Currency, and of course the Constitution might do you some good.

and yes I'm being snarky.

You can't lump some everything into business vs. government vs. the people. Value of currency actually plays a huge role in overall "cost" of goods, etc.

Read about the steady decline in value of the US Dollar and you'll learn a lot about our economic messes.

A loaf of bread should never cost any more than $.05 to be honest.

for example: That $0.99 loaf of bread you're paying for today back $100 years ago would be valued today @ $20 per loaf. ---- That actually is a huge factor when you think about it.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

awww, hitting a nerve by bringing up the constitution.

A few classes on US Government, Economics, Currency, and of course the Constitution might do you some good.

I thought this was addressed yesterday...the constitution doesn't focus on the economy. (BTW the constitution gives the government authority to value our currency as they see fit.)

Edited February 27, 2010 by Sousuke

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I thought this was addressed yesterday...the constitution doesn't focus on the economy.

Actually it does.

Again, Article I section 8 & 9 cover it quite well.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I did...nope sorry.