The Constitutional right to a job.

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Wheezer,
I believe the Government is obliged to maintain the economy in such a condition that it provides jobs for the citizens who wish to work. Not a specific job for each desire. A job that will provide a livable wage to the holder. If there is a demand for 100 elephant feeders and 1000 applicants the government is not obliged to find elephant feeding jobs for the 900 who missed out regardless of their elephant feeding degrees. (I'm not being flippant with elephant.. I don't want to offend one craft or another) They are, however obliged to insure there is work available... Unemployment insurance is the link between one job lost and another found and recognition of their (the government's) responsibility.
An employer's right to fire, close down or hire is his business (within legal reason). Competitive issues closed the shipping plant down. There should be other jobs available at living wage to be had.
(full employment in my opinion is <4% unemployed and no 'off the rolls' unemployed. If one is lazy he can work at Burger King at 10$ an hour and live. If he is industrious he can educate himself and run Burger king at 60$ an hour. Each has a choice to make and effort to expend. The government only needs to insure there is available work for all and the best get the best and so on. No job can be called a job if it don't enable the job holder to secure for himself and family the basic rights of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness

the gov't does not have the ability to maintain the economy in a permanent state of expansion. no economist would even dream in their wildest dreams that it would be possible. theres far too much uncertainty in the business cycle and even the best laid plans don't always pan out. the commies tried to regulate the economy as much as possible and look where it got them.

regardless of what you think, thats not the definition of full employment. full employment is when everyone who wishes to work at the going wage rate for their skill set is doing so. that includes lots of "hidden unemployment." theres plenty of people who would work at a rate higher than the going rate for their skill set, and lots of those get into the "hidden unemployment" figure. (note: clinton had the question asked changed so that less people would answer it yes, indicating that they were hidden unemployed. the new question is a much more accurate measure).

as for living wage, you cannot change the real value of a person's labor by changing their nominal wage. if you increase the nominal wage the inflation mechanism caused by the increase quickly brings that person's buying power back into line with the real value of their labor. and you can't define a national living wage anyway. a living wage in new york city and surrounding isn't the same as a living wage in houston and surrounding and isn't the same as a living wage in bumfvck north dakota and surrounding.

 

[ElFenix]

don't forget that when you're asking the gov't do to something, you're asking all of america to do something through their proxy in washington. through the taxes and economically inefficient mechanisms supporting someone's "pursuit of property" you're damaging someone else's pursuit.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would suggest that when a person is faced with starvation he is generally given the motivation to make things work. Where there is a will there is a way.[/quote]
----------------------------------
I would suggest you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Millions have starved. Try not to impress yourself with absurd illusions over the graves of others ashes.
-----------------
-----------------
You miss the point...what I am saying is this...The govermant should not gurantee anyone a job simple. You are give many guarntees in this country what you make of it is your choice period. The fact that you are a garbage man, and that is all you do and you NEVER learn another trade, craft, or get an education and then when your company closes down or simply fires you and you know nothing else well that is your own fault.

What you are sugestiing gives no one any incentive to do thier job well. Why should they? The goverment will give them a check for getting fired, food stamps if they need it and then guranntee them a job. Am I saying all people are lazy? certainly not but what I am saying is that you are trying gurantee eveyone who is lazy a free ride. I know that may not be where you are trying to take this but that is where it would end up.
----------------------------------
God another arrogant butt-head know-nothing fool. This drivel rolls of Republican tongues like a looped tape machine. I hope some day you're on the other end of your bull sh!t. How do we breed such pigs? Did it ever occur to you that the potential to wind up a certain way is not always the worst of options, or that secondary and additional measures can be explored to keep that from happening. Get out of your box. You're trapped like a ditto head.
---------------------
---------------------
don't forget that when you're asking the gov't do to something, you're asking all of america to do something through their proxy in washington. through the taxes and economically inefficient mechanisms supporting someone's "pursuit of property" you're damaging someone else's pursuit.
----------------------
Spoken like a true person who has something he doesn't want to give. Don't you ever get tired of being a pig? Is it damaging your pursuit that there aren't people walking around who might kill you for your sandwich? Is your pursuit more important than hungry kids? Are your legal opinions worth more than human life. Everybody is entitled to equality of opportunity. Where is the f-ing opportunity? Everybody who wants to work should be entitled to a job. What would have happened to the US if you were President instead of Roosevelt? Why did millions weep when he died. What is wrong with the millions of public projects he built, what's wrong with the hope he brought to people's lives? Who wants to live in a world where people don't care? Do you think the country had more wealth to bring to that task than now? Would that the callously indifferent were the only ones to fall!

 

[nickPOWERZ]

"I would suggest you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Millions have starved. Try not to impress yourself with absurd illusions over the graves of others ashes. " -MB

In the United States?

"God another arrogant butt-head know-nothing fool. This drivel rolls of Republican tongues like a looped tape machine. I hope some day you're on the other end of your bull sh!t. How do we breed such pigs? Did it ever occur to you that the potential to wind up a certain way is not always the worst of options, or that secondary and additional measures can be explored to keep that from happening. Get out of your box. You're trapped like a ditto head. " -MB

I was thinking what it would be like to be put in a situation where absolutely all of my family suddently died, all of my friends died, all of my family's friends died, etc, and all of my money and posessions were suddently lost. Although I would never want to be in that situation, I think that it would at least be interesting, and I think that I could succeed. Without even accounting for government help or the help of other individuals.

"Spoken like a true person who has something he doesn't want to give. Don't you ever get tired of being a pig? Is it damaging your pursuit that there aren't people walking around who might kill you for your sandwich? Is your pursuit more important than hungry kids? Are your legal opinions worth more than human life. Everybody is entitled to equality of opportunity. Where is the f-ing opportunity? Everybody who wants to work should be entitled to a job. What would have happened to the US if you were President instead of Roosevelt? Why did millions weep when he died. What is wrong with the millions of public projects he built, what's wrong with the hope he brought to people's lives? Who wants to live in a world where people don't care? Do you think the country had more wealth to bring to that task than now? Would that the callously indifferent were the only ones to fall!" -MB

Maybe it's not that these people don't care, rather that they don't want a national beaurocracy doing the caring for them. I know it is like that for me. Some people do actually care and do actually help people in need, on their own accord. While they staunchly oppose the federal government doing it.

 

[Vic]

*has not read thread, just initial post*

The Declaration of Independence is NOT law and never has been. There is no consitutional right to happiness, therefore there is no consitutional right to a job. Sink, swim, fly -- it's up to YOU and no one else, so quit crying.

 

[Moonbeam]

In the United States?
-------------------
Oh yeah, we do have some social welfare. Private charities can't handle the need, and nothing's going to stop you from continuing to give. You'll just also by tithing to the nation in which you have your lucky assed being.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Since when did "happiness"=job/employment.

There are plenty of people content without one - mainly stay at home moms/dads. No where - No how - No way does the "pursuit of happiness." End of story. If you wish to be guaranteed a job - you are on the wrong planet. There are no guarantees on this one. If you have skills and an acceptable work ethic you those in most cases will be guarantee enough as long as you chose the right company to work for. If a company doesn't treat you or other employees right then get them to change or leave and work for someone who does treat people right. The ones that don't treat people right will soon find itself without good employees and will crumble - thus creating a void for other companies(new or otherwise) to fill.

Any figures on how much your "new deal" will cost there moony? How much are you willing to pay tax wise for your "jobs for everyone" communis...Uh I mean community/nation?

I can't believe that this question was even asked or presented in this manner. Totally ridiculous:disgust:

CkG

 

[issueboy]

I think sometimes people forget that constitutional "rights" were written mainly to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The "tyranny" in a democratic republic is the man made institution of government and the agents of the majority are the "Tyrants" we must protect ourselves against.

If you were on an island by yourself you wouldn't need another human assuring your rights that are self evident.

Anyway...the earliest Jamestown settlers found out that "guaranteeing" economic survival soon led the colony to malcontent and a worse state of affairs than the "make or break" of surviving on your own. And my grandfather remembers the days during and following Roosevelt and they are anything but utopian. Most of the folks my grandads age can't recall better economic prosperity than we live in at this very moment.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: nickPOWERZ

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Right, and what's he going to eat? A pursuit is useless if there's nothing to pursue.

I would suggest that when a person is faced with starvation he is generally given the motivation to make things work. Where there is a will there is a way.

If there are 1000 people in the US (workers able to work etc.) and there are 700 jobs what do the 300 persuit? A will and way suggests something unnice like the business will hire you cuz your smarter and will work for cheaper and fire the older guy cuz he's older and at the top of the pay ladder..
The government's job is to insure there are 960 jobs available that pay a livable wage.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Wheezer,
I believe the Government is obliged to maintain the economy in such a condition that it provides jobs for the citizens who wish to work. Not a specific job for each desire. A job that will provide a livable wage to the holder. If there is a demand for 100 elephant feeders and 1000 applicants the government is not obliged to find elephant feeding jobs for the 900 who missed out regardless of their elephant feeding degrees. (I'm not being flippant with elephant.. I don't want to offend one craft or another) They are, however obliged to insure there is work available... Unemployment insurance is the link between one job lost and another found and recognition of their (the government's) responsibility.
An employer's right to fire, close down or hire is his business (within legal reason). Competitive issues closed the shipping plant down. There should be other jobs available at living wage to be had.
(full employment in my opinion is <4% unemployed and no 'off the rolls' unemployed. If one is lazy he can work at Burger King at 10$ an hour and live. If he is industrious he can educate himself and run Burger king at 60$ an hour. Each has a choice to make and effort to expend. The government only needs to insure there is available work for all and the best get the best and so on. No job can be called a job if it don't enable the job holder to secure for himself and family the basic rights of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness

the gov't does not have the ability to maintain the economy in a permanent state of expansion. no economist would even dream in their wildest dreams that it would be possible. theres far too much uncertainty in the business cycle and even the best laid plans don't always pan out. the commies tried to regulate the economy as much as possible and look where it got them.

regardless of what you think, thats not the definition of full employment. full employment is when everyone who wishes to work at the going wage rate for their skill set is doing so. that includes lots of "hidden unemployment." theres plenty of people who would work at a rate higher than the going rate for their skill set, and lots of those get into the "hidden unemployment" figure. (note: clinton had the question asked changed so that less people would answer it yes, indicating that they were hidden unemployed. the new question is a much more accurate measure).

as for living wage, you cannot change the real value of a person's labor by changing their nominal wage. if you increase the nominal wage the inflation mechanism caused by the increase quickly brings that person's buying power back into line with the real value of their labor. and you can't define a national living wage anyway. a living wage in new york city and surrounding isn't the same as a living wage in houston and surrounding and isn't the same as a living wage in bumfvck north dakota and surrounding.

Full employment has always been regarded as 4% unemployed and no 'hard core'. Even Art Laffer includes this factor in all his models. (hard core are lookers with a talent but, not finding a 'suitable' job) Underemployed is another consideration. But, underemployed are employed and looking for their opportunity.. consider an actor working as a waiter.

The economy expands for a number of reasons among which is population growth. More bodies consume more stuff... etc.. consider the housing market.

Minimum wage is not a wage sufficient to sustain life in any reasonable manner. Sure if Burgers go up a bit because wages went up it would affect the economy some. The issue is, however, and from my view, the current job creation is not in high $ jobs which means to me that someone is employed but not able to "live". Eventually, an equilibrium will occur. Fixed pay increases for many workers like the steps in Civil Service are similar to changing a wage without an increase in productivity ergo inflation.
Living wages in all the various areas are different, no doubt. This is one of the many reasons why the States are better suited to make law regarding people than the Federal Government. The Feds have too much power and use it poorly.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
don't forget that when you're asking the gov't do to something, you're asking all of america to do something through their proxy in washington. through the taxes and economically inefficient mechanisms supporting someone's "pursuit of property" you're damaging someone else's pursuit.

I subscribe to the notion that the government is charged with the management of the economy and to do so in a manner that provides jobs that can sustain life for all American workers. You can persuit whatever you want and so can I and let the best of us get the job and the other has to find a way to better himself but, in the mean time he has a job to go to. It is that simple as I see it. The best or smartest get the cream because they have the talent genetically or developed it or what ever, but they have it. You work harder than me you deserve to reap the benefits. You get to drive the new SUV or Pickup and I am stuck with the 10 year old 4 cyl.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Vic
*has not read thread, just initial post*

The Declaration of Independence is NOT law and never has been. There is no consitutional right to happiness, therefore there is no consitutional right to a job. Sink, swim, fly -- it's up to YOU and no one else, so quit crying.

The Preamble say's

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The Articles and Amendments that follow are intended to produce this. Insure domestic tranquility and
promote the general welfare seem to be noble quests to pursuit. Given these are the reasons to adopt the Constitution it is also reasonable to expect the Constitution to be construed to provide them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
*has not read thread, just initial post*

The Declaration of Independence is NOT law and never has been. There is no consitutional right to happiness, therefore there is no consitutional right to a job. Sink, swim, fly -- it's up to YOU and no one else, so quit crying.

The Preamble say's

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The Articles and Amendments that follow are intended to produce this. Insure domestic tranquility and
promote the general welfare seem to be noble quests to pursuit. Given these are the reasons to adopt the Constitution it is also reasonable to expect the Constitution to be construed to provide them.

Not only is it reasonable, it's pretty damn obvious.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
---------------------
---------------------
don't forget that when you're asking the gov't do to something, you're asking all of america to do something through their proxy in washington. through the taxes and economically inefficient mechanisms supporting someone's "pursuit of property" you're damaging someone else's pursuit.
----------------------
Spoken like a true person who has something he doesn't want to give. Don't you ever get tired of being a pig? Is it damaging your pursuit that there aren't people walking around who might kill you for your sandwich? Is your pursuit more important than hungry kids? Are your legal opinions worth more than human life. Everybody is entitled to equality of opportunity. Where is the f-ing opportunity? Everybody who wants to work should be entitled to a job. What would have happened to the US if you were President instead of Roosevelt? Why did millions weep when he died. What is wrong with the millions of public projects he built, what's wrong with the hope he brought to people's lives? Who wants to live in a world where people don't care? Do you think the country had more wealth to bring to that task than now? Would that the callously indifferent were the only ones to fall!

something he doesn't want to give? did you know that republicans are far more likely to give than democrats? just a thought. did FDR give them hope? maybe, did he give them anything else? hell no. it was not his policies that actually made anything better.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix
don't forget that when you're asking the gov't do to something, you're asking all of america to do something through their proxy in washington. through the taxes and economically inefficient mechanisms supporting someone's "pursuit of property" you're damaging someone else's pursuit.

I subscribe to the notion that the government is charged with the management of the economy and to do so in a manner that provides jobs that can sustain life for all American workers. You can persuit whatever you want and so can I and let the best of us get the job and the other has to find a way to better himself but, in the mean time he has a job to go to. It is that simple as I see it. The best or smartest get the cream because they have the talent genetically or developed it or what ever, but they have it. You work harder than me you deserve to reap the benefits. You get to drive the new SUV or Pickup and I am stuck with the 10 year old 4 cyl.

you can subscribe to it but that doesn't make it workable in practice. you can talk as much as you want about some paradise where everyone who merely wants a job can have one, but thats not dealing with the real world. in the real world providing jobs for all who want them is an impossibility. so we have welfare systems set up. the problem with those is that they have failed. oh, some people probably do use them to help themselves get back on their feet, find new work, get an education to enlarge their skillset. but many just see it as free leeching. they don't want to go to work, they don't need to go to work, because they feel that gov't, and by extension people who actually do work, will take care of them. theres nothing wrong with helping people who help themselves. there is nothing wrong with helping people who can't help themselves. but there is something grossly offensive with helping people who refuse to help themselves. and its those abusers who are ruining the system.

 

[alchemize]

The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers

The workers have nothing to lose but their chains.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Full employment has always been regarded as 4% unemployed and no 'hard core'. Even Art Laffer includes this factor in all his models. (hard core are lookers with a talent but, not finding a 'suitable' job) Underemployed is another consideration. But, underemployed are employed and looking for their opportunity.. consider an actor working as a waiter.

The economy expands for a number of reasons among which is population growth. More bodies consume more stuff... etc.. consider the housing market.

Minimum wage is not a wage sufficient to sustain life in any reasonable manner. Sure if Burgers go up a bit because wages went up it would affect the economy some. The issue is, however, and from my view, the current job creation is not in high $ jobs which means to me that someone is employed but not able to "live". Eventually, an equilibrium will occur. Fixed pay increases for many workers like the steps in Civil Service are similar to changing a wage without an increase in productivity ergo inflation.
Living wages in all the various areas are different, no doubt. This is one of the many reasons why the States are better suited to make law regarding people than the Federal Government. The Feds have too much power and use it poorly.

every book i've ever read would suggest you were at full employment if you were in the neighborhood of 5%, but didn't say that had to be full employment. the rigorous definition of full employment is that everyone who wishes to work at the going wage rate for their skill set is doing so. i didn't mention anything about "hard core" unemployed. perhaps they just have an unrealistic expectation of what they should be paid? or do you mean structurally unemployed?

why are you bringing up population growth? you just throw out a statement without really saying why it should be considered for anything.

why are you bringing up minimum wage? sure, it may not be a living wage, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether a living wage is a reachable goal. i don't think mandating a wage floor at the living wage level is operable, because, again, you can't increase someone's real product by increasing their nominal wage. from what i know of civil servants generally you move from level to level on the pay chart with your responsibilities. many large firms are also this way. so, just that is not inflationary. i do agree that raising pay without an increase in real product is inflationary. specifically, cost-push inflationary. most of the inflation this country has suffered through has been cost-push. be it higher wages without a corresponding increase in real product or raw material costs or energy costs. i do think that as certain places like SF go into the future where firms can't hire janitors because there aren't any something will have to give. bush probably should be using the bully-pulpit of the presidency to pressure corps into exporting jobs less. but i bet a lot of people really like those $600 computers with LCD from dell.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: alchemize
The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers

The workers have nothing to lose but their chains.

-- karl marx and frederick engels

 

[Moonbeam]

you can subscribe to it but that doesn't make it workable in practice. (any more that you saying it won't makes that true)you can talk as much as you want about some paradise where everyone who merely (What do you mean merely, dude, somebody got up one morning starving to death and said, I think I'll get a job? Love how you can define the catastrophe of others lives with words like 'merely')wants a job can have one, but thats not dealing with the real world.(You mean the illusory representation you hold in your fantastically limited mind?)) in the real world providing jobs for all who want them is an impossibility. (Oh OH, I've looked at this from top to bottom and believe you me it's no more possible than a bumble bee can fly) so we have welfare systems set up. the problem with those is that they have failed. (What kind of dunce logic provides a solution that doesn't work as an answer to a problem?) moh, some people probably do use them to help themselves get back on their feet, find new work, get an education to enlarge their skillset. but many just see it as free leeching. they don't want to go to work, they don't need to go to work, because they feel that gov't, and by extension people who actually do work, will take care of them. (Exactly the benefit of jobs over welfare, duh!!!!!!!!!!!)theres nothing wrong with helping people who help themselves. there is nothing wrong with helping people who can't help themselves. but there is something grossly offensive with helping people who refuse to help themselves. and its those abusers who are ruining the system. (Ruining the system how? Because butts like you don't want to support a system that does good but has abuse. Looking for a perfect system? Maybe you're the Utopian dreamer) How you see others is how you were seen. Sounds like lots of self hate.

 

[LunarRay]

ElFenix,
Re your next to last to me.

The fact that it is NOT the real world is the problem. Is my idea attainable... I think yes. I want the real world to be paradise where anyone who wants to work can.. I further see and said in another post that the Constitution was adopted to provide domestic tranquility and provide for the general welfare.. Unemployed folks with out the ability to gain employment are not tranquil nor does it provide for the general welfare..

I don't expect you'll easily agree with my notion and I'm ok with that. I support your right to interpret what you read as you do.. We see it differently and we simply will vote for different people..

edit to add 'next to last'

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
you can subscribe to it but that doesn't make it workable in practice. (any more that you saying it won't makes that true)you can talk as much as you want about some paradise where everyone who merely (What do you mean merely, dude, somebody got up one morning starving to death and said, I think I'll get a job? Love how you can define the catastrophe of others lives with words like 'merely')wants a job can have one, but thats not dealing with the real world.(You mean the illusory representation you hold in your fantastically limited mind?))you're the one who thinks that everyone who wants a job should have one for merely wanting, not me. don't get confused as to which of us is which, okay? in the real world providing jobs for all who want them is an impossibility. (Oh OH, I've looked at this from top to bottom and believe you me it's no more possible than a bumble bee can fly) so we have welfare systems set up. the problem with those is that they have failed. (What kind of dunce logic provides a solution that doesn't work as an answer to a problem?)i don't know, the democrats thought it up. moh, some people probably do use them to help themselves get back on their feet, find new work, get an education to enlarge their skillset. but many just see it as free leeching. they don't want to go to work, they don't need to go to work, because they feel that gov't, and by extension people who actually do work, will take care of them. (Exactly the benefit of jobs over welfare, duh!!!!!!!!!!!)people keep trying to implement welfare to work but social apologists keep trying to railroad themtheres nothing wrong with helping people who help themselves. there is nothing wrong with helping people who can't help themselves. but there is something grossly offensive with helping people who refuse to help themselves. and its those abusers who are ruining the system. (Ruining the system how? Because butts like you don't want to support a system that does good but has abuse. Looking for a perfect system? Maybe you're the Utopian dreamer)ruining the system by crowding out resources better used by actually putting people to work, maybe. in addition to creating a whole class of people whose only goal in life is to remain in that system. who have enslaved themselves in doing so How you see others is how you were seen. Sounds like lots of self hate.oh now come the ad hominems

when you realize why the question "if you could find work would you?" is ridiculous come back and talk.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
ElFenix,
Re your next to last to me.

The fact that it is NOT the real world is the problem. Is my idea attainable... I think yes. I want the real world to be paradise where anyone who wants to work can.. I further see and said in another post that the Constitution was adopted to provide domestic tranquility and provide for the general welfare.. Unemployed folks with out the ability to gain employment are not tranquil nor does it provide for the general welfare..

I don't expect you'll easily agree with my notion and I'm ok with that. I support your right to interpret what you read as you do.. We see it differently and we simply will vote for different people..

edit to add 'next to last'

the constitution doesn't enable the gov't to act as the be-all end-all. the constitution was adopted to do the specific things listed in article 1 section 8, one of which does say "general Welfare of the United States." but in this instance of use its not refering to the "general welfare" concept as might be bandied about by various flavors of socialism, as that concept wasn't anywhere near developing at that point. also, it doesn't say, "general Welfare of the People of the United States," which is what you're proposing. no, that phrase is closer in meaning to the phrase it shares the line with, "provide for the common Defence". but even if it did mention the people, you'd then have to figure out how, and i think that a properly-regulated market mechanism with a social safety net that provides for people who are willing to help themselves is the best way to accomplish that. i believe that other systems create such a burden on producers that a general malaise sets in and the total social welfare is lower than it would be in the system i'm describing.

 

[LunarRay]

ElFenix,
You said... the gov't does not have the ability to maintain the economy in a permanent state of expansion. no economist would even dream in their wildest dreams that it would be possible. theres far too much uncertainty in the business cycle and even the best laid plans don't always pan out. the commies tried to regulate the economy as much as possible and look where it got them.

I say... The economy expands for a number of reasons among which is population growth. More bodies consume more stuff... etc.. consider the housing market.

You say... why are you bringing up population growth? you just throw out a statement without really saying why it should be considered for anything

It is just a statement of fact. It relates to the posting I considered fresh in your mind.

I think I've said all I can on the tangential issues. The underlying premise to the Constitutional right to jobs remains, for me at least, obvious. It is based on the reasons to adopt the document in the first place. IMO. The mechanics of this are yet to be developed because they are yet to be recognized by those with the charter to develop them. To suggest it is impossible to achieve this utopic goal suggest to try is a wasted effort. The effort IS wasted if one assumes the status quo in a changed or changing enviornment. I not only see it as an inalienable right to the individual but also as a failure of the lawmaker and their economist to recognize where it is the nation ought to strive to go.

The situational aspects of our economy and its demographics etc. result from what is and has been. Is is impossible to assume they can change..?

 

[rjain]

LunarRay, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Are you actually advocating legislation that forces some people to pay for jobs they don't want done or jobs that can be done better and cheaper by others? We could adopt the Indian model of having all the "unemployed" people employed in made-up jobs instead of welfare, but that's open to abuse as well. Still, it could provide some people a taste of being rewarded for what they do and maybe they'll get greedy and start giving back to society. (Yes, I mean that exactly as I typed it.)

 

[JellyBaby]

Morphing employment from a voluntary contract between worker and employer into a mandatory obligation for an emplorer is a gross violation of the later's liberty. Or do the pro-"right" to a job folk believe it's government's obligation to create the actual positions to put people to work? If so, I have some questions:

- who assigns people to their jobs?
- how much is it going to cost taxpayers?
- what happens when with bad employees? If a job is a right you can't fire bad employees because you can't take a right away.
- what happens to private businesses who have to compete to survive and who must now compete ostensibly, with government?
- if a person is assigned their job by, what if they want a different one? Do they need permission from their Government Minder?
- is it a basal job only? May I seek a job in the private sector if I really want to?