- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,416
- 8,357
- 126
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.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
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.