Hey man as long as your parents are cool with itWhy work!!
I want to play video games, drink pop, and eat doritos!
And we have just the right amount of suckers to do the printing while everyone else sits back and complains about how "underwhelmed" they are with all the work everyone is doing.The government will take care of all of them. Why work at all? Those evil employers are never going to pay them enough anyway. Everyone should start in high school at $20 bucks an hour. Even better lets just distribute income for free! The money can just be printed after all.
The federal government spends so much money, and regulates so many businesses, that there is nothing left for a business owner. He's taxed, and regulated to hell and back.
Therefore his employees suffer. He has to get them as efficient as possible, to try and make a profit. He works them to the bone, but makes sure their hours are just under federal full-time regulations, so he doesn't have to insure them.
Fuck Government.
I don't want to work for you too.
-John
Fuck you from all the people who work at Walmart as the best they could find and fuck Walmart for having a business model that takes advantage of the numbers of those without work to profit their bottom line.
Alot. Everyone has been brain washed into thinking real work = for suckers...
Work is for suckers? That's one explanation for the decline of people in the work force.The share of US working-age adults who are in the labor force fell to the lowest level in 36 years, according to the monthly jobs report published Friday by the Labor Department.
While the economy added an estimated 248,000 jobs and the official unemployment rate fell from 6.1 to 5.9 percent, these headline figures hide a more fundamental reality. Six years after the financial collapse of 2008, the labor market remains stagnant and an increasing portion of the population has simply given up hope of ever finding work.
Hell, I don't really want a job either.
But I kind of need one to live the way I want to live, so I have one.
I do like the idea of a safety net that helps people who do have shitty luck in life. Plenty of life is reliant on luck, good or bad. I don't like the idea of giving everyone assistance for life if they just want to be lazy. You can be lazy if you choose. You're just not going to get a lot of money, and maybe you'll find yourself living in an unheated shack in the woods, or under a particularly comfortable bridge. Decisions have consequences.
Interesting times ahead though, with increasingly-capable automation available. Employers have shown that they don't want to hire people for manufacturing jobs. They want to have robots do the work. And the consumers have kept pursuing cheaper and cheaper options, which usually means a drive to cut costs, either by exploiting free trade stuff that seems designed to push labor offshore, or by using advanced automation.
I recently came across a video clip, I think it was posted in OT, of Mr Rogers showing a "how it's made" sort of thing on crayons. It must have been at least 20 years old. I was surprised by how slow the equipment was, and by how many people were in the factory. Watching How It's Made now, many of the factories making consumer goods have very few people, and thanks to vision systems and high-speed motion controllers, the equipment now moves faster than the TV cameras can adequately capture and it does in-process inspection.
I'm not sure that our society knows what to do with a bunch of well-educated people looking for jobs that'll be able to pay for the absurd cost of college.
US labor force participation rate hits lowest level since 1978
Work is for suckers? That's one explanation for the decline of people in the work force.
If the 1% can live off their investments; and the poor can live off of government programs; who does that leave?
And who is the government is targeting with their 'wealth redistribution' programs?
And they keep leaving the workforce?
Who'da thunk it?
Uno
Standard right wing bullshit. It's like getting a flight when all the airlines are booked & overbooked. It doesn't change the number of seats available.
I can't read this on my phone but my first question is how do they decide this? On a surface level it seems to me just a way for the government to keep unemployment numbers down.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/nov/12/study-skilled-worker-shortage-hurts-nevada/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...y-skills-gap-could-compromise-competitiveness
When you give so many incentives for people to stay put on government benefits this is what you get. Why move out of Chicago when you have subsidized rent, food stamps, welfare, etc.
Unemployment is a rolling 4 week period of persons without a job who have applied for a job. People really are applying less for jobs.
Get some skills and aim a little higher than Walmart and minimum wage.
If everybody did that, who would do those jobs? Would the reduced number of available workers for those jobs drive up wages, thereby attracting people back to those jobs? Another question is if the increased number of educated workers will depress the wages of the fields they are entering, or will those educated workers be forced into low paying jobs because there are no positions open for them.
We need these workers at the bottom, don't we? They are going to exist, no matter what, because the demand is there. If we need them don't you think they should be paid enough to not qualify for government benefits while working a 40 hour work week? The taxpayers are subsiding the wages of employees at places like WalMart. IOW, even though you don't want to pay them more at their job, you are paying them in government benefits. One way or the other, you are paying. Why not make the companies pay that extra money and fight for your business through pricing, competing against each other.
That's the way to reduce the welfare rolls and you can decide where to put your money.
And the difference between 5 people applying for 1 job and only 3 applying affects overall employment in what way, exactly? Do more applicants automagically create more jobs? Does U6 change when more people are actively seeking work that isn't there?
If everybody did that, who would do those jobs? Would the reduced number of available workers for those jobs drive up wages, thereby attracting people back to those jobs? Another question is if the increased number of educated workers will depress the wages of the fields they are entering, or will those educated workers be forced into low paying jobs because there are no positions open for them.
We need these workers at the bottom, don't we? They are going to exist, no matter what, because the demand is there. If we need them don't you think they should be paid enough to not qualify for government benefits while working a 40 hour work week? The taxpayers are subsiding the wages of employees at places like WalMart. IOW, even though you don't want to pay them more at their job, you are paying them in government benefits. One way or the other, you are paying. Why not make the companies pay that extra money and fight for your business through pricing, competing against each other.
That's the way to reduce the welfare rolls and you can decide where to put your money.
I think you are missing his point. Assume our economy has 100 jobs and 200 potential workers. If 106 people want to work at those 100 jobs, we have ~6% unemployment. If 200 people want to work, we still only have 100 jobs so we have 50% unemployment. Either way, we only have 100 people working. Increasing the workforce participation rate does not magically increase the number of jobs available, and thus does not increase employment.Its a percentage of the population who have applied for a job within the last 4 weeks. Doesn't matter if 6% of the population sent out 1 application each or 100 each.
If everybody did that, who would do those jobs? Would the reduced number of available workers for those jobs drive up wages, thereby attracting people back to those jobs?
want higher wages at the bottom? Stop allowing unlimited illegal immigration. Create a worker shortage.
If everybody did that, who would do those jobs? Would the reduced number of available workers for those jobs drive up wages, thereby attracting people back to those jobs? Another question is if the increased number of educated workers will depress the wages of the fields they are entering, or will those educated workers be forced into low paying jobs because there are no positions open for them.
We need these workers at the bottom, don't we? They are going to exist, no matter what, because the demand is there. If we need them don't you think they should be paid enough to not qualify for government benefits while working a 40 hour work week? The taxpayers are subsiding the wages of employees at places like WalMart. IOW, even though you don't want to pay them more at their job, you are paying them in government benefits. One way or the other, you are paying. Why not make the companies pay that extra money and fight for your business through pricing, competing against each other.
That's the way to reduce the welfare rolls and you can decide where to put your money.