The job conundrum.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2013, 11:15 AM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 07:54 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  So the state invested stolen money in you after you risked your life and the lives of others by doing the bidding of men in suits. They didn't do you any favor. It was a voluntary financial transaction in which you agreed to do a job and they agreed to a compensation package. The only economic difference between that and any other capitalistic exchange is that the money they paid you was extracted from others through the threat of violence.

Actually we contributed our own money to help fund this particular GI Bill, and the state retraining program was probably funded from our state sales tax and federal dollars, so I wouldn't call it "stolen", unless you believe taxes equate to theft, in which case I can't help you there.

Quote:That's your opinion. The next time you hire a plumber or eat at a small restaurant, be sure and let the owners know what you think about them. Again, you've had a few bad jobs in your life and now that means all employers are greedy trolls hell bent on destroying your life. Has it ever occurred to you that you get what you give?

I gave pretty well, even though in one case the owners had lots of toys and the place tended to be a revolving door because of their capricious ways of dealing with us. At the other outfit, one of the partners apparently alienated customers while living high off of the hog, and by the time I got there the other partner had to have him leave because of this - but it turned out to be too late for the business, as they were in too much debt to survive. I even worked for free for awhile to try and turn it around, but I couldn't sustain the loss of income for long and I had to depart. But I was soon able to get two jobs at my college, so there again the state came to my rescue.

However, I must say I appreciate a good small business. My folks ran one for almost 30 years until it burned down (and we managed to scrape by on my uncle's social security checks despite the fact that the insurance company took their sweet time paying up), and I shop at small businesses that have treated me well because I like building a relationship with a good outfit. For example, a local stereo store and exercise chain have been quite helpful to me over the last couple of years, so I prefer to shop with them vs. the big box stores.

Quote:Who from any corporation you've ever worked for has ever pointed a gun at your neck and taken money from you? Who from any corporation has ever pointed a gun at your neck and forced you to buy their product? You choose to work for a company by voluntary agreement. You are always free to leave their employ and you are always free to seek better employment. Likewise, you are always free to choose between all the products on the shelf or to simply choose none. You do not have that choice with the state.

Did you get the memo about the lousy state of the economy in the past five years? There hasn't been a lot of jobs available, especially for middle-aged workers, so most of us were left clinging desperately to whatever jobs we already had in order to avoid bankruptcy. Even good employers curtailed annual raises, froze pension plans, reduced or eliminated training classes, and cut benefits. I shudder to think about how negative places treated their employees. In this case, we have a virtual gun pointed at our heads because we have bills to pay, our retirement plans don't go with us, and neither do our health benefits - unless you count COBRA, which is prohibitivly expensive, and rolling over 401(k) plans, which is a hassle. And the two times I was able to collect unemployment benefits were a lifesaver, even though the money was below what I was making when employed, so that sort of thing is definitely helpful, and should be extended as needed.

Quote:As for benefits, I'm against none of them, so long as they're voluntarily offered to the employee and voluntarily accepted by the employee. Personally, I don't want an employer to pay for all my shit. I want my money and I want to shop providers for all my insurance, pension and other needs. Of course, I understand and respect that a lot of people don't want to bother with those choices and I think that's a perfectly valid mode of operation for them. As long as no one is pointing guns at other people in order to make it happen, I support it.

How can retirement and health benefits be considered "voluntary"? People need them to live a decent life in any society at any age. I don't claim to have the expertise to manage investments - that's what pensions were supposed to do (I do OK with my retirement plan, but the whole 401(k) system was never originally designed for the average worker - it was set up for CEO-types so they could have a tool for their type of compensation). Also, I don't want to shop for a profit-seeking doctor that has to sword-fight with insurance companies - I want one that can focus on treating me as a person and a patient instead of rushing me out the door for the next patsy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2013, 09:42 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(04-05-2013 11:15 AM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  Actually we contributed our own money to help fund this particular GI Bill, and the state retraining program was probably funded from our state sales tax and federal dollars, so I wouldn't call it "stolen", unless you believe taxes equate to theft, in which case I can't help you there.

Taxation is the forcible extraction of money from an individual to the state. When the mob does it, they call it extortion. When you or I do it, they call it armed robbery. Yes... it's theft. If it were voluntary, there would be no need for the guns and threats of violence.

Quote:I gave pretty well, even though in one case the owners had lots of toys and the place tended to be a revolving door because of their capricious ways of dealing with us. At the other outfit, one of the partners apparently alienated customers while living high off of the hog, and by the time I got there the other partner had to have him leave because of this - but it turned out to be too late for the business, as they were in too much debt to survive. I even worked for free for awhile to try and turn it around, but I couldn't sustain the loss of income for long and I had to depart. But I was soon able to get two jobs at my college, so there again the state came to my rescue.

Have you ever considered how many jobs could have been created with the money that the state spends on the bureaucracies that administer higher education? It's called opportunity costs and it is a very difficult thing to calculate. But in any event, it's safe to presume that your government job cost three private sector jobs. Or more.

Quote:However, I must say I appreciate a good small business. My folks ran one for almost 30 years until it burned down (and we managed to scrape by on my uncle's social security checks despite the fact that the insurance company took their sweet time paying up), and I shop at small businesses that have treated me well because I like building a relationship with a good outfit. For example, a local stereo store and exercise chain have been quite helpful to me over the last couple of years, so I prefer to shop with them vs. the big box stores.

I'm sorry to hear that your family lost a business. I've lost a business before and it's truly difficult to get past. In hindsight, I see a lot of things that I should have done that would have allowed me to continue on through the hardships that took me out. And I understand that it's my own fault that I did not prepare for those things.

Quote:Did you get the memo about the lousy state of the economy in the past five years? There hasn't been a lot of jobs available, especially for middle-aged workers, so most of us were left clinging desperately to whatever jobs we already had in order to avoid bankruptcy. Even good employers curtailed annual raises, froze pension plans, reduced or eliminated training classes, and cut benefits. I shudder to think about how negative places treated their employees. In this case, we have a virtual gun pointed at our heads because we have bills to pay, our retirement plans don't go with us, and neither do our health benefits - unless you count COBRA, which is prohibitivly expensive, and rolling over 401(k) plans, which is a hassle. And the two times I was able to collect unemployment benefits were a lifesaver, even though the money was below what I was making when employed, so that sort of thing is definitely helpful, and should be extended as needed.

The state of the economy has nothing to do with the voluntary nature of employment. You are always free to seek better employment or simply quit a job. That can't be said for your relationship to the state.

Quote:How can retirement and health benefits be considered "voluntary"? People need them to live a decent life in any society at any age.

If they're so important, then why do so many people not prepare for them? You have myriad choices in life with regard to retirement... you can start planning for it at a young age, you can defer planning until later in life or you can simply ignore it. It's really an economic choice in that some people prefer to defer gratification and save for their futures and other people choose to spend money when they're young on things they enjoy rather than worrying about the future. Economically speaking, neither is a bad choice. After all, what is freedom if not the freedom to do as one pleases?

However, the person who chooses to forestall retirement planning in lieu of immediate gratification should be prepared to accept responsibility for his or her decisions in the future. It is not just that the person who bought future security at the cost of young fun should be forced to pay for the person who spent his security on young fun.

Likewise with health care. Every human being will age and every human being will die. We've known this for a pretty good while now, so there's really no excuse for not preparing for health emergencies just like there's no excuse for not preparing for retirement. This whole notion that health care is a right is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

Essentially, those who claim health care to be a right are saying that they own the labor of certain other human beings. After all, how can one obtain health care if not by availing himself of the education and labor of another?

And if health care is a right then why not food? If we don't eat we certainly can't benefit from surgery or hard on pills, so why not make food a right?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
07-05-2013, 08:15 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(03-05-2013 08:24 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 11:29 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This. Except the government manipulation of money bit considering government is what is keeping that inflation at 0.5 or 1 or 1.5% rather then 20% this year, 5% that year -2% the year after etc..

Do you ever wonder why when fiat currency loses value, gold and other commodity metals retain theirs or, even go up in value? They do so because they are in a finite supply. When currency is tied to finite resources, it too retains its value. It is only when governments unhinge the money supply from tangible assets and flood the market with currency that inflation happens and, it's a simple supply and demand calculation.

When there are more widgets than widget buyers, the price falls. When there is more currency than there is real wealth to back it, the price of money falls.

And when the state tinkers with interest rates in an attempt to hold off inflation, the market becomes distorted, malinvestment occurs and you either see a recession or a boom... or the makings of the next one.

There will always be market fluctuations, but the boom/bust cycle is purely caused by fiat currency and nation states attempting to control its value.

Look back at the market fluctuations of nineteenth century America up until 1913, when the federal reserve bank was formed and then look at the booms and busts that have occurred in the last 100 years.

You'll find small boom and recessions, the latter lasting for maybe a year in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth, well... we have depressions now.

I know this would be considered "old" now but I'm procasstinating doing assignments so anything, even telling you how your ideas on inflation are hugely wrong, seem like an amusement park right now.

Inflation is very simple. The more you have of something, anything, the less its value.
Your idea that inflation would never occur if money was still tied to finite resources is based on what? ignorance?
Back in the day when the Spanish first explored South America they discovered (and by discovered I mean stole from the locals) a shit ton of gold (to say the least). They shipped this gold back to Spain who assumed it would make them rich.
It didn't.
In fact it almost, if not, destroyed their economy because there was so much gold that inflation, the value of gold, plummeted.
They had no concept of inflation back then, but they got a rude awakening real fast.

When countries around the 30's left the gold standard average income increased.

It doesn't matter what it is, gold, oil, money. The more you have, the less its value (basic principle. Of course demand then effects this.).

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2013, 10:54 PM
RE: The job conundrum.
(07-05-2013 08:15 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(03-05-2013 08:24 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Do you ever wonder why when fiat currency loses value, gold and other commodity metals retain theirs or, even go up in value? They do so because they are in a finite supply. When currency is tied to finite resources, it too retains its value. It is only when governments unhinge the money supply from tangible assets and flood the market with currency that inflation happens and, it's a simple supply and demand calculation.

When there are more widgets than widget buyers, the price falls. When there is more currency than there is real wealth to back it, the price of money falls.

And when the state tinkers with interest rates in an attempt to hold off inflation, the market becomes distorted, malinvestment occurs and you either see a recession or a boom... or the makings of the next one.

There will always be market fluctuations, but the boom/bust cycle is purely caused by fiat currency and nation states attempting to control its value.

Look back at the market fluctuations of nineteenth century America up until 1913, when the federal reserve bank was formed and then look at the booms and busts that have occurred in the last 100 years.

You'll find small boom and recessions, the latter lasting for maybe a year in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth, well... we have depressions now.

I know this would be considered "old" now but I'm procasstinating doing assignments so anything, even telling you how your ideas on inflation are hugely wrong, seem like an amusement park right now.

Inflation is very simple. The more you have of something, anything, the less its value.
Your idea that inflation would never occur if money was still tied to finite resources is based on what? ignorance?
Back in the day when the Spanish first explored South America they discovered (and by discovered I mean stole from the locals) a shit ton of gold (to say the least). They shipped this gold back to Spain who assumed it would make them rich.
It didn't.
In fact it almost, if not, destroyed their economy because there was so much gold that inflation, the value of gold, plummeted.
They had no concept of inflation back then, but they got a rude awakening real fast.

When countries around the 30's left the gold standard average income increased.

It doesn't matter what it is, gold, oil, money. The more you have, the less its value (basic principle. Of course demand then effects this.).

Think about what you just said.

Of course an influx of a commodity drove the price down.

I never said that commodity based currencies don't adhere to the law of supply and demand. I said that the separation of currency and commodity is destructive.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: