Job Hyperinsecurity: The REAL Ticking Time Bomb

[lukeiamyourdad]

And it could be economical suicide. I believe Thatcher tried that with England and it didn't work. Lowering the minimum wage is not an end in itself and it's quite foolish to believe that worker attitude can be so simplified. After all, one of the idea that lowering or abolishing minimum wage was almost totally nuked after the Great Depression.

Only Von Hayek and other neo-liberals still believe in it.

[Samnmax221]

It's a common conception that legalizing illicit substances is helpful (most turn to the prohibition of alcohol to support that argument), but the negative side effects are often ignored.

 

Such effects are quite harmful on a country's youth. Nothing sends the wrong message about an illegal substance than making it acceptable. I don't know about you, but I find the image of normal people being able to buy marijuana or crack at the local drug store and have sex for a few bucks on their way back home repulsive. Yes, making those things legal would be the easier route - but the right thing usually isn't.

Sure is a good thing we all appointed you as our moral adviser, I just don't know what I'd do without your tyran... sage advice. You nor anyone else has a right to tell anybody what they can and can't put into their own body, or what type of activity they may pursue with any other consenting adult. If somebody else is hurt directly by their actions then theres something to go after them for, otherwise mind your own business.

 

Work isn't always the issue - cost is one as well. If you have two workers that are about as efficient as each other but one is willing to work for less dollars an hour, you'd obviously hire the cheaper one.

No, you're going to hire the worker who has the best balance of skill and asking wage.

 

Of course, that's the materialistic rather than the ethical side of the issue. It's not very fair to the more expensive worker if he's out of a job when the cheaper one shouldn't even have been here in the first place. Economic reasons should be put aside for moral ones

Its perfectly fair if the more expensive laborer is asking too much, there are people who seem to think they deserve $20 an hour for cleaning toilets, as long as they live with that delusion they're going to be out of a job.

 

 

 

And what of the people they're affecting? It's bad for the countries they're leaving to lose workers, (about 1/3rd of El Salvador's populace lives outside its borders) bad for the ones in the U.S. who lose their jobs, only encourages crime alongside the border, can possibly harm the ones who are trying to come in, violates the law, does nothing to help relations with the countries involved, and quite a few of them will still lead rotten lives. Such a thing is plain egotism.

If people don't want to stick around a poor, overcrowded Country like El Salvador I can't blame them. If the El Salvador can't entice its citizens to stay then its their problem. Besides if they're allowed into the Country then theres obviously no need to smuggle them in, eliminating the Coyote problem.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

America has a progressive tax system (the more money you make, the more % of your money get taxed). The rich pay much more tax proportionally than a poor person. I admit, the tax system is a bit mild compared to other progressive tax systems, especially in Europe. But it is because of this progressive tax system, this is why people are arguing for tax cuts for the rich...since they see it as unfair that the rich pay more than the poor.

Middle class citizens do most of the work in this country though, why shouldn't they pay less taxes? You're also neglecting the fact that in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, in France, a large fraction of the upper class also do no work whatsoever. Many have just inherited a large sum of money and do what I consider to be nothing for their entire lives.

 

In addition to heavier taxes on the rich, I also think that corporations should pay 50% of all tax revenue, just like they did before Reagan got into office.

 

More taxes from people who can afford it->social programs->better economy->better quality of life->better <whatever>

[SilentScope001]

Middle class citizens do most of the work in this country though, why shouldn't they pay less taxes? You're also neglecting the fact that in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, in France, a large fraction of the upper class also do no work whatsoever. Many have just inherited a large sum of money and do what I consider to be nothing for their entire lives.

 

In addition to heavier taxes on the rich, I also think that corporations should pay 50% of all tax revenue, just like they did before Reagan got into office.

 

More taxes from people who can afford it->social programs->better economy->better quality of life->better <whatever>

 

Higher taxes will have better social programs, but most likely not a better economy. Taxes TAKE money out of the economy, to allow for the government to use it. That money that the "shiftless" rich don't earn, they do spend, which boosts the economy. The money that is spent then get given to other people, and so on and so forth. Lower taxes mean that more money is not being taken by the government, and that boosts economy. (Yes, you could say the government's spending could also boost the economy, but it is the government that decides how that money be spent...and not, well, you and I.)

 

With that in mind, social programs are nice, but I think, well, if I was a rich person, I would object to higher taxes on me. My loyalty are not to the state, but to...me. I know that higher tax can help out some social programs, but...er...so what? I'm rich, can't I buy the social programs myself, for me?

 

So if I don't need to pay higher taxes for the social programs I can easily afford, then WHERE the social programs are going to? Quite simply, the poor. Now, you can say that's a good thing, but...er...it's basically state-sponsored charity. I would love to help the poor out, but you know...the poor always need help, and their life is miserable. Sometimes, it seem like a lost cause. Not to mention some people's fear that social programs are just wasteful bureacracy and doesn't solve anything.

 

Of course, a rich person has to pay taxes...The Rich person is paying for the tanks to defend his nation (and by extension, his life), the roads by which he drives on (and by extension, his profits), and the national security that provides him a good chance that his airplane won't be hijacked by terrorists. But, well, there has to be a fine line between the rich paying for stuff he needs and the rich paying...for, well everything. Otherwise, the rich will pack their stuff and move over to a nation that won't tax him that much, relying on that tiny little nation's air force to protect his property. The risk of that small nation getting smashed into tiny little pieces is worth the certianity of having his money routinely plundered. If all the rich leaves the US, the US' economy suffers, as nobody is consuming or putting up the capital to produce. Meanwhile, the tiny little nation's GPD is rising through the roof.

 

I can understand your point, but I do want you to understand the opposition to your point.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Higher taxes will have better social programs, but most likely not a better economy. Taxes TAKE money out of the economy, to allow for the government to use it. That money that the "shiftless" rich don't earn, they do spend, which boosts the economy. The money that is spent then get given to other people, and so on and so forth. Lower taxes mean that more money is not being taken by the government, and that boosts economy. (Yes, you could say the government's spending could also boost the economy, but it is the government that decides how that money be spent...and not, well, you and I.)

 

With that in mind, social programs are nice, but I think, well, if I was a rich person, I would object to higher taxes on me. My loyalty are not to the state, but to...me. I know that higher tax can help out some social programs, but...er...so what? I'm rich, can't I buy the social programs myself, for me?

 

So if I don't need to pay higher taxes for the social programs I can easily afford, then WHERE the social programs are going to? Quite simply, the poor. Now, you can say that's a good thing, but...er...it's basically state-sponsored charity. I would love to help the poor out, but you know...the poor always need help, and their life is miserable. Sometimes, it seem like a lost cause. Not to mention some people's fear that social programs are just wasteful bureacracy and doesn't solve anything.

 

Of course, a rich person has to pay taxes...The Rich person is paying for the tanks to defend his nation (and by extension, his life), the roads by which he drives on (and by extension, his profits), and the national security that provides him a good chance that his airplane won't be hijacked by terrorists. But, well, there has to be a fine line between the rich paying for stuff he needs and the rich paying...for, well everything. Otherwise, the rich will pack their stuff and move over to a nation that won't tax him that much, relying on that tiny little nation's air force to protect his property. The risk of that small nation getting smashed into tiny little pieces is worth the certianity of having his money routinely plundered. If all the rich leaves the US, the US' economy suffers, as nobody is consuming or putting up the capital to produce. Meanwhile, the tiny little nation's GPD is rising through the roof.

 

I can understand your point, but I do want you to understand the opposition to your point.

I understand the opposition to my point perfectly. However, when roughly 40% of the wealth in the U.S. is in the hands of the richest 0.1% of the people, there's something wrong, and the balance you described is non-existent.

[Killwithhonor]

I have to add another suggestion

 

Cut out uneeded tax breaks on the wealthy, they say that the rich get richer and richer! Its true, while they are sitting there just building and building while their networth goes up because they just got, yet another tax break from the government, (no offense to anyone) Us schmoe people here who are for the most part hard working citizens are down here saying, "Wheres my tax break!", The philosophy for this is that if the rich people get richer it'll "trickle" down somehow to us. This would atleast give us some leeway between bills and paychecks so we don't have to be working 60 hours a week and 2 jobs. Feel free to critisize on it.

[SilentScope001]

Wait. I just realize something...

 

The capitalist system needs Job Hyperinsecurity.

 

Why? Well, we need effiecnt workers. We can't let EVERYONE have a job, because what if we have an incompenent worker who has a job? And not just that, but an incompement worker who is paid too much money? Job security means that the economy is stuck with stupid, over-paid, over-rich workers. This is good for the workers, but it is bad for all businesses, big and small, and is bad on the economy, since they are unable to produce a lot of goods. In the end, it harms the worker, as he has a job and money, but there is little he can purchase, since there is not much goods. The Gross Domestic Product of a nation drops...

 

This is why we need job hyperinsecurity, so that the Employers can fire people and hire cheaper workers who can do the same job effectively...or better yet, not hire any more people and save the money to invest it in the actual product itself. It saves cash, and it helps the economy grow, as more goods are being produced for less money.

 

Another flaw in the "Raise taxes" argument: If the rich people pay more money in taxes, he cannot use it to help his business. He needs to cut costs then. Hm...looks like he needs to fire some people to stay in business. Oops.

 

EDIT: Yes, I am a worker. Yes, I know I can get fired, and that I have a bad feeling that I could scamper between jobs, looking for a place to work, and hoping that I can surivie day-to-day life. But someone has to defend Big Business.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, welcome to the Real World of job hyperinsecurity--I just got a call from my boss (who didn't have the guts to talk to me face to face) who informed me he's eliminating my position in favor of someone who will be willing to just get paid by the exam rather than on salary. I put 5 years into the organization and built up a clientele in spite of his inability to run the business side of things well, but that doesn't count for anything, I guess.

[Samuel Dravis]

Sorry to hear that, Jae.

[JediMaster12]

So you have been demoted/fired and you have a service that shows experience. That is just plain wrong.

[JasraLantill]

Oh, Jae, that's just horrible! Especially when your boss doesn't have the bottle to tell you face to face. (What a coward!) I do hope that he's giving you adequate notice, or at the very least, some redundancy pay. :s

 

Unfortunately, the employment laws in the States do tend to favour the employers rather than the employees. Your situation would never happen here in the UK, or at least if it did you would be entitled to a minimum of 5 weeks notice (one week for every year that you've been with the company), 5 weeks redundancy pay (based on your salary), and you would still have the option to take your employer to an "employment tribunal" (paid for by the government) on the basis of constructive dismissal. Tribunal cases can net you approximately 2 years worth of your current salary, plus damages (which in some cases I've seen runs upwards of £50k), all of which would be claimed back from the company by the government. And the employment office would assist you in finding another position, not to mention that you would qualify immediately for Job Seekers Allowance and possibly other benefits, (and the company in question would be investigated and fined for any other employment law transgressions they may have made.)

 

Is there any legal recourse you can take?

[Jae Onasi]

Three weeks' notice.

Then I can claim unemployment, tho that's not much.

 

I could take him to EEOC court since he's firing me for no good reason in order to hire in a man.

 

I have an interview with Walmart tomorrow (no sense in waiting around in the job hunt), though it would mean driving to north of Milwaukee 3 days a week which would be bad for travel. However, I might end up making more money, which will be good until I can open my own practice, which I've wanted to do for a long time now but haven't been able to til we got more settled financially. They're also building a walmart in my town and it should open sometime next year, so I might be able to transfer and be closer if I take that job.

 

I'm also going to apply for some VA (Veterans' Admin) positions. They're scattered across the country, but I'd be working with the Feds and would have no nights/weekends, and one of them involves teaching and working with the visually impaired, which is right up my alley.

 

Sigh....

[JasraLantill]

Three weeks' notice.

Then I can claim unemployment, tho that's not much.

 

I could take him to EEOC court since he's firing me for no good reason in order to hire in a man.

Oh, you would score very well with that over here! And here, you could just walk out the door today, and they would still have to pay you for the notice period, plus the redundancy pay. (Which in your case would be 10 weeks wages.)

 

I'd take him to the EEOC though, if for no other reason than for the principal of the matter. Good luck with however you intend to proceed. And I hope you get something in compensation out of it.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Wait. I just realize something...

 

The capitalist system needs Job Hyperinsecurity.

I don't see the problem with a little socialism here and there.

 

Another flaw in the "Raise taxes" argument: If the rich people pay more money in taxes, he cannot use it to help his business. He needs to cut costs then. Hm...looks like he needs to fire some people to stay in business. Oops.

Not if that money goes back to the tax-payers in the form of socialized medicine or something of that sort. A prime example of this is the large number of American car companies manufacturing cars in Canada to avoid having to pay for their employees' health care.

[SilentScope001]

I don't see the problem with a little socialism here and there.

 

Well, capitalism does.

 

America is a Mixed-Market economy, with some socialist elements thanks to the Progressive Movement (this is why Americans have a Progressive Tax System, you know). I merely state that there are costs, which you seem to...well, not discuss. There is costs associated with everything, you know. Nothing will cure all the world's problems.

 

Not if that money goes back to the tax-payers in the form of socialized medicine or something of that sort. A prime example of this is the large number of American car companies manufacturing cars in Canada to avoid having to pay for their employees' health care.

 

...I'm talking the rich CEO here. If he's rich, he can afford his own socialized medicine and doesn't need to pay taxes to let others have the ability to heal themselves.

 

And, true, I could see American car companies relocate to Canada, to avoid the employee's health care costs, but if I recall correctly, I don't see their "bases" and Corporate HQs relocate to Canada, instead, just remaining here and registering over here. Hm...maybe it's due to the fact that they don't want to pay the taxes of Canada, and is basically lecching off the system?

 

EDIT: Sorry Jae about your job loss. I wish you great luck in the ensuring lawsuit.

[JediMaster12]

Three weeks' notice.

Then I can claim unemployment, tho that's not much.

 

I could take him to EEOC court since he's firing me for no good reason in order to hire in a man.

Wrongful termination. That's a good route but you might want to think about possible court costs too. That is usually the sticking point.

 

I have an interview with Walmart tomorrow (no sense in waiting around in the job hunt), though it would mean driving to north of Milwaukee 3 days a week which would be bad for travel. However, I might end up making more money, which will be good until I can open my own practice, which I've wanted to do for a long time now but haven't been able to til we got more settled financially. They're also building a walmart in my town and it should open sometime next year, so I might be able to transfer and be closer if I take that job.

Good Job Jae. Glad that you have that dream. Keep a stiff upper lip/

 

I'm also going to apply for some VA (Veterans' Admin) positions. They're scattered across the country, but I'd be working with the Feds and would have no nights/weekends, and one of them involves teaching and working with the visually impaired, which is right up my alley.

 

Sigh....

Work for the govt. That would work

[CSI]

Wrongful termination. That's a good route but you might want to think about possible court costs too. That is usually the sticking point.

 

Work for the govt. That would work

 

The only drawback is people will hate you.

[Jae Onasi]

The only drawback is people will hate you.

 

a. While I don't go out of my way to get people to hate me, I honestly don't care if most people decide for whatever reason that they don't like me. That's their problem.

 

b. Breaking the law is wrong and needs to be dealt with.

[JediMaster12]

While the guy Jae brings to court may not like her, Jae would be perfectly within her rights to do so. As long as there is proper documentation of her duties and the circumstances leading up to the termination, the ball should be in her court. Wrongful termination can be something that becomes nasty especially if you involve orgs like OSHA and the like.

 

As for me, I am trying to get employed in a position related to my field. If that blows over I can work in criminal justice for awhile.

[SilentScope001]

The only drawback is people will hate you.

 

If the CEO liked Jae, he wouldn't have fired her in the first place. Since it is obivous he fired her, it shows that the CEO hates Jae, and so, well...time to go to Court.

[Emperor Devon]

You nor anyone else has a right to tell anybody what they can and can't put into their own body, {snip} If somebody else is hurt directly by their actions then theres something to go after them for,

 

Precisely.

 

There are very few people I can think that would have absolutely no effect upon others, (emotionally or financially) the economy, or society as a whole. If we're talking about jobless drifters who don't pay taxes, that argument might have some merit... But such people are quite in the minority. The death of one person usually will have some effect upon others.

 

No, you're going to hire the worker who has the best balance of skill and asking wage.

 

Which in this instance would be the equally skilled one who asks for lower wages.

 

But as I've explained before and probably will later, the economic benefits of a worker are far from the reason they ought to be hired. But I won't bother repeating myself...

 

Its perfectly fair if the more expensive laborer is asking too much,

 

Depends what you mean by that. In this instance, I think it's more than fair if the worker can make a living off a sum that won't hurt his employer.

 

If people don't want to stick around a poor, overcrowded Country like El Salvador I can't blame them.

 

And at the cost of keeping El Salvador a poor and overcrowded country. Certainly hard to change that if the people abandon it.

 

if they're allowed into the Country then theres obviously no need to smuggle them in,

 

There would be no need to smuggle them in, but then you're opening up a whole new line of problems. Why do we bother checking immigrants in the first place? To keep out the worst of them, for starters. If you simply open up the borders and let immigrants come and go, you're doing nothing but providing asylum to the undesirables in Mexico. Allowing escaped convicts, unconvicted criminals, pimps, prostitutes, unemployed drifters and all the other kinds of generally disregarded people into the U.S. is far worse than making them go the effort of smuggling themselves in. Besides, if they were going to be good citizens they'd stomach the wait anyway. Worse yet, how does the government collect taxes from people it doesn't know lives on its land? The idea is implausible.

[Samnmax221]

Precisely.

 

There are very few people I can think that would have absolutely no effect upon others, (emotionally or financially) the economy, or society as a whole. If we're talking about jobless drifters who don't pay taxes, that argument might have some merit... But such people are quite in the minority. The death of one person usually will have some effect upon others.

You've missed the point yet again. Its none of your business what other people do with their own lives.

Which in this instance would be the equally skilled one who asks for lower wages.

If they're equally skilled and willing to work for lower wages then hiring them is only logical, can't be expected to just keep people around to be nice.

But as I've explained before and probably will later, the economic benefits of a worker are far from the reason they ought to be hired. But I won't bother repeating myself...

Too late, you just did.

 

Depends what you mean by that. In this instance, I think it's more than fair if the worker can make a living off a sum that won't hurt his employer.

The employee doesn't have to work for somebody if they're not providing enough to live on, they can go work elsewhere.

 

And at the cost of keeping El Salvador a poor and overcrowded country. Certainly hard to change that if the people abandon it.

El Salvador's problems come from bad policies past and present, and a bad history. If the citizens want out its a clear sign that its not working for them, they shouldn't be forced to stay "for the good of the country", which in turn is a rather nationalistic position and downright dangerous. Should the US get really bad I'd be out of here right away, I'm certainly not sticking around.

 

 

There would be no need to smuggle them in, but then you're opening up a whole new line of problems. Why do we bother checking immigrants in the first place? To keep out the worst of them, for starters. If you simply open up the borders and let immigrants come and go, you're doing nothing but providing asylum to the undesirables in Mexico. Allowing escaped convicts, unconvicted criminals, pimps, prostitutes, unemployed drifters and all the other kinds of generally disregarded people into the U.S. is far worse than making them go the effort of smuggling themselves in. Besides, if they were going to be good citizens they'd stomach the wait anyway. Worse yet, how does the government collect taxes from people it doesn't know lives on its land? The idea is implausible.

Christ, you sound like Bill O'Rielly. I didn't say not to register them, I simply said greatly expand the citizenship program with less restrictions and major reforms.