PDA

View Full Version : Job Hyperinsecurity: The REAL Ticking Time Bomb


Tysyacha
02-20-2007, 12:18 AM
I'd like to start off with one thing I know for a fact: Nothing's guaranteed
in life except for death and taxes. Let's take that as a given. If this is
true, then no one's job is permanently secure.

However, it gives me chills to ponder what I think is the real ticking
time bomb in America: job HYPER-insecurity. Not only are U.S. citizens
worried about losing their jobs due to illness or inability to work due
to injury, but now they're also worried that their jobs could be
outsourced to China, India, Mexico, or any other country where
companies can hire the most workers for the least amount of money
possible. "You can be replaced" is the new motto in the U.S. workplace.
No wonder we're so stressed out and have trouble getting good sleep.

Or maybe that motto is not so new. I don't know. What I do know
is that everyone in the world needs some sort of way to pay for food,
clothing, and shelter. Warmth, too, in colder and temperate climates.

In America, we pay for those things through currency, and to get
currency, we (ideally) have jobs. If we lose our jobs, there is no
solid guarantee that we'll find a new one right away. Thus, if we
have no jobs, then where will we get the money to meet our needs?

Welfare is the answer for some, but the U.S. government is getting
ready to tighten the restrictions on Medicare and Medicaid. Also,
President Bush wants to save American dollars by cutting these
social programs by a very significant amount. These days, even
"getting on the dole" is not much of a "safety net" for people.

So, what can we do to cure our "hyper-insecurity" about our jobs?
I propose three ideas (I won't presume to call them 'solutions'):

1. Stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Note: I said ILLEGAL.
2. Cut corporate tax breaks, not Medicare and Medicaid, to save $$$.
3. Encourage innovative and level-headed people to reform politics!

*steps down from her soapbox*

JediMaster12
02-20-2007, 02:37 PM
While you propose a good strategy, I'd hate to be the one that busts the balloon.

1. Stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Note: I said ILLEGAL.
While you did say illegal, the companies could deny that they knew nothing of their status. Of course this could be construed as bull seeing that it is law to produce a green card, some official form of documentation. The fake IDs that may be tougher to catch seeing if you have a REALLY good person to do that.

2. Cut corporate tax breaks, not Medicare and Medicaid, to save $$$.
Dare to dream Tys. In reality what has ended up running the lobbyists are the big corporations. I'd hate to point out the decades following the Civil War and the Roaring 20's. Still this is good cry for justice so to speak since it always seems the big man is trodding upon the little man.

3. Encourage innovative and level-headed people to reform politics!
Again dare to dream. Obviously the only way to get elected is that you have money. The joke in my family is that you have to be an actor. My mom remembers Reagan and in response to the Governator. We could put people that are honest and ideal up there but even the big boys in Washington will tell you that you have to be a killer to get ahead. Often that comes through making deals and the like. Seriously our political system is a reflection of how our monetary system rules us. The haves make the rules whiile the have nots have to sit and flounder.

Emperor Devon
02-20-2007, 03:26 PM
1. Stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Note: I said ILLEGAL.

Ah, but here we go into the old problem of moral interests versus economic interests.

While personally I agree companies shouldn't hire illegal immigrants, few of them share my sentiments. The fact is, illegals are economic. They are often at a poor financial status upon arriving, and and are denied many jobs that legal immigrants could have. They're hardly at a position to bargain what jobs to take, or what wages they will receive. Whether it's by their intent or not, they are cheaper workers. Thus the 'whip and the carrot' philosophy comes into play - metaphorically, they are being whipped quite hard. They often take incredibly menial jobs no one else wants (strawberry picking), and often have some of the lowest standards of living in the U.S. Since the government cannot help them in this instance, they have a much greater incentive to work hard - not only for the regular reasons you and I do, but because they have little way out of their current situations.

Take cheap workers, a greater incentive to work, heavy reliance on their employers, and you have for yourself the perfect employee. Not something companies want to give up easily. But that's capitalism for ya. :)

2. Cut corporate tax breaks, not Medicare and Medicaid, to save $$$.

Pulling out of Iraq could save us far more dollars... but that's a separate topic. :)

Cutting down corporate power before their tax breaks is more important IMO. It's good business for them, for instance, if we completely rely on a finite source of fuel - and they have more than enough power to push around the companies that want to change that.

3. Encourage innovative and level-headed people to reform politics!

I would hope.

The problem is that our current political system is not very receptive to reformation or the people who want to reform it. Propose a bill for national health care, and the populace will starting shouting "COMMIE!1!!1!11"

All the ethical choices aren't the most economical ones, plainly. Alternative fuels hurt oil corporations. Having Americans eat healthy bashes the fast food industry. Allowing abortion generates controversy... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Level-headed people alone can't do everything. The general populace has to do something as well.

JediMaster12
02-20-2007, 03:33 PM
The problem is that our current political system is not very receptive to reformation or the people who want to reform it. Propose a bill for national health care, and the populace will starting shouting "COMMIE!1!!1!11"
Or as my grandpa would say: Leftie Commie Pinko People.
Sad but true. It behooves me to say that we still live in the remnants of the McCarthy era were you were labeled a Commie just for saying that the fed govt was infringing upon your rights. Whose the commie now?

Level-headed people alone can't do everything. The general populace has to do something as well.
So you think factions would do it? Often to work it requires a group of people with a common set of goals.

Emperor Devon
02-20-2007, 04:52 PM
So you think factions would do it? Often to work it requires a group of people with a common set of goals.

Factions aren't a good thing, despite what some of our founding fathers may say.

But better one group that believes in what's right and one that doesn't instead of one entirely of the later.

SilentScope001
02-20-2007, 05:17 PM
1. Stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Note: I said ILLEGAL.

But why are they declared illegal? Simple, because the quotas for having legal Mexicans here are too low. Since one cannot legally immigrate into Mexico until they fill out tons of paperwork and wait lots of years for the quotas to open up...one has to go illegally from Mexico to get a job.

Surely, all we can do is increase the quotas, and volia, more legal immigrants, less illegal immigrants. But that kinda defeats the purpose of having the quotas...which is to decrease the amount of immigrants coming into America to take our jobs :p.

The main argument therefore is not about "illegal" immigrants, it's immigrants in general who take up jobs. But, well, I don't want to harm immigrants (I guess I'm pro-immigration, sorry ED). I don't know really what to say, but, I'm not sure if it actually matters on this point.

2. Cut corporate tax breaks, not Medicare and Medicaid, to save $$$.

And harm the economy by oppressing the rich? Maybe, but well, er...I posted in the National Debt topic already about what I believe should be done. Something has to be cut, but I don't know what.

3. Encourage innovative and level-headed people to reform politics!

Innoviative and level-headed people usually note it's a good idea not to go into politics to begin with. :)

I offer a fourth "idea":

4. Do Nothing.

The unemployment rate is currently around 5-6%. It's a lot of people that are unemployed when you add in that there are 300 million people, but for the most part, everything is fine for the rest of the people who are indeed employed. If the economy booms, less people are unemployed. If the economy bust, more people are unemployed. It's a cycle, really, people are always going to have to be insecure about their job.

It's capitalism. The people who are valuable get jobs, and the people who have no skills or are too expensive to manitan are 'laid off'. Giving these people help in finding jobs might be nice, but we're always going to have this unemployment anyway. It's best therefore to make yourself valuable by holding tons of degrees and experience so that you don't get fired. (Tell me, can an unskilled illegal immigrant work as a professor? ;)) There is nothing you CAN do if your company decides to move to China and India...expect, well, move to China and India and get back your job. Shrugging off the problem may be the only solution that can really be good.

In fact, job hyperinsecurity can be useful for America. It can help boost job productivitiy. :)

Factions aren't a good thing, despite what some of our founding fathers may say.

Isn't it "especially what some of our founding fathers may say". George Washigition, in his Farewell Address, spoke bad of factions. Of course, Alexander Hamilition and Thomas Jefferson ended up founding factions (aka, political parties) anyway...:)

Samnmax221
02-20-2007, 05:21 PM
And harm the economy by oppressing the rich? Maybe, but well, er...I posted in the National Debt topic already about what I believe should be done. Something has to be cut, but I don't know what.
The Rich aren't being oppressed if they're taxed just as much as everybody else.
But better one group that believes in what's right and one that doesn't instead of one entirely of the later.
Oh boy! Now we can start talking in Doublespeak too!

SilentScope001
02-20-2007, 05:24 PM
The Rich aren't being oppressed if they're taxed just as much as everybody else.

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.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Samnmax221
02-20-2007, 05:26 PM
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.
I wasn't stating things "as they are", I was stating things "as they should be".

Tysyacha
02-20-2007, 08:01 PM
Here's another idea:

5. Offer companies larger incentives to hire Americans and legal immigrants
than they would ever get if they hired illegals or outsourced to other countries.

May not work, but if I were a gadtrillionaire, that's what I would do.

JediMaster12
02-20-2007, 08:04 PM
But better one group that believes in what's right and one that doesn't instead of one entirely of the later.
Did you mean latter? :D
But isn't that in a sense a faction. Say they do believe in what's right and they want to fight for it. Wouldn't that constitute it as a faction?

Samnmax221
02-20-2007, 08:05 PM
5. Offer companies larger incentives to hire Americans and legal immigrants
than they would ever get if they hired illegals or outsourced to other countries.

It'd be better if the Government just stayed the hell out of private enterprise. Basically you hire whoever you want, and live with the consequences.

Tysyacha
02-20-2007, 11:09 PM
It's a hard truth that none of us can count on either the government or
private enterprise to do the ethical thing every time. The government can
over-regulate and overtax, making things hard for businesses so that they
are forced to pass the extra cost onto customers. On the other hand,
businesses can "pull an Enron" and actually be in the toilet while everything
looks rosy on the surface. The solution for this is honest self-analysis.

Let's face it--asking anybody to do an honest self-analysis of their
business, economic, or personal motives is very tough, though. Even
tougher to do on oneself, but eventually it has to be done if we're not
to descend into an "every man for himself", Titanic-style anarchy. If
we're not in one right now.

By the way, we also know that there are too many people in America right
now and not enough jobs for everyone (especially jobs that offer benefits)
these days. So what do you do with the "surplus population" (a.k.a the
unemployed who are 18 and older? Lock 'em up in prison? Put them on
welfare? Let them live on the streets? Not an accusation; I'm just curious.

Emperor Devon
02-21-2007, 12:25 AM
since they see it as unfair that the rich pay more than the poor.

They obviously don't grasp the logic of it. Proportionate taxing is a fair thing, for obvious reasons. it's just as big a loss percentage-wise for everyone, and the rich can tolerate losing more money than the middle or lower class. (Personally I think the rich should pay higher taxes, but that's another topic)

5. Offer companies larger incentives to hire Americans and legal immigrants than they would ever get if they hired illegals or outsourced to other countries.the poor.

The only for that to happen is to make them cheaper or skilled enough to be worth the extra cost for companies to hire them. Capitalism, again.

Did you mean latter? :D

:D

But isn't that in a sense a faction. Say they do believe in what's right and they want to fight for it. Wouldn't that constitute it as a faction?

Having two groups of people with differing opinions is having factions. While it would be preferable for everyone to hold a moral opinion, it would be better for some people to than none at all.

So yes, factions are better than everyone agreeing on something bad.

It'd be better if the Government just stayed the hell out of private enterprise. Basically you hire whoever you want, and live with the consequences.

Wouldn't do at all. Nothing like that to worsen the illegal immigration problem.

Or are you saying the government should stay uninvolved in all parts of private enterprise, rather than who gets hired?

JediMaster12
02-21-2007, 02:59 PM
Or are you saying the government should stay uninvolved in all parts of private enterprise, rather than who gets hired?
Wouldn't that harm economy in of itself it it weren't regulated? Also it would make us look bad concerning foreign relations.

So yes, factions are better than everyone agreeing on something bad.
How many is that we have a consensus on?
I do remember something from Amer. Govt. We were reading parts of the Federalists papers and if I remember correctly, a strong minority such as a faction could overcome the majority.

lukeiamyourdad
02-21-2007, 07:55 PM
This is a problem with every single western nation. The shift from a manufacturing economy to one based on services is the only thing that can be done. Specialized products are also unable to be made in those emerging countries. For example, they might make regular freighters ships but the West makes cruise ships. There are other elements to think off. Western nations produce more food then they need. China, due to the demographic shift from rural regions to urban ones, might end up with food supply problems due to the lack of competent workers handling the fields. New market for Western agriculture.

Overall, higher education is the only thing we can aim for. At the moment, those emerging economies don't have the expertise needed to build up their infrastructures. Western companies provide this. For example, some hydroelectric dams in China were made in collaboration with Hydro-Quebec. Outsourcing is just an unstoppable phenomenon. Hey, I get cheaper crap made in China, why would I, consumer, pay more because it's somehow morally right? Yeah, I'm not an upper-middle class caviar leftist. I can't buy myself some morals.

Samnmax221
02-21-2007, 08:25 PM
Wouldn't do at all. Nothing like that to worsen the illegal immigration problem.
Not if you stop seeing it as a problem. We have people who are willing to do jobs that most Americans don't want to do, in exchange they are able to support themselves and possibly move on to better jobs and a higher standard of living, if not them then the next generation.
Or are you saying the government should stay uninvolved in all parts of private enterprise, rather than who gets hired?
Enforcement of Contracts only.

Emperor Devon
02-21-2007, 09:31 PM
Not if you stop seeing it as a problem. We have people who are willing to do jobs that most Americans don't want to do, in exchange they are able to support themselves and possibly move on to better jobs and a higher standard of living, if not them then the next generation.

And there you run into the problem of the entire thing being illegal. In order to get into the country in the first place, Mexico (or El Salvador, etc) lose citizens (and therefore workers) who they think are still living there. Not to mention some of the things they do to get into the country in the first place - quite a few immigrants enter the U.S. via gangs that do things entirely unethical (such as practically robbing the people they smuggle in, sometimes kidnapping or murdering them...)

They don't just the menial jobs Americans don't want, either. They also take ones commonly done by the working class - various forms of factory labor for instance, leaving them without a job. What's to be done with them? You can't just say 'then let them find another'.

Not too much chance of advancement with jobs like those, either. Many families that take the worst ones (strawberry picking again) often need their own children to work in the fields alongside them to help support the family, which obviously cuts them off from an education. Conditions rarely improve for families like that.

Enforcement of Contracts only.

You've been reading too much Ayn Rand. :xp:

Would make for an interesting thread, though.

Wouldn't that harm economy in of itself it it weren't regulated? Also it would make us look bad concerning foreign relations.

Indeed. Would've taken us decades to recover from the Depression that way.

How many is that we have a consensus on?

3. :p

Samnmax221
02-21-2007, 10:30 PM
And there you run into the problem of the entire thing being illegal. In order to get into the country in the first place, Mexico (or El Salvador, etc) lose citizens (and therefore workers) who they think are still living there. Not to mention some of the things they do to get into the country in the first place - quite a few immigrants enter the U.S. via gangs that do things entirely unethical (such as practically robbing the people they smuggle in, sometimes kidnapping or mudering them...)
Welcoming in all peaceful immigrants is a perfectly acceptable policy, certainly easier to administer than the current state of things. If Drugs and Prostitution were legalized the bottom would drop out of organized crime in this Country, that destroys the major incentive for criminals to come here. NEXT.
They don't just the menial jobs Americans don't want, either. They also take ones commonly done by the working class - various forms of factory labor for instance, leaving them without a job. What's to be done with them? You can't just say 'then let them find another'.
Well now, that sounds like a major incentive to work hard. Your employer can't be expected to keep you around if you can easily be replaced by an immigrant who is brand new to the Country.
Not too much chance of advancement with jobs like those, either. Many families that take the worst ones (strawberry picking again) often need their own children to work in the fields alongside them to help support the family, which obviously cuts them off from an education. Conditions rarely improve for families like that.
Obviously its better here than where they came from, otherwise they wouldn't have left. Here at least they have an opportunity to improve their lives.
You've been reading too much Ayn Rand. :xp:

You've read too much Flamebait for Dummies, constantly trying to provoke a flame war isn't doing much for your already foolish arguments.

martmeister
02-21-2007, 11:02 PM
With <5% unemployment, leaving it alone might be the best bet. It's one of the lowest unemp rates in the world, if not the least in the Western world. And we are factoring that US workers work 40 hrs/week, not some pissant 30-34 THEN begging for time off? Not everyone that's unemployed is permanently unemployed; some work just during harvest season, others are changing jobs, taking a break, etc.

Having low-skill jobs go to immigrants IN country, I'm fine with; having production or service jobs going OUT of country is a problem.

Corporate lobbyists have this special weapon called money. While I consider myself sane and wouldn't vote/choose something, if given the right incentive, I would justify a bill getting passed or ignored.

As inflation goes up, so does wages and cost of living. The true cost of milk has gone down over the years, but inflation is the reason why it costs at least 5x (assuming an individual carton is the same size as a glass bottle).

Emperor Devon
02-21-2007, 11:08 PM
Welcoming in all peaceful immigrants is a perfectly acceptable policy, certainly easier to administer than the current state of things. If Drugs and Prostitution were legalized the bottom would drop out of organized crime in this Country, that destroys the major incentive for criminals to come here. NEXT.

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.

Those reasons aren't entirely related to gangs, anyway. Smuggling people in for a fee and possibly hurting others in the process doesn't have to be tied to illegal substances or human trafficking. Granted gangs can be heavily involved in that, but they can make a living off theft and murder.

Well now, that sounds like a major incentive to work hard. Your employer can't be expected to keep you around if you can easily be replaced by an immigrant who is brand new to the Country.

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.

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

Obviously its better here than where they came from, otherwise they wouldn't have left. Here at least they have an opportunity to improve their lives.

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.

You've read too much Flamebait for Dummies, constantly trying to provoke a flame war isn't doing much for your already foolish arguments.

When people use the ':xp:' smiley after something, they are usually joking about it. In my case, I was.

lukeiamyourdad
02-21-2007, 11:14 PM
It's one of the lowest unemp rates in the world, if not the least in the Western world.


It's actually 3.3% in Switzerland as opposed to 4.6% in the US.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/sz.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html

PS: There could be lower unemployment rates somewhere else, I just took Switzerland because I knew that it had a lower rate.

JediMaster12
02-22-2007, 04:20 PM
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.

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
Looking at it, it isn't fair. Being a person who likes fair play, it is wrong and I don't like it. However reailty is that most businesses tend to push aside the moral issues. From my basic understanding of economics, the goal is to maximize your profits with the least amount of costs. True that we have the federal and state safeguards that put in minimum wage and the like but make no mistake, they still are willing to get more for less.

SilentScope001
02-22-2007, 05:01 PM
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.

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

But it's unfair for the cheaper worker since the cheaper worker can't fill out the paperwork, and can't legally get a job. Not to mention that he can't get a job in Mexico itself...at least not at a high price that he would get selling his labor to America. Increasing quotas is nice...but...er...I just know it's going to unpopular and misses the whole point of quotas.

I think the only real way to actually decrease illegal immigration is to take away the incentive for illegally immigranting to America, that is, the American economy. If the American economy tanks, and we turn into a Third-World nation, then no more illegal immigrants. We just have to worry about illegal emigration, but I think it's less of an issue, no? :xp:

5. Offer companies larger incentives to hire Americans and legal immigrants
than they would ever get if they hired illegals or outsourced to other countries.

Ooh, maybe a good idea. But, what would be the incentive?

I thinking a lower miniumum wage could be good, at least hypothetically. US Workers will scream at it, yes, but by bringing the wages lower, it will make Companies willing to hire more legal work, since they can afford it, and looking for illegal work cost more money.

JediMaster12
02-22-2007, 05:38 PM
I thinking a lower miniumum wage could be good, at least hypothetically. US Workers will scream at it, yes, but by bringing the wages lower, it will make Companies willing to hire more legal work, since they can afford it, and looking for illegal work cost more money.
Other factors figure in. For one, experience is the main factor. The more experience you have, the more you are paid for it. It's like what they tell you about college degrees and what's after.

lukeiamyourdad
02-22-2007, 05:54 PM
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
02-25-2007, 01:41 AM
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
02-25-2007, 04:51 AM
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
02-25-2007, 12:09 PM
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
02-26-2007, 02:36 AM
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
02-26-2007, 11:19 PM
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
02-27-2007, 12:19 AM
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
02-27-2007, 02:27 PM
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
02-27-2007, 02:44 PM
Sorry to hear that, Jae.

JediMaster12
02-27-2007, 02:45 PM
So you have been demoted/fired and you have a service that shows experience. That is just plain wrong.

JasraLantill
02-27-2007, 03:52 PM
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
02-27-2007, 04:07 PM
Three weeks' notice. :roleyess:
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
02-27-2007, 04:18 PM
Three weeks' notice. :roleyess:
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
02-27-2007, 05:35 PM
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
02-27-2007, 07:47 PM
I don't see the problem with a little socialism here and there.

Well, capitalism does. :D

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
02-27-2007, 08:41 PM
Three weeks' notice. :roleyess:
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
02-27-2007, 09:45 PM
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
02-28-2007, 11:23 PM
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
03-01-2007, 04:16 PM
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
03-01-2007, 10:07 PM
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
03-01-2007, 10:33 PM
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
03-01-2007, 11:33 PM
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.