Forced Employement, to Combat large scale Unemployment

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter2

Guest
Should the State force employers to take on workers in-order to combat high level unemployment?

I don’t have an opinion on this yet, so don’t attack me.
 
I am sorry to say that it would be hilarious if this really happened.😛
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
They would be paid by the employer.
Click to expand...
If the employer has no money to pay another employee, how would they be paid then?

Or if the employer has no need to hire another employee, what would the person do all day?

Government needs to STAY OUT of private enterprise.
 
The government needs to stay out of private enterprise because this is not a socialist or communist country. Simple as that.
And of course the other poster wasn’t making a threat! How could you possibly infer that from the statement?? Just because of the caps? :confused: :rolleyes:
Please don’t come on here and try to instigate problems.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Good point; but that can’t be true of all companies.

Why would they want to do that? Are you making a threat?
Click to expand...
Making a threat? What are you talking about? The government needs to stay out of private enterprise because we are supposed living n a free country. Why stop with businesses? Maybe private citizens should be forced to pay people to clean their yards and houses? Would you like to be forced to pay for someone you didn’t trust or know to clean your house when you’d just as soon do it yourself?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
They would be paid by the employer.
Click to expand...
That can not happen. It is no more possible than the goverment forcing you to hire one employee, just because. Would you support that?

If we are going to through out crazy ideas, how about forced employment through the military, perhaps in the corps of enginieers, working as labor on public works project.

I am reminded of an SNL skit where a man says that he should be president because he would fix all these problems. Why hasn’t anyone done this? He would help the hungry by giving them food and he would give the jobless jobs. Simple, no?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
They would be paid by the employer.
Click to expand...
So, if I owned a small business, and could afford to pay 10 employees, and then the government comes along and tells me to hire 10 more – again, who would pay them? I had already hired all the employees I could afford.

I don’t think you’ve thought this out very well. And/or you have no business experience at all.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Should the State force employers to take on workers in-order to combat high level unemployment?

I don’t have an opinion on this yet, so don’t attack me.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it the case that employers don’t take more on employees because they can’t afford to pay more workers?
Would you expect the workers to labor for nothing then?
On what would they and they or their families live, with no income?
On the other hand if employers/businesses paid them from what should go on overheads and buying new stock then the businesses would fail.

So how does forcing employers to hire people they can’t afford to pay, help the economy? It would only cause more businesses to fail, higher unemployment and a worsening economic situation and ultimately, more unemployment.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Should the State force employers to take on workers in-order to combat high level unemployment?

I don’t have an opinion on this yet, so don’t attack me.
Click to expand...
I once thought about this. There are plenty of companies that can afford it.
 
Trishie said:
Can you prove that statement Zundrah or is it an unsupported presumption. 🙂
What companies, and what proof?
Click to expand...
I said some. I didn’t say all or most. But then that would be penalizing wealthy business owners if the government did go ahead with it. You aren’t going to say that not a single one company owner can afford to do this are you?

In short yes, it is a assumption that some (I said some) people have enough money to be able to but aren’t going to anyway.
 
To the OP…

No, because these jobs would not be providing a real service that is backed by real demand. The jobs would essentially just be a “keep-busy” task while the employee waited for his/her next government cheque. This also robs both the employee and the employer of their dignity since one is being forced to hire an employee they have no use for and the other is being forced to carry out meaningless work.

And in case one might think that “meaningless work is better then no work” think back to the collapse of communist Russia and remember that the former precludes the lattter…
 
I suppose you’d have to look at the financial capabilities that some businesses have and then compare with the population of unemployed people where ever it is set out.

There’s facts and figures to really think about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top