At 03:34 PM 8/1/01 +0200 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
>IOW, you'd happily accept unemployment and a drop in income, just because
>society as a whole would benefit from it? There is no guarantee that you
>will find an other job, so you might spend the rest of your life with no
>job, and little income.
>
>If you would actually do that, you're either saint-like, or stupid. I'm
>still trying to figure out which one it is... (Current status: the saint is
>losing...)
>
>Anyone else here who'd gladly sacrifice a great job and a very pleasant
>income for the benefit of society? Anyone?
Happily? Perhaps not.
I recognize, however, that I only have a *right* to a job, so long as I am
able to produce more goods and services than I am being paid for. If I
produce less goods and services than I am being paid for, then I no longer
have any claim whatsoever to that job.
I'd also point out, that there are almost always jobs. I may not much
enjoy running the cash register at Wendy's again, but I'll always be able
to do it, until I become indigent or disabled. Additionally, there is
always self-employment. It is my responsibility to provide valuable goods
and services to society in return for income.
>Nice rhetoric, but unfortunately my friend is too old to learn new skills.
>And nobody wants to hire him for unskilled labor, because they consider him
>"too old for the job". And quite frankly, Hans isn't the energetic young man
>he was 40 years ago.
Whatever. Given that I once taught a 98-year-old man how to use e-mail, I
find that nearly impossible to believe (unless he is unhealthy in some
way). This same man was back at school earning a degree.
Additionally, given that I worked alongside many retirees at Wendy's, I
don't find the "too old for a job" line to have much merit either.
>> (And even when there are not low-tier jobs available, making goods
>> cheaper to the entire society will boost GDP, and fuel job creation.
>
>It would be beneficial to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to replace mr.
>Giorgis with mr. Smith, because mr. Smith can and will do the same job for
>$300 per month less. Are you going to thank your boss when he tells you "mr.
>Giorgis, you're fired"?
Yes.
If someone is willing to do my job at the same level for $300 per month
less than I am, then it is the duty of my boss as a representative of the
US Taxpayer to fire me and hire that person. I will thank my boss for
doing a service to our country.
Of course, I will remind my boss that I am one of the best analyst's they
got, and remind my boss that she should duly consider if this person will
really perform at the same level that I am, and really return the same
value to the US Taxpayers. If she concludes that said person would,
however, then she is doing the only morally responsible thing.
If you see two identical lightbulbs, wouldn't you always chose the one that
is priced 1/6th less than the other one? Let's say you buy one lightbulb
a month, and last month the more-expensive bulb was the only one available.
Now, someone new has showed up, and is selling his first lightbulb at
1/6th of the price. Why should you choose to buy the more expensive one,
and leave the newcomer unemployed, simply because you purchased the more
expensive one last month, and switching will simply cause a switch in which
individual is unemployed? What moral obligation is there here?
>BTW, mr. Smith was unemployed, and you weren't. Now the roles are reversed:
>you're unemployed, and mr. Smith isn't. How does this fuel job creation? No
>additional jobs were created in the process, only the person doing that job
>was replaced.
Because the economy has gained $300 a month in efficiency, that will now be
spent on something and someone else.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
