Let's explore this,

 

the qualifier of a good job is the ability to be self sufficient correct? Where does this idea come from for you?


 

You often hear politicians argue that we can't fund infrastructure, we don't have enough teachers, and so on, the problem is right now those fields are funded through tax payers. In a "free market" where infrastructure for example is privatized you'd have a plethora of jobs for low skilled or no skilled workers. Sure the companies would look to pay as little as possible but the free market doesn't prevent unions from forming, or some form of labor to represent workers, there are natural ways to increase wages. In nations without worker protections unionizers get killed regularly by large employers. The free market does not deliver remediation for this problem. Furthermore the real problem we have is one of supply and demand. The supply of jobs for low skill workers is decreasing as manufacturing and call center jobs have been outsourced and the demand for low skill jobs that still exist has increased, creating a dramatic downward pressure on the wages and working conditions for those jobs. That problem doesn't get fixed without either a major change in the supply of workers, jobs, or a change in regulation.


 

Anything that is federally funded right now is severally under employed simply because the tax revenue is not there to pay for it. So I'd have to disagree about there not being enough work, there's plenty of work to be done. This is easy to fix. Raise taxes, dramatically.


 

As for the argument about low paying jobs, yes there will always be low paying jobs. Mostly in the service industry, restaurants, delivery drivers, retail, these jobs have always paid very low wages ( I know I've worked just about all of them). But if more people owned a restaurant rather than working at a restaurant their standard of living would increase. If you had more mom and pop merchandising stores and less walmarts, kmarts, targets you'd have higher wages and an increase in the standard of living. Business isn't the enemy, it's when Big Business and Government work together to end competition. Brilliant! Everyone can just own their own business! That's sure to work out great!

---

As for the argument about low paying jobs, yes there will always be low paying jobs. Mostly in the service industry, restaurants, delivery drivers, retail, these jobs have always paid very low wages ( I know I've worked just about all of them). But if more people owned a restaurant rather than working at a restaurant their standard of living would increase. If you had more mom and pop merchandising stores and less walmarts, kmarts, targets you'd have higher wages and an increase in the standard of living. Business isn't the enemy, it's when Big Business and Government work together to end competition.

 

Lol.... you can't really think thsi is possible, can you? The belief the utopia is possible is one of the most annoying things that the libertarian party presents.

---

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="EricC85" data-cid="246488" data-time="1407429322">
<div>
Let's explore this,

 

the qualifier of a good job is the ability to be self sufficient correct? Where does this idea come from for you?


 

You often hear politicians argue that we can't fund infrastructure, we don't have enough teachers, and so on, the problem is right now those fields are funded through tax payers. In a "free market" where infrastructure for example is privatized you'd have a plethora of jobs for low skilled or no skilled workers. Sure the companies would look to pay as little as possible but the free market doesn't prevent unions from forming, or some form of labor to represent workers, there are natural ways to increase wages. In nations without worker protections unionizers get killed regularly by large employers. The free market does not deliver remediation for this problem. Furthermore the real problem we have is one of supply and demand. The supply of jobs for low skill workers is decreasing as manufacturing and call center jobs have been outsourced and the demand for low skill jobs that still exist has increased, creating a dramatic downward pressure on the wages and working conditions for those jobs. That problem doesn't get fixed without either a major change in the supply of workers, jobs, or a change in regulation.


 

Anything that is federally funded right now is severally under employed simply because the tax revenue is not there to pay for it. So I'd have to disagree about there not being enough work, there's plenty of work to be done. This is easy to fix. Raise taxes, dramatically.


 

As for the argument about low paying jobs, yes there will always be low paying jobs. Mostly in the service industry, restaurants, delivery drivers, retail, these jobs have always paid very low wages ( I know I've worked just about all of them). But if more people owned a restaurant rather than working at a restaurant their standard of living would increase. If you had more mom and pop merchandising stores and less walmarts, kmarts, targets you'd have higher wages and an increase in the standard of living. Business isn't the enemy, it's when Big Business and Government work together to end competition. Brilliant! Everyone can just own their own business! That's sure to work out great!

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

 How would you qualify a job good or bad if it's not based upon the ability to be self sufficient?

 

 yes if more people owned small private business's we wouldn't have the majority of the problems we have right now, why is that controversial?

 

Lol.... you can't really think thsi is possible, can you? The belief the utopia is possible is one of the most annoying things that the libertarian party presents.

 

Possible sure, likely no. Just because it's not likely to happen doesn't mean I'll stop advocating it. Sometimes things have to get a lot worse before they get better, I fully believe we will see things get a lot worse here before we turn the corner. 

---

 How would you qualify a job good or bad if it's not based upon the ability to be self sufficient?

 

 yes if more people owned small private business's we wouldn't have the majority of the problems we have right now, why is that controversial?

 

 

Possible sure, likely no. Just because it's not likely to happen doesn't mean I'll stop advocating it. Sometimes things have to get a lot worse before they get better, I fully believe we will see things get a lot worse here before we turn the corner. 

 

A job is good based on a lot more than just whether you can be self sufficient from it. Maybe you mean a good wage is one that allows you to be self sufficient?

 

As for the small private business point, it would certainly complicate things and make society a lot less cohesive, but I suppose you're free to believe it. Of course everyone being in business for their self doesn't inherently solve the problem of when someone simply isn't making enough money, or isn't finding a market for their service.

---

A job is good based on a lot more than just whether you can be self sufficient from it. Maybe you mean a good wage is one that allows you to be self sufficient?

 

As for the small private business point, it would certainly complicate things and make society a lot less cohesive, but I suppose you're free to believe it. Of course everyone being in business for their self doesn't inherently solve the problem of when someone simply isn't making enough money, or isn't finding a market for their service.

 

You can't have everyone be in the middle class in capitalism.  Maybe you should be looking more into socialism as your preferred form of government?

---

You can't have everyone be in the middle class in capitalism.  Maybe you should be looking more into socialism as your preferred form of government?

 

Capitalism isn't a form of government.

---

Capitalism isn't a form of government.

 

It's part of what makes up a government, however.  We arguing semantics?

---

It's part of what makes up a government, however.  We arguing semantics?

 

It's not part of what makes up government, it's an economic method.

 

You can have a capitalist democracy, you can have a capitalist monarchy, you can have a capitalist oligarchy.

 

It's not a system of government and it's not part of a system of government.

 

Governments choose which forms of economic practices to allow or endorse, but the economic system isn't a part of the government.

 

Did America suddenly have a different government when LBJ got the great society programs implemented? No. Still democracy just like it was before, just with a bit more socialism.

---

It's not part of what makes up government, it's an economic method.

 

You can have a capitalist democracy, you can have a capitalist monarchy, you can have a capitalist oligarchy.

 

It's not a system of government and it's not part of a system of government.

 

Governments choose which forms of economic practices to allow or endorse, but the economic system isn't a part of the government.

 

Did America suddenly have a different government when LBJ got the great society programs implemented? No. Still democracy just like it was before, just with a bit more socialism.

 

Translation:  We ARE arguing semantics.

 

It's not a part of a system of government, but its what makes up YOUR government.  AKA We have a democratically elected capitalist republic... Well, we once did.

---

Translation:  We ARE arguing semantics.

 

It's not a part of a system of government, but its what makes up YOUR government.  AKA We have a democratically elected capitalist republic... Well, we once did.

 

We're not arguing semantics.

 

You, like most conservatives I've met in my life, are confused on a very basic and profound level about some basic facets of our nation.

---

And here comes the pitch on socialism..............

---

And here comes the pitch on socialism..............

I think there is a difference between having good social policies and programs and being a socialistic society. I don't understand why social programs are so vilified. 

---

I think there is a difference between having good social policies and programs and being a socialistic society. I don't understand why social programs are so vilified.

You know what I find ironic? The most successful business in America is a socialist institution.

---

I think there is a difference between having good social policies and programs and being a socialistic society. I don't understand why social programs are so vilified. 

 

it's all mater of degree's, look at how bloated the welfare state is today, it all leads to socialism in the end. Government programs will always grow and that's what social polices are governments attempt to correct social problems.

---

You know what I find ironic? The most successful business in America is a socialist institution.

 

Walmart? I'm trying to guess which company you're talking about.

---

We're not arguing semantics.

 

You, like most conservatives I've met in my life, are confused on a very basic and profound level about some basic facets of our nation.

Oh please enlighten us with  your liberal view of the basic facets of our nation. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Walmart? I'm trying to guess which company you're talking about.

It's not a company, but it is a business.

---

It's not a company, but it is a business.

 

The Military

---

Oh please enlighten us with  your liberal view of the basic facets of our nation. 

 

That's a really generalized question. Instead why don't you bring up an aspect of what you believe is our government that you'd like my input on and I'll share what I think is relevant.

---

We're not arguing semantics.

 

You, like most conservatives I've met in my life, are confused on a very basic and profound level about some basic facets of our nation.

 

If you are indirectly insinuating that I am a conservative, then you are wrong.  I'm very moderate on social issues.  

 

What very basic and profound facets am I missing out on? 

 

Wealth needs to be redistributed from the wealthy to the poor to grow a strong middle class in order for capitalism to flourish?

 

I don't know which aspect of your political philosophies I disagree with the most.  Your love for socialism or authoritarianism.  

---