This is why I don't give you a job

Yes, and what is your point? People still benefit. Do you think people go to work every day because they just love working so much?

I feel like you are half way towards understanding the beauty of capitalism.

At the end of the day, intentions don't mean squat. Job providers are acting in self interest, well they are human so it's not entirely greed, but they still create jobs.

And if you want more jobs, you have to make sure it's profitable to create a job. Making it less profitable to hire people makes jobs more scarce.

 

Uh, that's a job. If they aren't going to do it, who will? You? The government? Where is the government going to get the wealth from, if not the people who produce in the first place.

 

The continuing point is that you right wing whacks act like it's some great act of charity or humanity you speak of "job creators". We should all just kiss their collective rear ends for all that they "give" us, and be thankful that they ever do. They're takers.....not givers. You right wingers get so confused with the two I felt I should point it out. I submit these bandits should be thankful they have a pool of laborers to make MORE money FOR them. The fact that the laborer makes any money at all is simply a result of the need and want to make MORE money (something that the "job provider" would bypass immediately if given the option). Unfortunately, they must surrender some monies to the laborer. They don't like it, and they're continually working on ways around it, but, they still have to. The corporation is currently working on an alternative solution though (and I hear the right wing is firmly behind their efforts).

Taker...not a giver. $$$$$$$$

 

Yes...it's a job. An exchange. No charity. No other reason. Right wingers need to quit BSing everybody like they're some great giver....they ain't. They're takers. Wealth is just as much a result of the labor as is the "provider". BOTH constitute a job (not just the stuffed shirts that claim to be the "job providers").

 

I would say they aren't really either, instead they are creators.

Remember, the exchange is voluntary.

 

They can create NOTHING without labor, in some form, to exploit. It's not charity, so it must be that the "providers" make money, wouldn't you say? Dubbing them "creators" suggests they are doing what they do out of compassion for the human race. It ISN'T. It's FOR CASH.

Everybody call in sick for a few days...watch everything tumble, and watch the fat cats b*tch. I say we need to implement this strategy for as long as needed. Otherwise, it will continue to get worse for everybody except the fat cats.

 

Day 1 of Occupy Your Couch: RtWngaFraud heads to his local grocery store to buy a carton of milk only to find the doors locked, "NOOOOoooooooo"!!!!

So should all the doctors and nurses stay home too for a few days?

You do realize that we all benefit from the exchange of goods and services we call an economy and if the economy were to just die, people would be starving in the streets within a week?

I'd estimate if no one went to work for 1 month, at least 100 million people would die. It would eclipse the holocaust. I wonder how long it would be before power and heat would go out. 1 day?

 

Well...I think we should see who can hold out longer. My bet is the fat cats will bend first. Nothing will ever change unless the people force the issue.

 

We out here in flyover country would survive. The cities would burn to the ground.

What are you trying to change anyway? Do you want to go back to hunting/gathering?

 

Cut out the cancer, or flush the whole thing down the toilet. Hunting gathering? Decency? Something better than this corporate mess today?

Where's my hunting/gathering basket?

 

Because if I want to give a present to a politician of the government and that is banned, it would go against my freedom to do whatever I want with my money.

 

Your kind of freedom is exactly the kind of crap that has completely corrupted the system. It now represents the rich, and the rich only. Poor people? You don't have enough cash for "gifts" to your political friend. However, this man has plenty of cash to give, so, therefore, HE gets the government HE wants. Screw you, poor person.

 

Crapola!!

Employing someone is not charity, it's a monetary exchange for services.

Inviting a hungry person into your home and giving him a meal is charity.

 

Right, but the politician would have no power to do anything corrupt so taking money would be moot.

The alternative is, you pass a law preventing money going to the politician. A law that's easily circumvented. And since politicians run everything, their power is much more desirable.

Right now, politicians are just offered jobs when they get out or they are given speaking gigs, or the money is simply donated to a PAC. Or they just sell them a plot of land at far under market value.

The more left a government is, the more of our lives a government runs, the more corrupt that government is.

 

Except that they often can (and in the beginning usually do) operate using their own labor - no employees. Many businesses start with only the labor of the owner and his family. They don't have to offer jobs to anyone to function.

 

You do know you make absolutely no sense right now. No one needs regulation of government officials taking bribes, because as soon as they take a bribe to let a person get by with a crime, they are aiding a criminal and guilty of the same crime. Why create a specific regulation about corruption when it's against the law already.

 

That's true however I have never heard anyone say they are for outright bribery. You can't go up to the guy and say "hey I'll give you a million bucks if you do X." If you want to give them a present though why the hell not right? Also with such limited government control it's unlikely bribery would be much of an issue.

 

Businesses aren't doing you a favor by hiring you, you are doing them a favor by providing your labor so they can profit. It's a mutual agreement... if you can't provide an adequate wage with appropriate benefits for the labor than you shouldn't be in business. I don't get why conservatives hate laborers so much.

 

(in your best Mexican bandito accent)

Job?? Jobs?? We got no jobs?? We donneed no stinkin jobs!!!

 

This is the thinking that is causing people to sit at home on welfare and unemployment. Labor and business can not exist without each other.
Business is doing you a favor by hiring you because without them you would not eat (until the government gets involved)
Labor is doing business a favor by being productive and helping make the company a stronger entity.

They are intertwined, not enemies.

 

False, businesses could care less about me or my living. They hire me because I provide labor that they want so they can increase their profit. The second people stop buying their product is the second they will fire me with out any hesitation. Essentially we are all our own individual businesses selling either products or our labor.

I don't get why you guys want to screw the laborers so much.

And no this thinking isn't why people are at home on welfare. This thinking is how people who want to work get paid a satisfactory wage and benefits they want to maintain their standard of living. This has nothing to do with people who aren't working.

 

When did anyone say business cared about laborers? He was saying they both need each other. You need a job, do you not? How else would you get money? The business needs people to work for them do they not? How else would they create products? That was the point.

 

As an employer...if you spent more time working, and less time being bested by me on the internet, the economic climate would bother you less..............

no offense, I couldn't resist

 

I never said anything otherwise. I'm simply saying that businesses aren't trying to do us any favors by hiring us.

 

They are though, don't you see that? How would you make a living if business didn't hire you?