What objections do you have to solving simple poverty, as easily and cost effectively as the concept of employment at will can make it?
I object to your requiring my efforts to solve your problem, while offering nothing in return. Employment at will doesn't mean income at will. You don't want to work, fine don't. But I can and do resent your then wanting me to pick up your weight, because you chose to just sit on your butt.
What do you mean by requiring your efforts to solve "my" problem? Capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding a natural rate of unemployment is Capitalism's problem, not mine; and, it can be corrected by using Socialism, to bailout Capitalism, like usual. Equal protection of the law means being able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in any at-will employment States. Why not ensure unemployment compensation clears our poverty guidelines to solve simple poverty, along with a natural rate of unemployment. You are welcome to debate these issues, before moving on to the rest of your argument.
We can all choose to work at will, or not. That choice requires nothing of our neighbor. We cannot all choose to be compensated at will without someone providing that compensation. If we did, there would be nothing from which to compensate us. Someone has to provide to solve the problem of some of us trying to not provide and still receive compensation. If you want to be one of the people giving nothing but still getting paid, you are one of the people asking someone else to carry your load. To solve your problem. It is reasonable for those you are asking to pay your way to resent you.
How does that work with Any natural rate of unemployment or employers not hiring anyone who asks for a job, even in Right to Work States.
... you think right to work means an employer has to hire anyone who says they want a job? Right to work means no one should be able to prevent you from doing work, it doesn't mean someone is obliged to give you tasks and a paycheck. A right to free speech doesn't mean someone is obliged to provide you with talking points or a microphone.
How convenient that "right to work" only really means; denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of organized Labor; but not "Truth in Advertising" regarding the literal meaning of the terms.
And, as long as you admit, in the public domain, that Labor doesn't really have a Right to Work; why complain about welfare for the least wealthy?
It's a honest statement. A right is something you are due, and it it can come in two flavors: the right to not be impeded in doing it (a freedom) and the right to have it provided (an entitlement). The right to work describes the freedom to work, it does not describe a guarantee that you will work. Freedoms and entitlements are rarely compatible and often mutually exclusive. The government could not guarantee you will work, unless it robbed you of the freedom to choose not to.
The point is, that Labor does not have a Right to Work; thus, the Right is simply engaging in a moral Badwill toward men instead of a moral of Goodwill toward men.
Does anyone else believe the Right is being disingenuous about Capitalists not creating a Jobs Boom with their Tax preferences and wealth?
A right is something a person is due, something they are owed. Rights may be entitlements or they may be freedoms. They are not necessarily both. Perhaps you do not believe men should have the freedom to work, others do. That does not mean those others also believe a man has the entitlement to be given a job.
Employment at will, if one recognizes and accepts it to be defined as 'continued survival at will' should be a right exercisable by any and all who are willing to accept the consequences without burdening the societies they live within.
One of the consequences choosing not to work, is not having an income. No one has has a right to continued survival at will. Regardless of your will, you may not survive. In fact, the natural guarantee is that eventually you will not survive.
It means; employment at the will of either party; not just the employer as the most wealthy under our form of Capitalism. - - - Updated - - - No. That is no longer a choice since the end of the Iron Age. The right is just too cognitively dissonant to realize it. - - - Updated - - - Only the Right believes in being infidel, protestant, and renegade to our own laws while claiming a subscription to morals.
Both Bill Gates and the guy mumbling on the corner have chosen not to work. It's a choice. Some of us may have better prepared for the consequences of choosing not to work. But no one is requiring us to work. We therefore have a choice not to.
