Are jobs a governments responsibility?

 Matt (@greenthinker) 6 years, 3 months ago

In leu of the Republican debates and a couple discussions on this board I want to know what you all think about this.

It is my belief that the best government is one that stays the most out of my life and choices.

When I think about jobs and how they are created I picture this:

A person has a talent to create something people need. He creates said object and sells it. The demand grows and therefore he can hire people to create more of these things.

Where does a government come in? Why should a government come in?

I understand that a government’s tax rates can affect business: Higher taxes force businesses to cut something to maintain a profit, which could end up being the work force.

It just makes sense to me to not have taxes and allow a free market to balance itself out, but job creation is obviously a hot topic for a President to handle.


January 10, 2012 at 3:34 am
TheSkaFish (962)M (@theskafish) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

“A person has a talent to create something people need. He creates said object and sells it. The demand grows and therefore he can hire people to create more of these things.

Where does a government come in? Why should a government come in?”

When the person creating the thing people need has an unfair monopoly over the product and is able to use it as leverage over everyone or when that same person creates something people need in such a way that it is harmful, knows it is harmful, and sells it anyway. If there were no regulators, it’s a sure bet product safety would take a dive. It’s cheaper to make lower quality items, and if every merchant is selling crap, where else are consumers going to go?

As for your job question, I say if the government exists to help its citizens, then it should do so in any way it can.

Matt (26) (@greenthinker) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

Now wait,

Why are monopolies always bad? Can’t a monopoly be good?

If something is harmful, do you really NEED the government to keep you from using it? Heroin is illegal, but if it were legal i still wouldn’t do it. Is force better than education?

It may be cheaper to make low quality items, but if i produce something that actually works for people in (in whatever way they needed it) in a market full of shit, I will get the customers.

flapjack (2) (@flapjack) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

I don’t really know anything about economics but I think taxes are good to the extent of minimal safe security and wellbeing of said nation. I believe that government should protect the nation and that’s it, even if it’s from itself. If the nation fucks up economically then the government should provide guidelines to help to certain nation authorities but not implement them themselves because their focus should be most on our protection and well being. Economy (i think that means money stuff) does not mean well being. If well being was to be compromised then the government could intervene in the allocation of resources.

Peter (152) (@searchingforthetruth) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

Are we talking State or Federal? You can answer that thought further with the role of big or small central government.

I agree with TheSkaFish, but I also will add…

I think the government is good for collecting resources and putting them to work in focus that will best allow its citizens to succeed and thrive. Taxes are good for creating infrastructure that allow businesses to grow. This could include roads, bridges, tunnels. I also think the government could help direct resources that help spur innovation and business development. For example..Green energy? But to start that big push we need help from the government to organize the collective output in focus…they could build green energy pumps or direct money towards education.

Rachel (0) (@fakeplastictrees) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

Well, Ayn Rand certainly thinks that benevolent monopolies exist, that’s pretty much the entirety of the plot of Atlas Shrugged.

For me, I think of benevolent monopolies in the same way as I do the concept of a benevolent dictator: I’ll believe it when I see it!

The trouble with expecting consumers to recognize their own self-interests (health and safety) and spend their money accordingly is that it presumes they have full information about the products they’re buying. A manufacturer is not going to just hand out that information freely if it is damning to their product. Who but a powerful consumer advocate can get this information and hand it out to the consumer? Who has the power to demand this information from the manufacturer? I think this is the government’s role.

Peter (152) (@searchingforthetruth) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

@ Matt

Nah, I’m pretty sure monopolies are bad…very bad. When you own enough of everything, what incentive do you have to improve on your business? You don’t have any competition, you can cut corners because no company can catch up, you strangle your suppliers…in the end you have so much power the government will answer to you.

Rachel (0) (@fakeplastictrees) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

If you believe in the natural balances of the free market, then I feel you ought to be against monopolies — without competition, the hegemonic power has no incentive to provide fair pricing or superior product. Muscle out the competitors and you can sell whatever you want.

In theory a new competitor could come into the market and undercut pricing or provide a superior product, but in practice it is exceedingly difficult for the small business to compete against a huge corporation with the money and power to smash the little guy.

Alex (550) (@hollowinfinity) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

If the government forces me to live under their standards then it is their responsibility

alive (7) (@alive) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

in my humble opinion, the government (at least in the US) has way overstepped its rightful duties. protect our borders and leave me alone. the fact that it can now affect my personal life and medical life (reproductive rights) is scary.

i want something that can have absolute power and use it horribly to have the least power. hope that makes sense.

in relation to this specific incidence where the government would be putting its hands in our job sector, i’d say it’s unnecessary there as well. the people can handle it. if we’re unhappy with our job situation, we have the means with which to fix it. we don’t need government handouts and bailouts.
we need a community that is willing to give their own handouts and bailouts to fellow members. anything a government can do, we can do better.

Daniel (7) (@meta) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

To the extent of public service jobs (i.e. cops and fire fighters) then yes but other than that the government shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of the private sector.

Dom (78) (@dominickjohn) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

When a company abuses the consumer and makes unsafe products, the customers will not want to buy those products… which then another person will arise with a talent to create something better that people need. He creates said object and sells it. The demand grows and therefore he can hire people to create more of these things.

The loop works just fine, there is no need for government. Like insurance agencies, these organizations thrive on those with victim mindsets.

TheSkaFish (962)M (@theskafish) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

@Dom But why wait for things to get that bad when you could have regulators preventing it in the first place? How many casualties do we have to be willing to sustain? Wouldn’t you rather it be zero?

It’s great for the government to protect our borders but there are bad guys inside America as well.

Ray Butler (1,422)M (@trek79) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

Well it is the governments role to create and maintain the conditions where jobs can prosper, and ideally it would be to make sure pay is equitable, not just for the qualifications one has, but for the work load. The fact is that other than the legal protections, these issues are economic, the governments play there part, but sovereignty is really in the hands of the commercial and industrial entities. Otherwise it is called communism.
If you think about how laws are, or are supposed to be, they are not emotional reactions they are cold and logical. Do not start throwing feelings around in matters of politics, that is trouble.

Ray Butler (1,422)M (@trek79) 6 years, 3 months ago ago

Governments are primarily law makers, a role that can be done by courts. But there is public space, a local council and mayoral responsiblity. They are needed. There are public schools, hospitals, police forces, these can privatized I suppose. What do governments really do?
They do stuff that is nessecary but does not have the profit incentives to form a business out of, building and fixing shit, maintaining and cleaning. National parks and highways. The thing is that the stuff these guys do are things we all pool our cash to pay for, if you privatize it all, which you can, then every time you do anything, everywhere you go you will have to cough up cash. Every street you drive down will scan your e-tags signature and charge you. So taxes are replaced by tolls and cover charges. It is a trade off, but also a huge deterant for everything, especially trade.
Because everyone pools for this open boomgate freedom, businesses make a profit, but if they had to start coughing up cash everytime, them being the primary users of this freedom, the effect is on their profit. This method of closed boomgate freedom means that people are not charged for what they do not use but they are charged for everything they do.

load more