> Your argument is in fact that exact same one that was used to argue against due process in legal proceedings. "In reality it doesn't play out and you get this group of criminals running free on legal technicalities."
Dumb comparison. Losing a job is not the same as losing a legal action. You can’t just go get a different life if you’re convicted of robbery.
> it happens for the same reason as non-union shops. You have bad management.
No, sometimes employees are just bad and work the system to keep the job as long as possible with no intention of improving.
It doesn’t exist and doesn’t need to. The current job market makes it abundantly clear that people are able to get some form of employment easily, even if it’s not what they want.
The point is that the comparison to due process is shockingly stupid. If the government imprisons you, you are done. Your life in civilization is over for the duration of your incarceration and you have no other options.
Anyone who thinks due process against the monopoly of violence is the same as due process for a payment from a company is completely tone deaf and has never dealt with the impact of government imprisonment.
Being unemployed indefinitely is far better than imprisonment.
The actual development of capitalism around the world has shown that when business is thriving, there tends to be lots of employers willing to mop up any excess labour.
We’ve seen a ton of automation and offshoring for centuries now but employment around the world just keeps improving.
- in a thriving environment, lots of companies are hiring
- some people quit or get fired, and it takes a couple of months to get a new job. This is no biggie in a country where the median individual has a net worth of 192k. [0] (yet another argument in favour of a thriving business environment).
- so some % of people will always be temporarily unemployed.
Loll, youre a pretty funny person. No biggie, ill just sell my house to feed myself.
You conveniently ignore the fact that this is the median family net worth, not individual net worth. Further, this will include retired families, who will have access to social security, medicare, and mature 401k/pension plans. This is not anywherenearthe median net worth of a working individual.
If youre going to quote statistics, please at least do so responsibly.
Beyond complete misrepresentation of basic statistics, you have also failed to contextualize the statistics in a way that is useful for the conversation.
A better number would be: the median time an american in the labor force would be able to live off their net worth, something like net worth divided by annual salary. What's the median of that? We could then compare it to the amount of time the median job search takes, and have a fact-based discussion around the policy implications of that number.
But I expect no such intellectual honesty from you; you've already shown your cards.
When you run up against a fact (see? we’re being fact-based) that doesn’t fit your worldview, that doesn’t mean someone had to “completely misrepresent basic statistics”.
It could simply mean that you are wrong.
A possibility you no doubt spend a great deal of time thinking about, oh even-handed one.
I have yet to come across a fact in your comments! You are literally calling median family net worth median individual net worth, and then making arguments on the basis of that misrepresentation.
Further, this thread is about the labor force, not retirees, who generally have more assets, all else equal.
Stop making clownish claims and you wont be treated like a clown.
>Middle class Americans have high net worths; some in stocks, some in cash, some in home equity.
>All of the above can be leveraged when cash is needed.
And what percentage of Americans are working middle class? What percentage of those could liquidate their home equity or retirement portfolio (what you actually mean by "stocks") without causing a huge change in life plans?
Dumb comparison. Losing a job is not the same as losing a legal action. You can’t just go get a different life if you’re convicted of robbery.
> it happens for the same reason as non-union shops. You have bad management.
No, sometimes employees are just bad and work the system to keep the job as long as possible with no intention of improving.