Promotion based on longevity/inability to fire low-performers is a real problem that Unions present to management. Europe/Japan are subject to the same pressure that the US is re: Globalization. It's not some conspiracy that's trying to rewrite laws all across the world.
I'm not sure how to read this - I'm assuming you're not in the US? I would agree that government is a better source of correction for these issues than unionization.
There's millions of jobs available that are going unfilled. Literally.
Why should they? Just simply because they're rich? If a person clawed their way up from the bottom (or not), you think we deserve a piece of their pie soley because they're rich?
That's actually an interesting discussion (and Philip Collins - no, not *that* Phil Collins - in The Times wrote a great piece about this but it's behind the pays wall) itself - about how the work of the unions and the Labour party have, in time, fixed into legislation many things the Unions used to fight for, like the minimum wage, statutory redundancy, maternity leave, levels of paid leave, working hours etc (although we can still opt out of that). In other words, government has crowded out unions which is why you have comedy figures like Bob Crowe et al in co from of unions that look around for things to do and, with nothing better, just arrange marches and write newsletters.
Just because there are us filled jobs, for various reasons of location and sector, doesn't mean that there are enough jobs for everyone willing to work. Want to guess whether or not the number of unemployed is far, far higher than 3 million? We don't even need to get into the fact that the capabilities of the workforce aren't going to line up with opportunities perfectly so that every job had a person to fill it if location wasn't a factor.
I might have missed it because I'm bouncing all over with replies but I didn't see you make any points. You commented on something I said with a story about how your friends couldn't find steady work as electricians. I used McDonalds as an example in my response (please point out my "rant") and now you're focusing on that.
Yeah, Skills gap is not a real thing- it's businesses wanting to poach, rather than train from the ground up. Structural unemployment, though, is a very real thing. It's a basic economic concept. The housing market crash, for instance, brought on a very real "oversupply" issue for people in related fields, as the jobs did not return to their pre-crash levels and are not going to anytime soon.
Not at all, it's just hard to keep up with everybody when you're at the bottom of a dog pile.
Ah so the opportunities should line up for the people instead of the other way around. You're right, I do feel stupid.
Are you willfully misunderstanding things now? To have some remainder of unfilled jobs from the employment equation is a given. It's a constant. It is absolutely meaningless in the face of the fact that even though geography and skillsets make filling all of those jobs imossible, filling them would still only account for a fraction of unemployed adults.
Ah, just like the links I posted that everyone was quick to dismiss.
You aren't getting that reaction because of how misinformed you are, but because of your arrogance and the implications about your morals and views that come from your statements.
Nope, your point just doesn't really need to be further expanded on. Of course there's more people than jobs available and I agree that will (probably) always be.
I'm pretty sure I've been fairly level headed from the first post. I can assure you that any perceived arrogance has been unintentional.
Pushing truth on you, is what we are doing. Resisting only makes my penis harder.
Australia's economy and population is also a fraction of ours.
Hahaha well I guess that's a good thing? Nobody has any use for a limp dick.
Hahaha well I guess that's a good thing? Nobody has any use for a limp dick.
And it's all relative. I could say the same thing and we wouldn't have gained any more ground because, ultimately, this subject is the same as a million others (legalizing weed, gun control, abortion, etc.).
I was just hoping to have a discussion because, like I said before, I truly enjoy learning from others and their experiences. I like hearing people's thought process in a "Hibachi, I don't agree with you and here's why" way, like mature adults should do.
Being new to GAF, maybe I overestimated the user base. Next time (when I'm not a fucking noob member) I'll try to keep my responses to one liners and gifs.
That depends, I guess, on your definition of "full employment". The US, I believe, defines it as 3 or 4% unemployment.
You're right, that was really only the first page and only a poster or two. Guilty of hyperbole.
Everyone in my house has a job. 100% employment.
Well, you've just joined and are placing yourself in a class above this entire forum, in a discussion in which you were trounced. Welcome aboard.
If all you've taken away from everything I've posted in here is that I have a "persecution complex" then I doubt your ability to keep up with the discussion and understand why you have nothing constructive to add.
I understand the whole "fucking noob" mentality as it's the same with every board but how did I place myself "in a class above this entire forum"? I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're trying to say with that statement.
