(November 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: As a matter of calculation, yes. However, in real life, it's not simply a matter of simple algebra. Indeed, if there is a single job, and you are more qualified, and more experienced, you are more likely to get that job than the other(unless it's a family business, or there is some sort of a driving force for the emploer to hire the less experienced/qualified one). This allows for the more experienced and better quality people to have jobs, and enjoy the benefits of their life's work.
Yes, if you are more skilled, you may get the job, depending on how much the company wants to pay. Nothing in what you just said explained how there being no jobs does not mean there are no jobs, which seems to be what you are trying to convey.
Quote:Indeed, there are places which hire extensively, only new people, who are paid considerably less wages(lets say, for example, if you're a newly graduated chemist(with no extra degrees) who wants to work in a lab, you're going to get payed only 1500TL(820.951 USD) a month. However, an experienced chemist(or someone who has a masters or higher degree), may find work in the same company as a foreman, or higher.
I also stressed this fact in my post above. It is, at least partly, a matter of qualification. And in the case for people of higher education, I think this system is quite rewarding in America.
How much a job pays has nothing to do with how many jobs there are. Now, you are making it sound as if people are not finding jobs because they are not condescending to work lower paying jobs. That is not the case.
Quote:I understand, but how is this somewhat related to creating jobs?
Do you suggest that the government opens up more places in civil service sectors or government owned businesses?
*sigh* No, kilic. I am suggesting that our financial situation be more conducive to small businesses that open up local jobs.
Quote:Besides, how exactly do the "companies" effect the money lending affairs of banks? The banks, and the interest rates are regulated by the central bank. Why not complain to the central bank instead(besides, I have already mentioned in a thread here that I resent the FIAT currency. People have mocked me for it, however the FIAT currency is also at fault here, even more so)?
[quote]
In this scenario, the banks are some of the companies of which I speak. A bank is a company. At any rate, people are complaining to the banks. Where are you getting your information about OWS?
[quote]
Well, I'm telling you that it's not as you say it is.
I live here, kilic.
Quote:Certain sectors lack jobs.
And this affects certain parts of the society, that are not really well educated, or even not skilled to find work as a construction worker, electrician, hair dresser, or something that involves a learned trade.
I can't do anything but shake my head at this. What the hell are you talking about? There are plenty of skilled people out of work. I know a licensed electrician with 14 years of experience who cannot find work in his area and has not been able to for two years!!
Quote:Even if so, how do you propose we bring about more jobs to absorb the unemployed?
I'm sorry, but there is no "we." Don't you live in Turkey? I typically do not bring up borders, as it is kind of silly, but there really is nothing *you* can do to create more jobs in the U.S. What I suggest this country does to create more jobs is to restrict the reach of the federal government. The federal government outlaws a number of things that should be handled on the state level. These things could open up jobs in several states. That is just one example, but a good one.
Quote:
And what exactly is fairness, according to you?
Tell me, because I have no idea on how to actually interpret this.
In this case, separating the government from the businesses, so we are not voting for politicians who are not working for us.
Quote:And what exactly does this mean? Referring to the bail-out of the banks after the crisis hit the scene? Well, under normal circumstances, the government probably wouldn't had intervened, however the circumstances were not quite what they should have been.
The government should not have intervened, no matter the circumstances. Furthermore, it has been shown that the money was very poorly spent. The government had no right to intervene. The federal government overstepped.
Quote:Are you referring to the one time event of the bailout?
Or are there things that I don't know about. It can be, I can't really know.
No, not just the one time bailout. Our government is virtually inextricably linked with corporate money.
