4 ms·
In my view the economic system exists to serve the people instead of the other around, so I will pick the first option. But taken broadly, so accommodating nece
by zurn 11y ago
In my view the economic system exists to serve the people instead of the other around, so I will pick the first option. But taken broadly, so accommodating necessary compromises to maintain the capacity of the economy (keep producing jobs and valuable output and so on). Like I said in my original comment, whether we want to maintain a system with the concept of unemployment is a whole another discussion.
Also,
> There's a difference between having a right to work (that is, not being prevented from working re: discrimination) and demanding a work (notwithstanding with: is there something one could do?).
The concept as discussed in the universal declaration of human rights does include the supply of jobs: "just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment"
- Juliate 11y agoI totally agree with your view (the system is built/exists to serve the people). But the supply of jobs must not be void of meaningful/useful jobs; and the State/system is very, very unqualified to create such jobs - it tends to build on the jobs necessary to self-sustain (on the practical and political planes), and not much more. Most qualified to create those new jobs/missing chairs are the people, on their own, or through the business they build. Then the (clever) support of the state or of big players is required to make those grow in their turn. You may demand something out of a system. Which can self declare "everyone ought to get a job". But the system on its own is not capable of providing. Note. I'm heavily biased. I'm French, living in France. And I am beyond amazed how this country is run on the economics level.