5 ms·

No one should be forced to take any job they don't want. The premise that it's ok to force anyone to take any job or lose their unemployment benefit is incredib

No one should be forced to take any job they don't want. The premise that it's ok to force anyone to take any job or lose their unemployment benefit is incredibly damaging to society. The whole system is a shambles. I would consider myself quite left oriented and I feel Europe has it all wrong. We really love to take the nanny state route rather than empowering people through education, opportunity and self-actualisation. Unfortunately this point of view seems to fall completely outside of the Overton window at the moment.

PrimalDual 9y ago
I think the premise is that you are not entitled to unemployment benefits in the first place. The government provides some aid but you have to be trying to help yourself first. It sounds fair to me that if you are offered a job and you refuse then you have breached that contract. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  Having seen the real world consequence of this I disagree. I have some friends who were the typical starving artists. They had this ignominy of shitty job centre jobs forced upon them and suffered greatly. They opted to go the hard route and reject the job and lose their unemployment benefit. Now they have well enough paying careers in their area, are tax payers etc, as they dedicated their time to their craft rather than washing dishes or some such other pointless work. This brain dead approach of any job that pays is more valuable than one that doesn't sucks the life out of society and reduces innovation, artistic endeavour and creativity across the board. It's 2017, we have the world's library in our pockets, we can talk to friends on the other side of the globe instantaneously yet somehow we're stuck in the 1700's when it comes to jobs. We have so much over-productivity that we have to create fake jobs to keep people occupied [1] yet somehow we can't afford to allow poor people the option to follow the endeavour of their choice, invest in, and figure shit out for, themselves. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-companies-in-europe-2015-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-compani...
  - whb07 9y ago
    So...you're agreeing with the point you replied to? They went the hard route and became successful, that's great for them! Do you think it would be the case if they stayed on benefits that they would be where they are today? It's hard to go back in time and do that experiment, but I'd say with certainty that some stress and pressure leads to a net gain in the long run. Clearly in the short run that's not the case.
    - rorykoehler 9y ago
      They would have gotten there quicker... like my richer friends who where bank rolled by mum and dad.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    Are you going to fund my passion for building model tractors? I would much rather build model tractors all day and support myself by charging admission to my museum. The above business is just as valid as your "starving artists" who made it after hard work. My family cannot afford to let me follow my dreams though so I work a standard job.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      Sure. As another proponent of a guaranteed minimum income, I would be delighted if you could build model tractors all day, and even start a museum dedicated to them. Would I pay for that through taxes? You bet. (I'm a proponent of guaranteed minimum income even for people who want to drink beer and watch tv all day. I really don't care what people do with their money.)
      - bluGill 9y ago
        A guaranteed minimum income is only solution to this problem I've ever heard of that doesn't have many large flaws. I'm not entirely convinced minimum income is something I agree with (there are always hidden downsides - thus I'm reserving my judgement until after we know what they are) However the topic is unemployment, which is designed for those are choose to make more than the minimum income to keep a good income (not as good as before, but perhaps better than minimum). This is a different discussion with different pros and cons.

PrimalDual 9y ago

I think the premise is that you are not entitled to unemployment benefits in the first place. The government provides some aid but you have to be trying to help yourself first. It sounds fair to me that if you are offered a job and you refuse then you have breached that contract. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.

rorykoehler 9y ago
Having seen the real world consequence of this I disagree. I have some friends who were the typical starving artists. They had this ignominy of shitty job centre jobs forced upon them and suffered greatly. They opted to go the hard route and reject the job and lose their unemployment benefit. Now they have well enough paying careers in their area, are tax payers etc, as they dedicated their time to their craft rather than washing dishes or some such other pointless work. This brain dead approach of any job that pays is more valuable than one that doesn't sucks the life out of society and reduces innovation, artistic endeavour and creativity across the board. It's 2017, we have the world's library in our pockets, we can talk to friends on the other side of the globe instantaneously yet somehow we're stuck in the 1700's when it comes to jobs. We have so much over-productivity that we have to create fake jobs to keep people occupied [1] yet somehow we can't afford to allow poor people the option to follow the endeavour of their choice, invest in, and figure shit out for, themselves. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-companies-in-europe-2015-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-compani...
- whb07 9y ago
  So...you're agreeing with the point you replied to? They went the hard route and became successful, that's great for them! Do you think it would be the case if they stayed on benefits that they would be where they are today? It's hard to go back in time and do that experiment, but I'd say with certainty that some stress and pressure leads to a net gain in the long run. Clearly in the short run that's not the case.
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    They would have gotten there quicker... like my richer friends who where bank rolled by mum and dad.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Are you going to fund my passion for building model tractors? I would much rather build model tractors all day and support myself by charging admission to my museum. The above business is just as valid as your "starving artists" who made it after hard work. My family cannot afford to let me follow my dreams though so I work a standard job.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Sure. As another proponent of a guaranteed minimum income, I would be delighted if you could build model tractors all day, and even start a museum dedicated to them. Would I pay for that through taxes? You bet. (I'm a proponent of guaranteed minimum income even for people who want to drink beer and watch tv all day. I really don't care what people do with their money.)
    - bluGill 9y ago
      A guaranteed minimum income is only solution to this problem I've ever heard of that doesn't have many large flaws. I'm not entirely convinced minimum income is something I agree with (there are always hidden downsides - thus I'm reserving my judgement until after we know what they are) However the topic is unemployment, which is designed for those are choose to make more than the minimum income to keep a good income (not as good as before, but perhaps better than minimum). This is a different discussion with different pros and cons.