3 ms·

>There are jobs, but not the ones most people want. There is no such thing as a shortage in labor markets. There is just people not willing to pay the correct

by noosphr 5mo ago

>There are jobs, but not the ones most people want. There is no such thing as a shortage in labor markets. There is just people not willing to pay the correct price.

joe_mamba 5mo ago
[flagged]
- sieiw 5mo ago
  If you think the market will clear simply by doing this then you’re utterly delusional.
- piva00 5mo ago
  Does German welfare really pay generous benefits if people avoid working altogether? I really don't know much about it, I'd have assumed it follows a similar model to the Swedish one: you can be on benefits while searching for a job, there's even a government agency tasked with finding positions you might qualify, you are required to apply to X jobs a month, and if you get offered a job you need to take it or you will get benefits cut. Of course, there are ways to prolong it but it's definitely not enough to create major distortions, you will eventually run the clock out on the unemployment payments. Also to have decent unemployment you need to have contributed to an unemployment fund, there's a national one available to all citizens which doesn't pay much, otherwise you need to have funded the one provided by your union.
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    >Does German welfare really pay generous benefits if people avoid working altogether? As always, it depends on your definition and situation. If you're a highly skilled, ambitious worker, with a desire for a high standard of living, then no. If you're unskilled and unscrupulous and willing to game the system every step of the way(like some people I met), then being on welfare definitely pays better than doing unskilled labor, with the advantage you don't come home every day smelly and tired having to wake up early the next day for a long commute to go through this grind every day. >you will eventually run the clock out on the unemployment payments. You can prolong this indefinitely by destroying your mind and body with drugs and alcohol so you can go on disability benefits, and not worry about job interviews ever again, because nobody will hire you. >Of course, there are ways to prolong it but it's definitely not enough to create major distortions Yeah, NO, it definitely does major distortions. If welfare turns from a temporary safety net only used by a few and paid by many, to a system now many rely on long term and paid only by a few, then it ends up distorting everything: the tax system, the labor market, the rental market, government spending and debt, etc. all of which negatively affect a nation's economic competitiveness.
    - piva00 5mo ago
      > Yeah, NO, it definitely does major distortions. If welfare turns from a temporary safety net only used by a few and paid by many, to a system now many rely on long term and paid only by a few, then it ends up distorting everything: the tax system, the labor market, the rental market, government spending and debt, etc. all of which negatively affect a nation's economic competitiveness. My point was entirely focused on the Swedish model which doesn't create major distortions due to how it works, you cannot be on welfare for an undetermined amount of time unless you are disabled. For your points, I believe we need real hard data, I cannot determine if what you say about Germany is actually true without looking at it. How many people in Germany are living only on welfare for long periods (at least 12 months, what proportion stays for 24+ months)? What is the proportion between people temporarily on welfare vs long-term ones (excluding disabilities that remove someone from the labour pool)? What percentage of Germany's budget go to service welfare costs for the issue you brought up (people living on welfare instead of working)? I'm asking for hard data because it smells very much like the "welfare queens" trope used in the USA by Reagan which was absolute bullshit.
- kuerbel 5mo ago
  [flagged]
- r_lee 5mo ago
  that will not restore the job market... it'd just create an American system of struggle where you need to do doordash to make ends meet
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    Doing doordash is "a system of struggle"? What about working in mines or on fishing boats? What about the Europeans who collect bottles to make ends meet? How did unskilled Europeans make ends meet before doordash and government welfare existed? Education and everything else related for the youth is free(taxpayer funded and government provided) in Europe. Whose responsibility is it to make ends meet other than your own? If you end up doing doordash after being provided all those generous opportunities in your youth, maybe some self reflection is needed. Should we keep taxing small business entrepreneurs and higher earners more, to subsidize the lower earners so adults can sit at home instead of doing doordash, while having food delivery service jobs be done by a parallel society comprised of desperate migrants and refugees, which need to be brought it endlessly to keep this ponzi scheme going, because the locals feel like it's below them. Is this better for Europe?
    - r_lee 5mo ago
      I'm not saying we should tax everybody, what I'm saying is that right now there simply isn't enough work for everybody, so if we get rid of these safety nets then we will get into a system of no education, no higher productivity, just simply people struggling because of economic conditions. we don't live in an age where we must struggle continously... if there's 1000 positions but 3000 people looking for jobs, do you suggest 2000 people are put out there to figure it out themselves? hopefully you get my idea here.

by noosphr 5mo ago

>There are jobs, but not the ones most people want. There is no such thing as a shortage in labor markets. There is just people not willing to pay the correct price.

joe_mamba 5mo ago

[flagged]

sieiw 5mo ago
If you think the market will clear simply by doing this then you’re utterly delusional.
piva00 5mo ago
Does German welfare really pay generous benefits if people avoid working altogether? I really don't know much about it, I'd have assumed it follows a similar model to the Swedish one: you can be on benefits while searching for a job, there's even a government agency tasked with finding positions you might qualify, you are required to apply to X jobs a month, and if you get offered a job you need to take it or you will get benefits cut. Of course, there are ways to prolong it but it's definitely not enough to create major distortions, you will eventually run the clock out on the unemployment payments. Also to have decent unemployment you need to have contributed to an unemployment fund, there's a national one available to all citizens which doesn't pay much, otherwise you need to have funded the one provided by your union.
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  >Does German welfare really pay generous benefits if people avoid working altogether? As always, it depends on your definition and situation. If you're a highly skilled, ambitious worker, with a desire for a high standard of living, then no. If you're unskilled and unscrupulous and willing to game the system every step of the way(like some people I met), then being on welfare definitely pays better than doing unskilled labor, with the advantage you don't come home every day smelly and tired having to wake up early the next day for a long commute to go through this grind every day. >you will eventually run the clock out on the unemployment payments. You can prolong this indefinitely by destroying your mind and body with drugs and alcohol so you can go on disability benefits, and not worry about job interviews ever again, because nobody will hire you. >Of course, there are ways to prolong it but it's definitely not enough to create major distortions Yeah, NO, it definitely does major distortions. If welfare turns from a temporary safety net only used by a few and paid by many, to a system now many rely on long term and paid only by a few, then it ends up distorting everything: the tax system, the labor market, the rental market, government spending and debt, etc. all of which negatively affect a nation's economic competitiveness.
  - piva00 5mo ago
    > Yeah, NO, it definitely does major distortions. If welfare turns from a temporary safety net only used by a few and paid by many, to a system now many rely on long term and paid only by a few, then it ends up distorting everything: the tax system, the labor market, the rental market, government spending and debt, etc. all of which negatively affect a nation's economic competitiveness. My point was entirely focused on the Swedish model which doesn't create major distortions due to how it works, you cannot be on welfare for an undetermined amount of time unless you are disabled. For your points, I believe we need real hard data, I cannot determine if what you say about Germany is actually true without looking at it. How many people in Germany are living only on welfare for long periods (at least 12 months, what proportion stays for 24+ months)? What is the proportion between people temporarily on welfare vs long-term ones (excluding disabilities that remove someone from the labour pool)? What percentage of Germany's budget go to service welfare costs for the issue you brought up (people living on welfare instead of working)? I'm asking for hard data because it smells very much like the "welfare queens" trope used in the USA by Reagan which was absolute bullshit.
kuerbel 5mo ago
[flagged]
r_lee 5mo ago
that will not restore the job market... it'd just create an American system of struggle where you need to do doordash to make ends meet
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  Doing doordash is "a system of struggle"? What about working in mines or on fishing boats? What about the Europeans who collect bottles to make ends meet? How did unskilled Europeans make ends meet before doordash and government welfare existed? Education and everything else related for the youth is free(taxpayer funded and government provided) in Europe. Whose responsibility is it to make ends meet other than your own? If you end up doing doordash after being provided all those generous opportunities in your youth, maybe some self reflection is needed. Should we keep taxing small business entrepreneurs and higher earners more, to subsidize the lower earners so adults can sit at home instead of doing doordash, while having food delivery service jobs be done by a parallel society comprised of desperate migrants and refugees, which need to be brought it endlessly to keep this ponzi scheme going, because the locals feel like it's below them. Is this better for Europe?
  - r_lee 5mo ago
    I'm not saying we should tax everybody, what I'm saying is that right now there simply isn't enough work for everybody, so if we get rid of these safety nets then we will get into a system of no education, no higher productivity, just simply people struggling because of economic conditions. we don't live in an age where we must struggle continously... if there's 1000 positions but 3000 people looking for jobs, do you suggest 2000 people are put out there to figure it out themselves? hopefully you get my idea here.