Comments on: On Creating Employment http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html Because everything has a reason! Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:52:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Prashanth Perumal http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html#comment-1541 Prashanth Perumal Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:55:23 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=1200#comment-1541 "The objection here is simple. The welfare of PEOPLE should not be at the cost of right of a PERSON." My point is, there needs to be the right balance with -- people's rights and welfare. Both are important, not recognizing it would mean having a view of the population as "a herd". “The objection here is simple. The welfare of PEOPLE should not be at the cost of right of a PERSON.”

My point is, there needs to be the right balance with — people’s rights and welfare. Both are important, not recognizing it would mean having a view of the population as “a herd”.

]]> By: Prashanth Perumal http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html#comment-1540 Prashanth Perumal Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:51:17 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=1200#comment-1540 "If those are really urgent needs,market would have met it."   To put it in short, goods (supply) flows towards people who offer high prices. That's an economic "law". If a person A (who wants the good as a luxury) could offer higher prices than person B (who wants the good as a life sustaining need), then if you leave the market to follow your "laws", then market will win, welfare will lose .i.e. the good will allocate itself to satisfy luxury needs, NOT life sustaining needs. On the other hand, the government can do a better job.   "Laws of economics are like the law of gravity.You can’t refute it"   I didn't take a shot to refute economics. I asked you, should the market be allowed to work by its' own laws even if it goes mad (market failure)? “If those are really urgent needs,market would have met it.”
 
To put it in short, goods (supply) flows towards people who offer high prices. That’s an economic “law”. If a person A (who wants the good as a luxury) could offer higher prices than person B (who wants the good as a life sustaining need), then if you leave the market to follow your “laws”, then market will win, welfare will lose .i.e. the good will allocate itself to satisfy luxury needs, NOT life sustaining needs. On the other hand, the government can do a better job.
 

“Laws of economics are like the law of gravity.You can’t refute it”
 
I didn’t take a shot to refute economics. I asked you, should the market be allowed to work by its’ own laws even if it goes mad (market failure)?

]]> By: sd http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html#comment-1539 sd Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:16:06 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=1200#comment-1539 For me there are two main themes working here: 1) The right of the corporation or employer to create jobs and to hire only those most capable to perform that job efficiently 2) The social responsibility a society has towards protecting the least fortunate and most vulnerable in society. These two often work at odds to each other, hence we have the eternal fight between capitalist forces and socialist forces; one wanting more efficiency, and the right to discard anyone or anything that reduces the profit margin and the other, wanting to protect the 'peoples' ' rights over everything else, seeing anybody making personal profit as the enemy... Unfortunately real life is not like that. As much as the corp has a right to discard anybody that does not meet it's standards of skill or performance, it is also unacceptable for the corp to exploit it's workers and not pay them correctly for the work done, or to keep them in working conditions that are detrimental to health. This is common in many countries where the profiteering company is creating jobs, but exploiting the workers to maximize profits for themselves. Workers are expendable items to them, to be replaced as they die. That is where laws and labour unions should come in: to ensure that there is a clear and fair means of regulating the corporation and their treatment of workers. Somebody needs to stand up for the worker and make sure they also get their fair share of what they have worked hard for. However, in reality, this protective body has become swollen and corrupt and is now just a big hinderance to the corporations, in that the unions now seem to be more interested in gaining wealth and political power for themselves. This is sad because they seem to have lost sight of the real issue: to protect the vulnerable. They are now as bad as the corporations  in that they will block otherwise good initiatives to create jobs, because the minimum wage is not high enough for their liking, or organise strikes because some inefficient or even corrupt employees were (rightfully) sacked! How can any business expect to operate in the face of such barriers to operation? The easy solution for them is to uproot and move to a region with fewer barriers to entry (less corruption, fewer constraints to employ, lower tax rates payable to the state etc). A good example is TATA Nano production uprooting from West Bengal to I think Gujarat because of what I understood to be the same reasons above! What a shame that was for Bengal and all the jobs that were lost! But that is no longer the problems of the corrupt WB government and the unions. They became too greedy and ensured that business and jobs were lost in the process. For me there are two main themes working here:
1) The right of the corporation or employer to create jobs and to hire only those most capable to perform that job efficiently
2) The social responsibility a society has towards protecting the least fortunate and most vulnerable in society.

These two often work at odds to each other, hence we have the eternal fight between capitalist forces and socialist forces; one wanting more efficiency, and the right to discard anyone or anything that reduces the profit margin and the other, wanting to protect the ‘peoples’ ‘ rights over everything else, seeing anybody making personal profit as the enemy…

Unfortunately real life is not like that. As much as the corp has a right to discard anybody that does not meet it’s standards of skill or performance, it is also unacceptable for the corp to exploit it’s workers and not pay them correctly for the work done, or to keep them in working conditions that are detrimental to health.

This is common in many countries where the profiteering company is creating jobs, but exploiting the workers to maximize profits for themselves. Workers are expendable items to them, to be replaced as they die.

That is where laws and labour unions should come in: to ensure that there is a clear and fair means of regulating the corporation and their treatment of workers. Somebody needs to stand up for the worker and make sure they also get their fair share of what they have worked hard for.

However, in reality, this protective body has become swollen and corrupt and is now just a big hinderance to the corporations, in that the unions now seem to be more interested in gaining wealth and political power for themselves.

This is sad because they seem to have lost sight of the real issue: to protect the vulnerable. They are now as bad as the corporations  in that they will block otherwise good initiatives to create jobs, because the minimum wage is not high enough for their liking, or organise strikes because some inefficient or even corrupt employees were (rightfully) sacked!

How can any business expect to operate in the face of such barriers to operation? The easy solution for them is to uproot and move to a region with fewer barriers to entry (less corruption, fewer constraints to employ, lower tax rates payable to the state etc).

A good example is TATA Nano production uprooting from West Bengal to I think Gujarat because of what I understood to be the same reasons above! What a shame that was for Bengal and all the jobs that were lost! But that is no longer the problems of the corrupt WB government and the unions. They became too greedy and ensured that business and jobs were lost in the process.

]]> By: deadmanoncampus http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html#comment-1538 deadmanoncampus Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:06:21 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=1200#comment-1538 If some one wants to jump of a sky scraper,and says-"Why should I respect the law of gravity? Why shouldn't it take a backseat when It is my urgent need to get to the ground as fast as possible?" What could be said to that person? If some one wants to jump of a sky scraper,and says-”Why should I respect the law of gravity? Why shouldn’t it take a backseat when It is my urgent need to get to the ground as fast as possible?” What could be said to that person?

]]> By: deadmanoncampus http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html#comment-1537 deadmanoncampus Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:00:22 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=1200#comment-1537 "There is reason to hard reason believe the government will, more often than not, make spendings on the most urgent needs of the economy" If those are really urgent needs,market would have met it. "Are the “laws” of economics to be compulsorily followed, even, at the cost of human welfare? " Laws of economics are like the law of gravity.You can't refute it/ “There is reason to hard reason believe the government will, more often than not, make spendings on the most urgent needs of the economy”

If those are really urgent needs,market would have met it.

“Are the “laws” of economics to be compulsorily followed, even, at the cost of human welfare? ”

Laws of economics are like the law of gravity.You can’t refute it/

]]> By: Fisherman http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html#comment-1536 Fisherman Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:00:24 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=1200#comment-1536 Mr perumal The objection here is simple. The welfare of PEOPLE should not be at the cost of right of a PERSON. How can you ignore the right of an individual, and talk about right of the people? Are people like a herd of sheep to you, without a distinct face? Mr perumal
The objection here is simple. The welfare of PEOPLE should not be at the cost of right of a PERSON.
How can you ignore the right of an individual, and talk about right of the people?
Are people like a herd of sheep to you, without a distinct face?

]]> By: Prashanth Perumal http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html#comment-1535 Prashanth Perumal Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:27:27 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=1200#comment-1535 "There is no reason to believe that private spending creates fewer jobs than public spending." There is reason to hard reason believe the government will, more often than not, make spendings on the most urgent needs of the economy. Market failure is not a new devil to inhabit economies. “There is no reason to believe that private spending creates fewer jobs than public spending.”

There is reason to hard reason believe the government will, more often than not, make spendings on the most urgent needs of the economy. Market failure is not a new devil to inhabit economies.

]]> By: Prashanth Perumal http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economy/on-creating-employment.html#comment-1534 Prashanth Perumal Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:22:36 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=1200#comment-1534 I find this article very offensive, paying no heed to the basic right of education every individual deserves. The reason cited, that is, "lack of purchasing power backed demand" sounds so rude and heartless. Why would it hurt to allow some economic laws to go for a nap, in order to allow for social welfare schemes? Are the "laws" of economics to be compulsorily followed, even, at the cost of human welfare? Should it be "people working for the market -- to respect its' "unfallible" laws", rather than the other way round? I find this article very offensive, paying no heed to the basic right of education every individual deserves. The reason cited, that is, “lack of purchasing power backed demand” sounds so rude and heartless.

Why would it hurt to allow some economic laws to go for a nap, in order to allow for social welfare schemes? Are the “laws” of economics to be compulsorily followed, even, at the cost of human welfare? Should it be “people working for the market — to respect its’ “unfallible” laws”, rather than the other way round?

]]>