It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jobs are Killing America

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:50 PM

This video is done by a law student. I agree with many of the issues presented by this young man. I wanted to put this out on the forum for discussion. Do you think there is a control mechanism in place to force people to accept the idea, we must work for others under the protection of government, obeying corporate rules which violate our rights as free people?

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:02 PM
hmm...not even a reply? The guy is wearing an END THE FED shirt. Maybe I posted at the wrong time of day.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:06 PM
No one is forced to work for someone else.

Everyone is free to open their own business and be their own boss.

It worked for me

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
hmm...not even a reply? The guy is wearing an END THE FED shirt. Maybe I posted at the wrong time of day.

New era, and just another communist!

This kid, and his video did absolutely nothing for me.

I think he resents his parents for telling him to take the garbage out, because it was his job in the household!

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by brainwrek

Yes but talk with the average American or go to a college campus. People are looking for a good job. Everyone wants a job. The point of the guy in the video was why the government perpetuates jobs, jobs, jobs. It forces a mentality of dependence rather than independence.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

I want everyone to have a job, and in some cases 2 or 3 of them.

Wanna know why?

It means less of my tax money will be used to support them.

Getting a job isnt hard. getting a job you enjoy and excel at is another story.

The real question here is why is government involved in "creating" jobs in the first place. That certainly isnt a function or duty of government.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by brainwrek

It seems like it isn't. In a way, they have created jobs in the Gulf area to clean up the oil. Imagine that, in a depressed area already, after Katrina.

I agree it shouldn't be a funtion of the government to create jobs, unless the jobs are within the government! LOL!

Let the private sector be able to do it, without bailouts? Can they?

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by Blanca Rose

If the government would get out of the way and stop interjecting itself into business, the market would provide jobs like they were going out of style.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:29 PM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

Two points

1. If you work for yourself, you have a job...working for yourself.

2. In many fields, especially those that will make up the 21st century high tech and high skilled economy, being an entrepreneur is not necessarily a viable option for all workers. For example, a young engineer is not going to feasibly be able to start up his own business because he will not have access to large amounts of capital or people with expertise. A young engineer will have to work for someone else for a few years and learn his industry's ropes before he could feasibly branch off on his own.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:38 PM
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

This is a good point. Back at the origins of the founding of America, I think all jobs required being an apprentice to someone with experience. I know lawyers used to have to do this. Virginia I think still allows a person to become a lawyer by working with an attorney for 4 years. You make an excellent point that people need to learn the skills then learn how to apply them.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:59 PM
The real thing killing the US economy is a lack of good jobs, not the presence of jobs themselves.

Not everyone can work for themselves, start their own business, be an entrepreneur, whatever. Those who can, that's fine, but the concept loses its meaning very quickly.

Imagine going to a coffee shop. You give your order to a one-man cashier company, run by an entrepreneur who works for himself. He then transmits the order to the coffee-grinding company, a sole proporietorship located a few meters to his left. This young, dynamic entreperenur performs his company's task and then uses his connection to the coffee-brewing company, another nearby company-of-one, who outsources the foaming to a latte-foaming corporation, also run by a single indivudual standing behind him. After supply-chain logistics work their miracle, the cashier company is able to hand a finished product over to you, the end client. See how absurd all that is?

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by silent thunder

I am curious, why can't someone, anyone for that matter start working for themselves if they want to?

I have started two business with no capital, grew them and sold them just with work.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by habfan1968

Please note that in my post I specifically said that if a person is cut out to be an entrepreneur, that's fine. Did you read my post?

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Do you think there is a control mechanism in place to force people to accept the idea, we must work for others under the protection of government, obeying corporate rules which violate our rights as free people?

There is a control mechanism in place, but that mechanism is a creature of government's own creation.

Corporations have no power over people, only government has a monopoly on force. Corporations can't force anyone to do anything on their own.

Lets say I and a friend want to start a small business selling medical supplies. To start this business I would have to jump through 10.6 billion different government hoops and comply with 44.9 billion regulations.

So, who do all these regulations benefit?


Or big pharma?

What most democrats fail to realize is that 99.9% of regulations are lobbied for by industry themselves in order to block competition or secure government contracts.

Without these regulations they would be forced to compete in an open market.

The market is also self-policing.

For example, say a large corporation produces a vaccine that harms people. Normally the corporation could be sued out of business or they would loose business because they were producing harmful products.

Not so today.

Today, such a corporation would be taken to vaccine court where their liability is limited and the judges are paid for by the vaccine makers themselves.

Also, a huge portion of vaccines are purchased by government. Of course, those contracts only go to big pharma vaccine makers. Good luck trying to start up a small business producing vaccines and getting a government contract.

This means that if big pharma makes a bad vaccine, they don't have to worry about the market rejecting their product.

Government protects bad vaccine makers, while the market tries to shut them down.

This is true of almost all major industry that is heavily regulated. The regulations are strictly for the benefit of the mega-corporations. Especially the financial industry. Without the Fed, Goldman and all the rest would be bankrupt right now and our money would still be worth something.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:00 PM
I understand what he saying, but the ability for some people to start a business in say different area's of the U.S. may not be feasible. Economic factors of the area they live in and their ability to travel or move to a desired area to start their own business is a lot of the time, just not possible. Government regulates so many different industries nowadays that you might spend more money in licenses and lawyers before you even get off the ground. Also most business' need a starter loan, which may not be possible either, especially in this economy where banks are giving out less loans and the qualifications are much more strict. There are so many different things you have to do with your time and finances to start a business, most people don't even bother with it.

Now if this thread it to promote happiness to individuals through their work, one might want to take a look at where their priorities rest and ask themselves how much they are willing to give up for their future freedom. It might be that some people need to move to another country or state. These people will have to work many hours, limiting expenses as much as possible and then go out and try to make their fortune in another place. This is something most Americans aren't willing to do, especially in a recession. So although the idea that corporations and government can control your life is true to an extent, you in the end make the final decision on what you are going to do and how much you will endure to get yourself out, if that is what your desire is.

I guess the real question is this. In a time when finances are so dire for so many people, with many people anchored to a family or whatever might have you; how do you break away from it, limiting any damage to yourself and that which you care about, all the while breaking through to the freedom you so wish were a reality?

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:52 AM
Laziness can be an art form. So I graduated with a fine arts any change, Mister?

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:55 AM
Being forced to work for someone and choosing to work for someone are two entirely different things. I don't believe that we're at the point yet in this country where we are forced to work for anyone. Do people not pay enough to who they are working for sometimes? Probably. Have people missed where the trends are leading. Definately...particularly those still employed and feeling lucky or cocky or those unemployed who are so stressed and worried their priorities have changed.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:32 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

This is the first time in the nations history, where a persons well being is intrinsically linked with working for someone else. To become prosperous and efficient mega corporations put the little guy out of business. We have been, in a sense, herded to work for someone else. Free Markets are a great concept, but how is any mom and pop shop going to compete with Walmart? They find another business type to run right? It is really up to us to change it. When people stop going to Walmart then maybe mom and pop shops will spring up everywhere. And they will be more inefficient than Walmart, requiring more employees to operate each location.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:43 AM
I figured this one out high school when we were all getting our first jobs.

First I was pissed I couldn't have had a job earlier. How is it child slave labor if I want to work?

Second I realized the only reason I need a job/income in the first place is because theres a gun to my head demanding I pay for the right to live. I can't have land without having to pay. I can't have a roof without having to pay. I can't keep chickens without having to pay.

Just to farm for myself with no desire whatsoever to sell or have an income at all I still have to pay a base amount just to live off of nothing.

No utilities, land in the middle of nowhere and not very much of it, no use of schools or post or cops or fire departments or roads or anything at all. But theres still a gun to my head forcing me to pay. And since the gov doesn't accept bushels of vegetables or pelts as payment I have to sell which in turn requires me to pay more in income taxes and licenses and inspections when I never wanted to sell in the first place.

The most primitive and isolated life still requires tithing.

It's ridiculous. And they get away with it because the mob rules. And the mob hates you for not being part of their walmart shopping 9-5 cube farm souless dead world. And for that you will pay.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:54 AM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

1st. The kid has no idea. none at all about the Hatch rule, that disallows federal workers to engage in political activities under a very narrowly defined set of circumstances- such as at work.

2nd. What is the point of his attending law school, really? To emulate Mark Levin? Probably not. He's probably out for a job himself- like all baby lawyers who will require years of mentorship and apprenticing as associates at experienced law firms.

3rd. This idea of control vis a vis jobs. What great innovation exists without people working together. Edison did not invent anything himself- he took credit for the work of teams and teams of dedicated workers and inventors.

4th. There is nothing wrong with the entrepreneurial spirit, but entrepreneurialism is equal parts being a bull# artist and hard working a good idea. To think that a modern nation can exist solely on the backs of entrepreneurs is laughable.

5th. This guy's notion of independence lacks historical and philosophical gravitas. We wanted freedome from England and Independence from England. Not Independence and freedom from one another. We established a government because governance is necessary- you cannot have anarchy and live in a free society. While there is certainly sound reasons to criticise the government- we get the government we deserve when we choose not to educate ourselves to a high standard, educate our children to a high standard- and to involve ourselves in political life. The government can only take away what you give to them.

Maybe when this guys balls descend and he gets out of his academic cloister he'll realize how pompous and narrow a point of view this is- but he's wrong on just about all counts.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in