Originally posted by quackquack
Simply not true. When a person cannot find a job, it does not mean the system has failed (unless you believe unemployment is a system failure because some people simply lack skills and motivation) . Unemployment simply means that a person cannot find a job. Perhaps it is a timing issue, perhaps the person has too high demands or insufficient skills. Unemployment if it bails out anyone, bails out the person who cannot/ will not take get a job.

If you knew anything about unemployment insurance (which you obviously don't), you'd know that the claimant has to be actively seeking unemployment and have lost his previous job by no fault of his own. The capitalist system has failed them, they have not failed the capitalist system.

Originally posted by rwingett
If there are always fewer jobs available than the number of people looking for work, then it doesn't matter how hard they try. There will ALWAYS be unemployment. It is a systemic failure.

There will always be unemployment, but that's because some people are simply too lazy or dumb to make themselves useful (yet not quite dumb enough to qualify as mentally handicapped). Having said that, you can being the unemployment figure quite low, to about 2-3%. I remember that before the credit crunch, unemployment in Holland was something like 300,000, with 200,000 open job positions that could not be filled. Some people are simply unemployable.

Originally posted by dryhump
Sure the government can be blamed, they took away revenue from the banks and the banks sought to replace that revenue. Banks exist solely because of the government? Crack a history book, dude. What do you consider useful work no1? More importantly, under what system would everyone who wanted it be provided useful work?

I suggest you find a history book rather than the Randian fantasies you seem to believe in. Banks exist only because of the State and would not exist without one. The government "took" nothing away from the banks; it stopped them from gouging retailers in the future - they kept their ill-gotten gains of the past.

To your last question: a just and equitable one.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There will always be unemployment, but that's because some people are simply too lazy or dumb to make themselves useful (yet not quite dumb enough to qualify as mentally handicapped). Having said that, you can being the unemployment figure quite low, to about 2-3%. I remember that before the credit crunch, unemployment in Holland was something like 300, ...[text shortened]... with 200,000 open job positions that could not be filled. Some people are simply unemployable.

In the US, you are not considered unemployed unless you are capable of working. By that definition, no one who is unemployed is "unemployable".

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you knew anything about unemployment insurance (which you obviously don't), you'd know that the claimant has to be actively seeking unemployment and have lost his previous job by no fault of his own. The capitalist system has failed them, they have not failed the capitalist system.

The idea that a system fails because we don't have 100% employment is a joke.
Nothing works 100% of the time and to blame the system is just folly.

Enployers always seek to keep their most productive employees. Many employees who lose their job do so because they suimply did not have sufficient skills and/ or give sufficent effort to justify their continued employment. Just because one claims to be looking for job does not mean that they are working their hardest -- if you knew anything about unemployment insurance you would realize that many people gladly sit on their behinds and collect checks.

Originally posted by quackquack

Enployers always seek to keep their most productive employees.

Where do you get these silly ideas? That might be the case for a small business, but certainly not for large corporations or governments, where it's more about sucking up to the right people than being productive.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In the US, you are not considered unemployed unless you are capable of working. By that definition, no one who is unemployed is "unemployable".

You can be capable of working and still be too lazy, or have no skills that are desired by any employer.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where do you get these silly ideas? That might be the case for a small business, but certainly not for large corporations or governments, where it's more about sucking up to the right people than being productive.

Do you really think that most companies make employment decisions based on who sucks up to the right person?

Originally posted by no1marauder
In the US, you are not considered unemployed unless you are capable of working. By that definition, no one who is unemployed is "unemployable".

Unemployment under 4% is considered full employment. There are a certain percentage of people who are going to be so unattractive to employers or so incapable of holding a job that, while they are considered unemployed, that is not considered a failure of the system.

Originally posted by quackquack
Do you really think that most companies make employment decisions based on who sucks up to the right person?

Partially, yes. It's how the real world works. A middle manager in a large corporation is not concerned with the profits of the corporation; he wants to maintain his job and if possible get a promotion. So he wants people under him who praise him (so he looks good to upper management), and he needs to suck up to his boss. This is why you see the same pattern in most large corporations/government agencies: a small, productive, heavily specialized workforce and a large clout of bureaucratic moneywasters who ride their backs.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Partially, yes. It's how the real world works. A middle manager in a large corporation is not concerned with the profits of the corporation; he wants to maintain his job and if possible get a promotion. So he wants people under him who praise him (so he looks good to upper management), and he needs to suck up to his boss. This is why you see the same pa ...[text shortened]... vily specialized workforce and a large clout of bureaucratic moneywasters who ride their backs.

You present a very negative view of middle management and view of upper management as very being very ignorant of what goes on beneath them. I would think that the best way to look good to your boss is to have employees underneath you who do a good job. Thus, I would expect that middle mangament tries to keep and retain quality people as best they can and I would also expect that upper management is looking for reliable and skilled people and not just people who suck up to them.

Originally posted by quackquack
You present a very negative view of middle management and view of upper management as very being very ignorant of what goes on beneath them. I would think that the best way to look good to your boss is to have employees underneath you who do a good job. Thus, I would expect that middle mangament tries to keep and retain quality people as best they can ...[text shortened]... r management is looking for reliable and skilled people and not just people who suck up to them.

A realistic view. Competent people in upper management are very rare - most of them got there by, you've guessed it, sucking up to people. That, and getting some business or law degree where you learn nothing about economics or running a business (though legal knowledge can be useful). Your view is utopian and extremely naive.

Originally posted by rwingett
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/01/pf/bank_of_america_debit_fee/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

The big banks have all backed off their plan to further gouge the people with their $5 debit card fees. If you think the Occupy Wall Street movement will have no effect, well, this is it. Getting people to move their money out of the big banks has been one of their main aims. And the big banks are starting to feel the pain.

I don't understand why anyone remains a customer of Bank of America or any other "big" bank. Big banks are less stable, have terrible customer relations, and comparatively poor service. And yet their branches are always busy, seemingly.

The people who go to the BoA location near me drive like they spent their childhood licking the paint off of condemned buildings, and usually take their half down the middle when they stop to make their turn into the parking lot. A match made in heaven, I guess.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A realistic view. Competent people in upper management are very rare - most of them got there by, you've guessed it, sucking up to people. That, and getting some business or law degree where you learn nothing about economics or running a business (though legal knowledge can be useful). Your view is utopian and extremely naive.

Turds always float to the top. Especially if they're greasy.

Originally posted by quackquack
The idea that a system fails because we don't have 100% employment is a joke.
Nothing works 100% of the time and to blame the system is just folly.

Enployers always seek to keep their most productive employees. Many employees who lose their job do so because they suimply did not have sufficient skills and/ or give sufficent effort to justify their ...[text shortened]... nt insurance you would realize that many people gladly sit on their behinds and collect checks.

If you uncorked your ears which way would the air flow, I wonder?

I've never heard of anyone just sitting back and enjoying themselves whilst receiving unemployment checks. Income is effectively cut in half, and the clock is ticking. If you think it's all palm fronds and pina coladas you're an idiot.