Tweet
Master Spiffor! I agree with nearly everything you said in your post! You are correct...it is quite possible that any of those things (and worse!) can happen, but are not the following also true:
* A worker, no matter how unskilled, will almost NEVER find himself with only ONE job option (as your first example indicated). This MIGHT hold true for someone living in some extremely rural location with no means of transportation, no friends, no family, no means of getting away from the area. This tends to be true because there are LOTS of unskilled jobs, and by extension, lots of unskilled workers to fill them, so while your job at any particualr location may be somewhat tenuous, if you lose it, it's generally pretty easy to get another low-skill job.
* Further, people do not exist in a vaccuum. That is to say, we are dynamic. When I was sixteen, I was only qualified to work in low skilled jobs. I did not come from a family of wealth or affluence, and yet...despite my relative lack of opportunity, I was able, all by my powerless self, bootstrap my way AWAY FROM the unskilled type job, and into a highly technical field. I did not need a state babysitter to assist me in this (no student loans taken, no nanny state paying for my education). I did not need a rich uncle's trust fund. I did it by virtue of focus and hard work. In this, I am hardly unique.
Your second example brings up two distinct points that are worthy of much discussion. The first is the elderly worker who has been with the same company for a number of years. While this situation USED TO BE true in almost every case, in our modern economy, it is all but unheard of. Thus, is it not more likely that said worker will have job hopped repeatedly over the course of his career, and his learning skills will be a good deal sharper than your worst case scenario might indicate? Secondly, having had 30+ years of productive earning, is it beyond the realm of possibility that this worker has perhaps done even a smidgeon of retirement planning (above and beyond what pension plan he may be enrolled in, and his various other benefits)? In short, while this MAY BE some cause for concern for 0.0000000002% of a given nation's population, is that truly sufficient cause to throw out the entire economic system and rebuild it from scratch, especially when there are simpler solutions to address this specific issue?
The essence of what I'm saying is that the problems you describe DO exist in the current system. Yes. There's no denying it.
However....
The specific cases you mention reside "at the margins" as it were, and impact a relatively small number of people (people who are apparently incapable of learning new skills, or elderly workers who have not planned for their impending retirement).
I contend that this subset of people constitutes an insufficient number to rip down an entire economic sub system and rebuild it from scratch when there are other means at our disposal for caring for people that fall into these categories.
-=Vel=-
* A worker, no matter how unskilled, will almost NEVER find himself with only ONE job option (as your first example indicated). This MIGHT hold true for someone living in some extremely rural location with no means of transportation, no friends, no family, no means of getting away from the area. This tends to be true because there are LOTS of unskilled jobs, and by extension, lots of unskilled workers to fill them, so while your job at any particualr location may be somewhat tenuous, if you lose it, it's generally pretty easy to get another low-skill job.
* Further, people do not exist in a vaccuum. That is to say, we are dynamic. When I was sixteen, I was only qualified to work in low skilled jobs. I did not come from a family of wealth or affluence, and yet...despite my relative lack of opportunity, I was able, all by my powerless self, bootstrap my way AWAY FROM the unskilled type job, and into a highly technical field. I did not need a state babysitter to assist me in this (no student loans taken, no nanny state paying for my education). I did not need a rich uncle's trust fund. I did it by virtue of focus and hard work. In this, I am hardly unique.
Your second example brings up two distinct points that are worthy of much discussion. The first is the elderly worker who has been with the same company for a number of years. While this situation USED TO BE true in almost every case, in our modern economy, it is all but unheard of. Thus, is it not more likely that said worker will have job hopped repeatedly over the course of his career, and his learning skills will be a good deal sharper than your worst case scenario might indicate? Secondly, having had 30+ years of productive earning, is it beyond the realm of possibility that this worker has perhaps done even a smidgeon of retirement planning (above and beyond what pension plan he may be enrolled in, and his various other benefits)? In short, while this MAY BE some cause for concern for 0.0000000002% of a given nation's population, is that truly sufficient cause to throw out the entire economic system and rebuild it from scratch, especially when there are simpler solutions to address this specific issue?
The essence of what I'm saying is that the problems you describe DO exist in the current system. Yes. There's no denying it.
However....
The specific cases you mention reside "at the margins" as it were, and impact a relatively small number of people (people who are apparently incapable of learning new skills, or elderly workers who have not planned for their impending retirement).
I contend that this subset of people constitutes an insufficient number to rip down an entire economic sub system and rebuild it from scratch when there are other means at our disposal for caring for people that fall into these categories.
-=Vel=-
You're wacked.
)
Comment