Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
This statement right here is a wonderful example of why economics should come with a disclaimer stating "results not typical". Do you really think the job market is that fluid, that switching employers is just a matter of education, training and marketable job skills? Perhaps you should spend more time trying to get jobs...
|
Yes the most job markets are that fluid. There are some job markets that are not. for example prevailing labor rates using union labor are negotiated and are often fixed, switching employers in the same market won't make a difference in wages. Using education to switch industries may lead to a person receiving pay based on their individual value rather than a "group" value.
What was the point of the comment about me trying to get jobs? You don't know anything about my experiences, what I have come from and how I did it.
Quote:
|
That's the problem with believing the in the work of invisible hands: it's too easy to forget that, in reality, work is done by people who aren't omniscient.
|
Given the above, how would you apply it to the real world. I believe the more information or knowledge you have the better off you will be even if it does not reach the level of knowing everything.
-----Added 26/10/2008 at 03 : 48 : 06-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
as for the main topic of the thread, i've read through it and cannot for the life of me figure out the grounds for ace's problem with people who are screwed at the level of wage levels because of gender or anything else for that matter being able to recoup the effective loss. i suspect that, at bottom, it falls under another conservative bromide from the reagan period, which holds that all lawsuits that damage republican-friendly interests are by definition frivolous. the reason for this has nothing to do with what the right claims for it, and everything with limiting redress, making economic activity as minimially accountable as possible--just as privatization was not about efficiency, but about minimizing political risk for the (conservative-dominated) state.
|
This issue is riddled with confusion because no one can explain the point of the new legislation. People who are wronged have recourse under current law. People who break the current law can be liable for the damages they incur on the victims including punitive damages. What more is needed? Why is this an Obama campaign issue? How does Obama conclude McCain (and by inference those who support McCain) don't support equal wages, especially given the records of both men concerning their own staffs?