What Democrats need to know about jobs - North San Deigo County Times

(I do not agree with this op-ed, but think that it is worth posting)

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/01/23/opinion/1_22_0422_04_09.txt

(snip)

Putting people to work is not the main idea. Businesses employ people to the extent necessary to produce, sell and maintain their products and services. Businesses are not altruistic welfare agencies.

There is no social contract to provide employment for anyone.

(snip)

Many Democrats demand private-sector jobs from a presidential candidate, as though jobs sit stashed in a jar somewhere in the White House basement. (What do we want? Jobs! When do we want them? Now!) They also demand inflated union wages, generous health benefits and subsidized college education for their children, paid for by business taxes and people other than themselves. Punishing companies and successful individuals seems to be their idea of fairness. It's perverse logic. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said it well: "You can't be both pro-jobs and anti-business." Perhaps he should repeat it until it becomes his party's mantra: a salute to common sense.

(snip)

James B. Potter of Carlsbad is a telecommunications consultant.

to India?

Uber-rich freepers buy multi-million dollar estates, plant a few oranges or avocados and pay "Farm" taxes vice full property tax! Labor to them is the Mexican family living in the weeds beside the road....maids, gardeners, slaves, etc.... Lying, greedy scum..all!

San Diego is rich in these. Odd how people who make their mint off the government teat manage to be so "libertarian".

This is not about San Diego County - or any other city or county. These are some ideas that will be expressed by Bush during the campaign. Do we have adequate response?

That provides opportunities for meaningful work for those able to work. Aren't we a society?

What this guy describes is a "tough shit" policy. How about we just obtain property by force if there aren't legal opportunities to earn?

If you run a business and give a person a job, that worker has the responsibility to do his/her best work and earn his/her wages. This is a good thing. At the same time, the business has a responsibility to deal with that employee fairly and in good faith. And it is immoral, regardless of "the market" to pay a worker less than what it costs them to live for full time work. Just flat immoral.

Businesses create jobs in the private sector and this is a good thing. Nobody says we should replace our free enterprise system. It is working well, but it needs certain conditions to continue working:

Laws and law enforcement: No business can survive if it doesn't have security from theft (of either the white-collar type or just burglary). Look at Iraq if you don't believe me. Laws and law enforcement are provided by the government and funded by your taxes.

Transportation: No business can survive if it has no transportation system to get its goods to market. ALL transportation systems are running on government funded roads and airports or government subsidized rails. These are provided by your tax dollars.

Utilities: No business can succeed without power, water and sewer services provided directly by government or heavily regulated to assure a "level playing field" and some price stability. These are funded from your utility rates and tax dollars.

Trade: No large business can thrive without opportunities to trade and a government to negotiate and enforce trade agreements.

Capital: The employer's capital is just a right to certain productive resources and property. These rights are CREATED AND MAINTAINED by the government and the social system in which we live. The social system and social contract should be RESPECTED by these capitalists, as they are its greatest beneficiaries.

The kind of attitude shown by the writer of the article seems to be "screw you workers, you'll take whatever I give you and feel lucky to get it". This kind of attitude led to certain revolutions over 200 years ago. The more genteel of these revolutions succeeded in creating our nation and establishing the property rights and political system that we now enjoy.

The other (French)revolution occurred because the owners of resources (capitalists, or aristocracy in this case) failed to perceive that their selfishness was irresponsible and counterproductive. As a result, they lost not only their artificial property rights and privileges, but their lives.

OK?

The infrastructure and support provided by government to business are enormous. Yet the global strategy of corporate non taxpayers is exploit the American market to the max while erecting fronts to move profits offshore in sham transactions so they don't have to pay any taxes. They get the government largesse, the worker gets the tax bill.

This isn't even corporate socialism, it is pure inequity.

AND pro-jobs.

The "Democrats are anti-business" meme is complete BS. Democrats are generally anti corrupt business, and anti-monopoly business (although not as much as I would like).

Democrats want a FAIR business environment.

Giving Halliburton no-bid contracts is only "pro-business" for ONE business, and anti-business for all the others that had no opportunity.

Allowing a business to pollute the environment at everybody else's expense is not pro-business, it just gives an unfair advantage to that particular business.

Republicans are only "pro" their own cronies. They are not pro-business.

George W. Bush never ran a successful business. Never.