NationStates Jolt Archive

ISSUE NAME: Unemployment Crisis

The Issue
Unemployment rates in @@NAME@@ have hit an all-time high, approaching 40%, leaving many out-of-work people demanding government assistance.

The Debate
"It's time for the government to step in already!" says avowed socialist @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has been out of work for two months. "Ever since I lost my job in the @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@, I haven't found a place that will hire me or any of my former co-workers! The government needs to create jobs before everyone's out of work!"

"Yeah, the government can step in," says General @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If people can't get jobs, we'll give them jobs. Right here in the @@NAME@@ military. Anyone who spends a year out of work gets drafted; that's what I say. And while you're at it, the military sure could use more funding."

"Wait a minute, the government's going to give people jobs now?" asks @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ magnate @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The economy goes in cycles; if you just let it run its course, unemployment will be back down in a few years. But if you want to speed that up, give businesses subsidies. That would sure help us out."

Effects
Choice 1: the government is @@RANDOMNAME@@'s largest employer
Civil Rights go up
Economy goes up
Political Freedoms go down
Choice 2: the military drafts people who are unemployed for prolonged periods of time
Military spending increases
Economy goes down
Civil rights go down
Choice 3: business leaders are leading a revitalization of the economy
Economy goes up
Civil Rights go down

Great Issue.

Well written, and thought of.

I recommend it :)

Why would political freedoms go down with option 1?

because government jobs are restrictive compared to civilian jobs so having more people in the government would restrict their freedoms

because government jobs are restrictive compared to civilian jobs so having more people in the government would restrict their freedoms

How so? the government doesn't become any more or less democratic as a result of such things. In nations with a private sector people are still free to work elsewhere. What is restrictive about government jobs anyway? How is working for the public sector any more restrictive than working for the private sector and even if it is what does that have to do with political freedoms?

Why would political freedoms go down with option 1?

Why would civil rights go up with option 1?

This deals with ECONOMIC rights, not civil or political rights. Economic rights should go down with option 1. Civil and political should be unaffected.

ISSUE NAME: Unemployment Crisis

The Issue
Unemployment rates in @@NAME@@ have hit an all-time high, approaching 40%, leaving many out-of-work people demanding government assistance.


This should be restricted to countries with an Economic Rating of "Developing" or lower.


The Debate
"It's time for the government to step in already!" says avowed socialist @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has been out of work for two months. "Ever since I lost my job in the @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@, I haven't found a place that will hire me or any of my former co-workers! The government needs to create jobs before everyone's out of work!"

<snip>

Effects
Choice 1: the government is @@RANDOMNAME@@'s largest employer
Civil Rights go up
Economy goes up
Political Freedoms go down


The larger a government is, the lower all freedoms are. Thus, "Civil Rights" should go down, as well.

I still dont see how political freedoms go down and civil rights go up, if the US government made more jobs in the postal service, it wouldnt take away citizens' political rights or make their civil rights go up. Personally I dont see how either one of the stats would be affected

A good issue, but the stats need looking at.

Why would political freedoms go down with option 1?

Why would civil rights go up with option 1?

This deals with ECONOMIC rights, not civil or political rights. Economic rights should go down with option 1. Civil and political should be unaffected.

Economic freedom should decrease, economic performance and social justice should increase. You are right it is not really a civil or political rights issue.

Why would political freedoms go down with option 1?

Why would civil rights go up with option 1?

This deals with ECONOMIC rights, not civil or political rights. Economic rights should go down with option 1. Civil and political should be unaffected.

Economic freedom should decrease, economic performance and social justice should increase. You are right it is not really a civil or political rights issue.

The larger a govt. gets, the more power it gains. The more power it gains, the more it restricts everyone's freedoms. It doesn't matter what the new hiring is ostensibly for. History proves this.

Why would political freedoms go down with option 1?

Why would civil rights go up with option 1?

This deals with ECONOMIC rights, not civil or political rights. Economic rights should go down with option 1. Civil and political should be unaffected.

Economic freedom should decrease, economic performance and social justice should increase. You are right it is not really a civil or political rights issue.

The larger a govt. gets, the more power it gains. The more power it gains, the more it restricts everyone's freedoms. It doesn't matter what the new hiring is ostensibly for. History proves this.

But allowing economic freedom also restricts personal freedoms. Scandinavian nations have had fairly large governments by western standards and yet they are among the most liberal nations in the world. It dpends what the government does with its power, a small government that devotes most of its attention to police is likely to be far more oppressive than a large government that focusses on welfare and education.

Political freedoms may go down with option 1 with an expanding government, since the government can pretty much do whatever they please with government jobs. Civil Rights being affected could be left off, I guess...and yes, it would apply only to struggling economies.

Political freedoms may go down with option 1 with an expanding government, since the government can pretty much do whatever they please with government jobs. Civil Rights being affected could be left off, I guess...and yes, it would apply only to struggling economies.

Even if that were correct that is not a political freedoms issue. Political freedoms are things like how democratic a government is, can people criticise the government, how much control do they have over who is in the government and what it does etc. Size of government is not a factor.

Political freedoms may go down with option 1 with an expanding government, since the government can pretty much do whatever they please with government jobs. Civil Rights being affected could be left off, I guess...and yes, it would apply only to struggling economies.

Even if that were correct that is not a political freedoms issue. Political freedoms are things like how democratic a government is, can people criticise the government, how much control do they have over who is in the government and what it does etc. Size of government is not a factor.

I guess you don't get the point: a big government can AND WILL restrict citizen's freedoms. All of them. History PROVES it.

Further, the government, as an employer has more powers over its employees than it does as a government per se over its citizens. Hence, the employees have fewer freedoms across the board; the larger the fraction of the citizens who are employees, the more this effect comes into play.

Political freedoms may go down with option 1 with an expanding government, since the government can pretty much do whatever they please with government jobs. Civil Rights being affected could be left off, I guess...and yes, it would apply only to struggling economies.

Even if that were correct that is not a political freedoms issue. Political freedoms are things like how democratic a government is, can people criticise the government, how much control do they have over who is in the government and what it does etc. Size of government is not a factor.

I guess you don't get the point: a big government can AND WILL restrict citizen's freedoms. All of them. History PROVES it.

Further, the government, as an employer has more powers over its employees than it does as a government per se over its citizens. Hence, the employees have fewer freedoms across the board; the larger the fraction of the citizens who are employees, the more this effect comes into play.

Caps, underlining, colours and bold do not make you right and do not make your points more valid.

History has examples of oppressive big governments and liberal big governments. Scandinavian nations have had relatively large governments and have not sacrificed freedoms for this. As I have said in a previous post, it depends what the priorities of the government are, a government focussing on welfare and providing services will not be as oppressive as a government focussing on law and order/security.

Corporations in general will oppress far more than large government, especially when government is small. Government is accountable to the people, if anything public sector workers have more rights than private sector workers because the government has an obligation to treat them well while, unless forced otherwise a corporation will pay workers the lowest possible and force them to work in poor conditions in order to cut costs. If a government is large enough it can restrict oppressive corporations. A small government will become insignificant when compared with coporate power and thus coporations which have no concern other than to make money will be able to exploit people as they do today in the developing world.

Then of course there is the point which you seem to have missed, these are not even political freedoms, there is no reason for larger government to lead to reduced political freedoms unless if focusses on things like police in order to rig elections etc, since this issue is on welfare and stopping unemployment there should be no decrease in political freedoms and a small increase in civil rights.

First off, I do not see how this would effect poitical freedoms either, but now that I know that there is a chance that it might lower my nation's PF (which is waaaay tooooo low already) I shall have to dismiss it.

Secondly, TES, the USA has a major economy and high unemployment rate, and you fail to take into account that "economy" in NS ignores the public sector.

First off, I do not see how this would effect poitical freedoms either, but now that I know that there is a chance that it might lower my nation's PF (which is waaaay tooooo low already) I shall have to dismiss it.

Secondly, TES, the USA has a major economy and high unemployment rate, and you fail to take into account that "economy" in NS ignores the public sector.

The economy in NS does NOT ignore the public sector. It's just that the public sector is so much less efficient than the private sector, because whereas the private sector actually has the compete for its pay, the public sector can just take it by physical force and coercion (i.e. taxes).

There are rankings for largest public sector, therefore the game does take it into account.

Political freedoms may go down with option 1 with an expanding government, since the government can pretty much do whatever they please with government jobs. Civil Rights being affected could be left off, I guess...and yes, it would apply only to struggling economies.

Even if that were correct that is not a political freedoms issue. Political freedoms are things like how democratic a government is, can people criticise the government, how much control do they have over who is in the government and what it does etc. Size of government is not a factor.

I guess you don't get the point: a big government can AND WILL restrict citizen's freedoms. All of them. History PROVES it.

Further, the government, as an employer has more powers over its employees than it does as a government per se over its citizens. Hence, the employees have fewer freedoms across the board; the larger the fraction of the citizens who are employees, the more this effect comes into play.

Caps, underlining, colours and bold do not make you right and do not make your points more valid.

History has examples of oppressive big governments and liberal big governments. Scandinavian nations have had relatively large governments and have not sacrificed freedoms for this. As I have said in a previous post, it depends what the priorities of the government are, a government focussing on welfare and providing services will not be as oppressive as a government focussing on law and order/security.

Corporations in general will oppress far more than large government, especially when government is small. Government is accountable to the people, if anything public sector workers have more rights than private sector workers because the government has an obligation to treat them well while, unless forced otherwise a corporation will pay workers the lowest possible and force them to work in poor conditions in order to cut costs. If a government is large enough it can restrict oppressive corporations. A small government will become insignificant when compared with coporate power and thus coporations which have no concern other than to make money will be able to exploit people as they do today in the developing world.

Then of course there is the point which you seem to have missed, these are not even political freedoms, there is no reason for larger government to lead to reduced political freedoms unless if focusses on things like police in order to rig elections etc, since this issue is on welfare and stopping unemployment there should be no decrease in political freedoms and a small increase in civil rights.

Wolomy you DO realize that the average pay in the American private sector is 33% higher than in the public sector for the exact same job? [This varies according to industry of course, the gap in the IT industry seems to be the greatest]

You do realize that Mellon Bank's IT Department pays $75,000 a year for the EXACT same job that our local school board pays $45,000 a year for (my mom had job offers at both as a database admin)?

And you do realize that in third world countries, multinational corporations on average pay between twice and two and a half times more than local employers do?

Corporations actually have to compete for workers. The government can just take them by physical force (conscription) or artifically destroy the market (taxes).

Also, Scandinavian governments are still market economies, not command economies. They have significant elements of socialsim in it, but it's capitalism with socialism mixed in and not vice versa.

No major predominantely-socailist system has EVER respected the rights of its citizens for a sustained period of time.

Political freedoms may go down with option 1 with an expanding government, since the government can pretty much do whatever they please with government jobs. Civil Rights being affected could be left off, I guess...and yes, it would apply only to struggling economies.

Even if that were correct that is not a political freedoms issue. Political freedoms are things like how democratic a government is, can people criticise the government, how much control do they have over who is in the government and what it does etc. Size of government is not a factor.

I guess you don't get the point: a big government can AND WILL restrict citizen's freedoms. All of them. History PROVES it.

Further, the government, as an employer has more powers over its employees than it does as a government per se over its citizens. Hence, the employees have fewer freedoms across the board; the larger the fraction of the citizens who are employees, the more this effect comes into play.

Caps, underlining, colours and bold do not make you right and do not make your points more valid.

History has examples of oppressive big governments and liberal big governments. Scandinavian nations have had relatively large governments and have not sacrificed freedoms for this. As I have said in a previous post, it depends what the priorities of the government are, a government focussing on welfare and providing services will not be as oppressive as a government focussing on law and order/security.

Corporations in general will oppress far more than large government, especially when government is small. Government is accountable to the people, if anything public sector workers have more rights than private sector workers because the government has an obligation to treat them well while, unless forced otherwise a corporation will pay workers the lowest possible and force them to work in poor conditions in order to cut costs. If a government is large enough it can restrict oppressive corporations. A small government will become insignificant when compared with coporate power and thus coporations which have no concern other than to make money will be able to exploit people as they do today in the developing world.

Then of course there is the point which you seem to have missed, these are not even political freedoms, there is no reason for larger government to lead to reduced political freedoms unless if focusses on things like police in order to rig elections etc, since this issue is on welfare and stopping unemployment there should be no decrease in political freedoms and a small increase in civil rights.

Wolomy you DO realize that the average pay in the American private sector is 33% higher than in the public sector for the exact same job? [This varies according to industry of course, the gap in the IT industry seems to be the greatest]

You do realize that Mellon Bank's IT Department pays $75,000 a year for the EXACT same job that our local school board pays $45,000 a year for (my mom had job offers at both as a database admin)?

And you do realize that in third world countries, multinational corporations on average pay between twice and two and a half times more than local employers do?

Corporations actually have to compete for workers. The government can just take them by physical force (conscription) or artifically destroy the market (taxes).

Also, Scandinavian governments are still market economies, not command economies. They have significant elements of socialsim in it, but it's capitalism with socialism mixed in and not vice versa.

TGM you DO realise that this is NOT a political freedom issue?

You DO realise that the USA is NOT the only country in the world? If the private sector paid a good wage it would employ people in developed countries rather than look for cheap labour to exploit in developing countries.

I was not talking about socialism this time. Scandinavian countries were example of countries with big government where people did not sacrifice freedoms and indeed where it could be argued that their civil rights were significantly increased when compared to countries with smaller more pro business governments.

More caps now...

This means sacrificing ECONOMIC freedoms NOT political freedoms or civil rights.

No major predominantely-socailist system has EVER respected the rights of its citizens for a sustained period of time.

Scandinavian countries were the closest I could think of to socialism, it is true they were not socialist but I can think of no other example where a system that close to socialism existed on a national level. If you do not consider themn predominantly socialist then no country has ever been predominantly socialist (unless I have forgotten somewhere).

Socialism is not simply an economic system, it is the transition to communism in whatever form that may take (this would include democratic socialism which is close to what existed in scandinavian nations or european "socialism"). Alternativly it is "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." Either definition excludes Stalinism.

The biggest problem is that there is no NS category explicitly for economic freedoms; otherwise I would have affected those. Political freedoms looked like the next-best alternative, though they would appear to take a marginal hit.

The biggest problem is that there is no NS category explicitly for economic freedoms; otherwise I would have affected those. Political freedoms looked like the next-best alternative, though they would appear to take a marginal hit.

Decreasing economic freedoms is simple, increase taxation. (which would be a logical result of this anyway) If you must then lowering the economy rating would be better than lowering political freedoms.

TGM you DO realise that this is NOT a political freedom issue?

Yes, I do. I was contesting your claim that public sector offers better jobs than private. Earlier I stated that I agree with you in that this isn't a political or civil liberties issue.

You DO realise that the USA is NOT the only country in the world? If the private sector paid a good wage it would employ people in developed countries rather than look for cheap labour to exploit in developing countries.

As I said earlier, And you do realize that in third world countries, multinational corporations on average pay between twice and two and a half times more than local employers do?

Real peasants actually compete for those jobs. On average. corporate jobs in developing nations have slightly better conditions and much better pay than local noncorporate jobs.

The biggest problem is that there is no NS category explicitly for economic freedoms; otherwise I would have affected those. Political freedoms looked like the next-best alternative, though they would appear to take a marginal hit.

Decreasing economic freedoms is simple, increase taxation. (which would be a logical result of this anyway) If you must then lowering the economy rating would be better than lowering political freedoms.

Very well then - a dramatic tax increase would occur. However, they go up gradually anyway, so it would have to be something noticeable.