Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
1) I don't get your first one... Lifetime employment is generally seen to be a bad thing for the average worker. Workers it is said should always be looking to jump from job to job.
2) If you did ban everything but solar... it probably would work out... eventually. I imagine that solar solutions would come around quite rapidly. They just wouldn't be the most efficient or best economically. Markets are actually quite good at making what's demanded appear rapidly.
3) Healthcare costs probably can't be solved by the free market for one main reason. Healthcare is the one area that most people won't ever want a "second class" option for. You need state funded healthcare to force second care options and force people to wait to treat certain things, test for certain things because on the margins people don't often benefit from it. In general it's a matter of cost vs choice.
|
I never a person has the same job the rest of their life. What I was saying is that, excessive changing of employers, and where people don't have a prolonged period of employment with the same employer, is not good for the employee or the business. Jumping from job to job isn't the same thing as jumping from employer to employer, is it? Thing now, if you read the article, you will see what I am talking about. Employers now have a magical belief that they don't need to train workers, and can go to the market and find what they need, and treat them as disposable.
The second point has to do with technology. Among a list of available choices, markets can work well. But when it comes to innovation and discovering, you can't just throw mor emoney and expect it to be there. The whole thing with energy is that things are not cost effective now, and until the tech comes about to make it so, there is no guarantee it can be.
On healthcare, that is a concern. The issue with a market is, for those who say just say let the market fix it is that people can die who would want anything, and no guarantee the market will meet that.
|
1) Actually yes, I do mean jumping from employer to employer. It's generally seen as a good thing... and the government has activly been trying to increase mobility from company to company.
That's seen as one of the biggest problems with the US' Employer based healthcare. People are stuck with one employer there entire lives, rather then jumping which is seen as a ebenfit.
2) If you throw everything else away via government banning, it becomes cost effective, because it's the only option.
3) True, the government doesn't meet that either, that's the main benefit of government vs the USA's current health system. Government can essentially force people to go without treatment... and does.
|
The problem, if you see the original link, is there costs with having human resources being in flux in a company. Companies increasingly believe they can magically get anyone they want, and they set the bar so high, they can't find the skills. They decreasingly bother investing in workers, and just "resource balance" their labor pool. There is more to a business than a set of skills. There are values in a company, and a degree of trust, that employees won't undermine company interests, covertly or overtly. Reduce this level of trust, and you will end up making a company an increasingly legal one. And if you lack stability, and hiccup, based on say false information, will drive employeers to the door.
And with this, you now also have very sluggish hiring. There was a mentality among companies to downsize and then rehire on the fly. It is JIT hiring. They can't be assured the labor will be there at all for them. As much as they want, it isn't there. There was also research shown it is less expensive to develop talent than hire it from the outside. HR worries about retention rates, but the fastest way to quickest short-term profits to do that. And with this, is an economy that is sick now.
