Working for ethics or money?

[Styleman]

Well, I will psot more detail on my opinion later but, I found it a very interesting ideology. For thoses who don't have a clue what I am on about see this thread:HERE Lets try and keep things cool this time though - if someone says something you do not agree with, just live with it, that is what the above poll is for. Â

 

[Steve B.]

Styleman- I quarrel with your definition of working "being ethical..."

By that definition then a prostitute is being ethical, a belief that a few members might find objectionable.

 

[Styleman]

Styleman- I quarrel with your definition of workin being ethical...

Perhaps I am just stupid

What would you say is a better word?

 

[Steve B.]

I actually think you've skewed the poll the way you've set it up.

First, I wouldn't mention ernest by name.

Second, I wouldn't be so forthright by calling working ethical. It implies that those who don't aren't. You presupposing a value judgment.

Just a suggestion...

 

[Styleman]

I actually think you've skewed the poll the way you've set it up.

First, I wouldn't mention ernest by name.

Second, I wouldn't be so forthright by calling working ethical. It implies that those who don't aren't. You presupposing a value judgment.

Just a suggestion...

Perhaps you could make the poll?

 

[Steve B.]

I am embarrassed to admit I don't know how. Â

One statement could read "Compensation and Job Satisfaction are more important to me than just having a job." The other could be "I believe it's ethical for a person to work- my parents and the Bible say {if a man doesn't work, neither should he eat}". Perhaps I'm skewing things as well. I fancy myself an entrepreneur. Sometimes I make money, sometimes not. But I pretty much am always doing something.

 

[Styleman]

That is quite good, much better than mine, however, as I am not a Christian, I would feel stupid quoting the Bible. Perhaps if we left it as it is, and these mesages would notify people that what you just said were the problems, were simply oversights and not intentional discrimination.

Allthough, if anyone (perhaps an English specialist) could come up with a better version, that would be good.

 

[Styleman]

In truth, I agree with neither, I feel that it is always wrong to be not working, and be on the dole, but I would put money as the most important factor.

 

[Steve B.]

OK, works for me...

Why the aversion to being on the dole?

Did you not contribute to the pot it's being drawn from? Here in the States, the Federal government (FICA), and individual states take deductions out of people's pay checks each period from which unemployment is paid.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

If you are looking to capture the debate on the now-locked thread, I think a poll that offered the choice between "Working is only a means to an end (money)" and "Working has inherent value aside from the paycheck received (pride, self-satisfaction)" would do the trick.

 

[Steve B.]

C, EXCELLENT wording. Especially from an attorney- not a single "party of the second part" to be found. Â

Somebody want to redo the poll? I promise to become more technologically competent in the next few days. Â

 

[Styleman]

If you are looking to capture the debate on the now-locked thread, I think a poll that offered the choice between "Working is only a means to an end (money)" and "Working has inherent value aside from the paycheck received (pride, self-satisfaction)" would do the trick.

Yes, that sounds good.

 

[Styleman]

OK, works for me... Why the aversion to being on the dole? Did you not contribute to the pot it's being drawn from? Here in the States, the Federal government (FICA), and individual states take deductions out of people's pay checks each period from which unemployment is paid.

Well, the reason is that I find it quite unethical (an this time I mean it

) that someone who is working is paying for you to not work. As to how much you contribute in the UK, I think it comes from your National Insurace contribution (which also includes your state pension and other things), which is a % of how much you earn, which I think is pathetic. Why should those who have worked hard, and earned a lot of money have to give more to people who do not want to work. Though, the possiblilty of earning more by not working is not something I would turn doen right away. It used to be the case that, if you lost your job, and you were on the dole, you would recive enough to mantain your previous standard of living. Which seems a lot more sensible, but I guess that is what the Labour governement is doing to our country, "peanalise the rich, I am Blair". Now, it is something ridiculous like 150 pounds a week.

 

[vero_group]

What makes government sponsored unemployment programs unethical of course is that contribution to the pot is an INVOLUNTARY tax. It's government theft of hard-earned private property.

Much better solutions would be for companies to buy private group insurance that pays laid off employees for a few months while they look for work and/or for individuals to exercise personal responsibility by buying private unemployment insurance -- buy it while you're working and receive benefits from it while you are not. Use the savings from the involuntary tax being repealed to pay for your private premiums. Private insurance companies compete against each other for your business thus keeping premiums affordable. But, the longer you receive benefits while you are out of work, the higher your premiums will be when you get back to work -- that's your incentive for not lollygagging around and simply waiting for a job to come to you. You gotta take responsibility for yourself and go out there and pound the pavement for a job.

I'm sure some will find fault with such market-based solutions, but they are certainly more creative and innovative than the increasingly knee-jerk reaction of asking some government to address our problems for us. With a little innovation in the marketplace, we can reduce our taxes and do it better ourselves.

 

[LA Guy]

What makes government sponsored unemployment programs unethical of course is that contribution to the pot is an INVOLUNTARY tax. It's government theft of hard-earned private property.

Dear vero,

I was wondering where you were. But please, stop channelling Ayn Rand.