Your logic is that we should blame people without jobs for not working, and then punish them by letting them starve for their lack of American values.
You state that my logic has no problem with letting people starve, another personal insult against my character. I've had it with you and your personal insults against me. Save your "thoughtful responses" for someone who will appreciate them more, please. I'm not interested in them.
Actually, if you read what I said — and which you even go so far as to quote — you will notice that I’m talking about problems with your logic, and that I thought your logic seemed muddled and contradictory. Your logic, in this case, was part of your discussion, and I thought your logic was convoluted and contradictory. I am talking here about the points you were making and how they contradict each other. Your logic doesn’t have any problem with letting people starve; that’s the nature of this sort of argument, that’s makes it so disheartening; the logic doesn’t have any problem with letting people starve.
You, I think, do have a problem with having people starve.
I think that you are upset because you don’t think of yourself as being the kind of person who would support that sort of position, being a compassionate guy in so many ways, and the notion of supporting such an ugly position as allowing people to starve may be upsetting for you. Yet that is exactly where the logic of the position you are advocating ends up.
I simply don’t think you’ve followed the logic of the position you’re advocating through, and what it mean in practice. When faced with the outcome of such a chain of logic, you feel furious — it sounds like from your responses. Yet I am offering a thoughtful response. I don’t claim absolute authority about anything. But punishing a guy’s attempt to get back to work is not a particularly good idea, especially not before knowing what he or she has to offer by even having a look at a resume. There is an authentic difference between microeconomic and macroeconomic points of view. You spoke about the microeconomic point of view, that of the individual company. It’s an important point of view but not the only point of view. There is also a macroeconomic point of view, which has to do with management of the economy overall, and here there is a conflict. What’s good for the country is not only keeping people working, but getting people back to work, and getting them back to work in good jobs. Keeping people at work is nice. Getting people back to work gets the economy going again, and that’s what the economy as a whole needs.
Getting people with bad skills back to work won’t happen right away because they won’t be as appealing to hire. They can be rejected out of the hiring process fairly early. Not all unemployed people fit in this group, as you should know, and they shouldn’t be weeded out until later, if at all.
It’s an advantage to the economy to keep the working people at work, but also to get the unemployed back at work. Allowing the unemployed to be disadvantaged will slow down the recovery, why is why I suspect Christie is trying to encourage hiring them in New Jersey, and why I suppose President Obama would like them advantaged in the federal bill.
It’s important to be able to think micro-economically, but if I’m going to cut down my aspirin intake, I’ve found I need to look at the macroeconomics as well. Protect against heart attacks, yes, but also prevent ulcers. As Houdini said over and over, “Always strike a happy Medium.”