Why can’t increased Job Security be an issue that Conservatives and Liberals can come together on?
I know that in Europe and Japan, people often can't get fired because of Indefinite Contracts, which are sort of like contracts which make it immensely difficult for companies to fire workers. Of course, I can understand the liberals' argument for such worker protection, since it shields workers from rapid unemployment in an economic downturn.
And none of us want to live in a dystopia where we work 14 hours a day, only to get fired from a job every six months, in order to look for a new one.
But conservatives will say that this will slow job growth, as employers will be less keen to hire new workers since they can't as easily get rid of employed ones.
But as we're all learning now, getting fired is both economically and psychologically devastating. When someone gets fired, they can't pay the mortgage (decreasing home ownership), nor car payments (hurting auto companies), nor many other consumer goods. And of course, job loss leads to an increased risk of depression, far higher rate of divorce, and family instability. Since conservatives are pro-family, wouldn't they agree that having both parents work multiple jobs that might go away at any moment ruins our children's futures?
Finally, economists understand that companies market goods based on mortgages since people will base their decisions on *expected income* on their current job. If people don't have job security, where will they have the security to buy a house or invest in their childrens' schooling?
June 6th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Because with Guaranteed Job Security you have to have a Guaranteed Revenue for said Business.
Otherwise in an economic downturn when the revenue starts to slow down, said Business will have to go to the Government for a Bailout.