I don’t work, so there’s at least one job free :) And I also don’t need any more houses. So, someone must’nt work two jobs because he steals one job from someone more needy? He got the 2nd job despite the needier one also applying, right?
The other perfectly qualified person out of the job so that you could buy a second house?
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
___@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Jobs are finite. You asked who gets hurt? Someone does.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Jobs are finite
Got a source for that? Or is this just more sophistry?
___@lemm.ee 10 months ago
No offense, but if you have to ask this question, it’s not worth arguing with you. If you’re genuinely curious, look up what an equilibrium quantity is in supply/demand economics.
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 10 months ago
www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/…/sep-2023
Australian Beauro of Statistics lists half a million Aussies are currently “Unemployed”.
Note in this context, “unemployed” doesn’t mean “not working”. It means half a million are currently “not working and actively searching for a job”.
The ABS doesn’t track it, but less reliable sources estimate about twice that many people are “Underemployed” which means the job they have doesn’t give them enough hours. For example maybe you’ve got a job delivering pizza for five hours on Friday and Saturday - the ABS would classify you as “Employed” even though you’re only earning $300 per week.
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
In theory you’re right. But the best always gets the job. If the dipper gets a job he was the best. Can’t blame the winner for a system that is inherently flawed.
___@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Most employers have verbiage against moonlighting, though not for any benevolent society serving reason of course. In practice the system is majority unaccepting of working multiple jobs.
If there were more jobs available than there were active job seekers, you’d be correct that no one gets hurt. In fact, it would be a net benefit! There are also highly skill labor categories with a thin applicant pool where if an individual working a second job would be the only qualified candidate. There are certainly exceptions.
For the record, no one blames people for being people and looking out for their best interests. Just don’t ask me to defend the policies that allow it. The same policies that stagnate the economy and drive wealth inequality.
Peetipablo@kbin.social 10 months ago
Awfully presumptuous of you to assume someone else’s financial situation.
___@lemm.ee 10 months ago
It’s an exaggeration to prove a point. But do feel free to get offended.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I don’t see anyone being offended by your statement.
And this “offended” comment if yours is just sophistry - yet more presumption (and accusation, a personal attack) in an attempt to “win” an argument, rather than a discussion in search of truth or understanding.
That being the case, it tells us all we need to know about you.
___@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Calling someone presumptuous is an accusation. But keep trying.