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.
Jobs are finite. You asked who gets hurt? Someone does.
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
___@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.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 10 months ago
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.