Topic: Is government responsible for solving unemployment ? - page 2. (Read 2157 times)

Government on one part is responsible in solving the issue of unemployment. On the other hand individual should shoulder the responsibility of unemployment to assist government and further make things work in the society. Government part on this matter is more and also very clear but people at the helm of affair are always the problem. On the part of government there are lay down policies to work with each time a new administration come on board. Government is faced with the challenge to make sure her citizens have an enabling environment upon which many investments and businesses can thrive. The individuals that also decide to acquire some skill and put it to use in solving a problem no matter how little and from there grow gradually to become known.

I think that it is, because government should take care of it's citizens. That's why it should create a new jobs to solve unemployment.

Yeah, you answered it. Thanks. I guess it just comes down to cutting taxes for businesses and simplifying regulations. I think they could also simplify the business registration process, so it's a very easy thing to do. I also think that business failure should be destigmatized. It's very common for entrepreneurs to fail. People should understand that that's normal and it's okay. When entrepreneurs fail, they receive invaluable experience that can help them do better next time.

unemployment problem relies to government movement to secure jobs for its own people...they must seek for investors to build businesses in the country to create jobs...stablish a market where people can work...showcase some events where people can show their skills and their crafts...

That's right. The government is elected, i.e. people trust them and expect them to solve the problems that exist in the country. That's why they vote for them and it means the government IS responsible for lots of things in the country including solving unemployment problem by making people-friendly laws to promote employment.

A correct / promoting business climate is one which has competitive taxes when comparing it to the countries that are near them -- which would be mean at least matching the corporate tax rate of other similar countries to yours in the world. This is being achieved through President Trumps TCJA which slashed the Corporate tax rate to 21 percent for all businesses.

Then you should attempt to remove regulations which are hurting business, this is a tough one -- don't get me wrong, as some regulations are necessary to ensure the safety of people. This is something where you institute a bipartisan committee who weigh the economic cost of certain regulations and see if they're really needed -- this is a tough one, but is very necessary as businesses spend a boatload of money in regulatory compliance cost yearly.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head for now, but there are multiple other things which could be delved into -- such as easy access to capital, and so on and so forth.

Hope I answered your question.

Yes. A matter of fact is that they hold their territory as superiors in this society. They are responsible for solving unemployment issues which is really a long time issue before. People have decided to put their trust on them, and they should also do their part, not just an official,  but a concerned citizen of this community.

in my oppinion a government is also there to communicate with the population that it has a secure supply of goods and is secure from explotation or enslavement, above that all good governments are creating unemployment.

there is nothing great about creating jobs.

its great if jobs are being removed. and people get a basic economic supply so they can be creative.

regards

What do you think providing a correct business climate should entail? I agree with you that the government should be less involved, rather than more involved. I feel like one of the best things that the government could do is to work on education. Since they've taken on public education, they can just put it in there. Schools talk way too little about business. That's not what they were made for. They were made to produce factory workers. I think if we had encouraging classes about entrepreneurship and patents etc. that we'd have a lot more business, a lot more competition, a lot more progress and a lot more jobs. It should become an important part of the culture. They could also do advertisements encouraging people to pursue their business ideas. They could provide support for small business owners. I think this would be a very good option.

The government (in my eyes) only resposnsibility is giving companies a pro-business climate in order to succeed which will in turn lead to the unemployment falling.


For the first portion of what you're saying, I don't think the government has much of a place in picking/advising much in terms of where people should be working. Don't get me wrong, I do want people to come out of school with a career that they can jump right into -- but I think government involvement in trying to get people jobs is JUST going to lead to a larger federal government which isn't succeeding in its task anyway (see the government getting involved in secondary school, and what they've caused in terms of price increases)

I agree with the second portion, though you don't want businesses to start relying on more and more gov handouts -- as this just leads to crony capitalism which has fully entrenched the US (and the world)

Meh, the third thing isn't really needed.

The governments only task is providing the correct business climate, anything else and we're entering a system where the government is the primary employer of people -- which isn't something that I'll ever want to see. Leave it up to private enterprise and we'll be fine.

The government cannot provide all the employment needed by all the graduates every year. The problem with unemployment I think is not because of lack of job opportunities. Everyone wants a white collar job, wants an office job, wants city job. The truth is, no one wants to work the soil, the land, no one wants to cultivate a field and complain they dont have work.

Increasing the cost of foreign goods need to take into account that Your product will not be bought in another country, and most likely it will raise the price too.Unemployment is certainly a problem but it needs to be solved by other methods

solving unemployment is easy.

problem is what will be the result and how will the population feel and think about it?

regards

I believe that governent is the one who is responsible to solve unemployment. This is because the government is also the one that is responsible in creating many jobs. The problems like this arise from the lack of acts of government to improve their evonomy and the people's lives. But at some point, let's also be responsible on our ownselves. If we don't have a job, then go find some or try to make a job for yourself. Thus, it is clear that government is responsible for unemployment as well as those unemployed people.

I comparatively believe the government has an integral and imperative role in attenuating
unemployment in general in any nation. It has a big role to play and for some reason it
encourages and influences on the process of solving unemployment. If governments can offer
and produce certain livelihoods and jobs equally to people, people would have a definite chance
and shot at a better situation.

Unemployment is complex. Is government responsible for solving unemployment? Maybe - that's a deep political question about what the citizens of a democratic country desire and can only be resolved through legitimate political processes, like elections and voting. In an autocratic or plutocratic regime it's another question - what are the responsibilities of unelected leaders to their people, if any? The rulers of both democracies and non-democracies have a vested interest in keeping unemployment low -- high unemployment means mass unrest, economic paralysis, deflation, etc. This can lead to the toppling of governments through coups and civil wars. Therefore, governments of any stripe - if they intend on keeping their power (usually a good assumption - have an interest in and therefore will try to keep unemployment low (not zero though, but zero unemployment isn't necessarily desirable or possible because it's a good thing to have at least a portion of people unemployed who are in between and looking for jobs.).

So that's a response to the "responsibility" portion of the OP question. But, the other side of this question is what most people have responded to here: can the government 'solve' unemployment, or at least reduce it in desirable ways?

Yes, the government can lower unemployment - it absolutely can. But it can't lower unemployment for nothing - there are always tradeoffs. Sometimes those tradeoffs are worth it for the majority of the population, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are worth it for the short term, but not for the long term or vice versa.

One way the government can reduce unemployment is to print more money. When a government is also in charge of the central bank, politicians with a short-term election horizon can use this technique to print money, lower unemployment, and win an election. The only problem is that as soon as the population adjusts their expectations for how much money is being printed (which they will as companies and citizens notice that they have more money but can still only buy the same amount of goods.. ) inflation rises, and unemployment falls back to where it was pre-government intervention (the 'natural' rate of unemployment, so to speak). Thus, in the short-term, unemployment was reduced, followed by an increase in inflation, followed by a return to the original unemployment. Crucially, this leaves the country in a state of higher inflation. Now, if you are the next politician, you do the same thing, badaboom bada bing -- until eventually you're running the government of Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe with rampant hyperinflation. And unemployment is probably much worse now too because of the collateral that kind of hyperinflation has on the mojo of an economy.

This is an argument for an independent central bank, free from the short-sightedness of political election cycles. But it also describes the inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment (look up the Phillips Curve). You can decrease unemployment, but only at the expense of inflation and vice versa. To reverse the increase in inflation, unemployment would actually have to rise. Reining in inflation is really hard and painful. The United States' central bank, the Fed, actually has a double mandate: to keep unemployment low and inflation low (around 2%). It's tools are blunt, but it tries to accomplish that.

Are tariffs a way to solve unemployment? No. It's a proposition couched in very shallow economic logic. As many others have pointed out, the direct economic consequence is that goods and services are more expensive for people in the country raising tariffs. Thus, families, organizations, firms now have less real money because they are spending more for the same goods that they could have gotten for cheaper pre-tariff. That's where the money is coming from.

You're absolutely right. It is true that unemployment issue should be handled by the government along with hunger and poverty, because that are the main problems every country could possibly have. Government should be able to provide job for their citizens so government could reduce unemployment level in their country. For example, government could provide free school for children from elementary to high school for those who can't afford. With better education, later they could educate others and create job fields to help others. Another example, government could provide bussiness institution for new bussiness comer, etc.

It may not always be worth it to go abroad just to buy things, but it is very very common for them to buy thing when they go abroad. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report said that Brazil's tariffs on imports is 11.5%. This is very significant if you're buying a big ticket item.

I found another site with countries that have even higher tariffs:
This is usually the kind of thing that developing countries do. Some countries even have 0% import tax.

Countries where social welfare schemes are properly implemented by the governments don’t have high levels of unemployment. In fact when a country has a large number of homeless and unemployed people, it is a clear indication that something is wrong with the way it is governed. But can governments be held completely responsible for loss of jobs and homes? Let’s examine.

Both internal and external factors can have a significant effect on a nation’s economy. A good government should be able to control the internal conflicts that might be causing joblessness. However, no government in the world can effectively control external affairs. For example, a lot of people lost jobs due to the economic crisis in 2008. Although recession was mainly in the US, its effect was felt all over the globe. In fact, the US recession caused job loss in countries like India and China. It affected India’s booming outsourcing industry. And because it was an external factor, the governments in India or China couldn’t do anything to ease its ramifications.

Nonetheless, there are many things that governments can do to reduce the severity of these problems and protect their citizens.

yes..one reason why they are put there    see we in the UK although  most of our politicians are ass holes and they are   FACT we still own them 
you don't like them vote them out..Also  you can become a politician if you have the right policies that your people likes   just need to get out and have ago ..

I pay taxes and some of those taxes get used to pay for politicians to make our lives better NOT their lives but ours  SO  what ever happens I EXPECT  my government
to make my life as happy as possible or they get FIRED   now to be happy you need money most of the time no money life is shit   so that means we need jobs or we do crime   and as we put them in power we don't want crime so they need to create jobs  WHY because that's why we pay them out are taxes   so our children have a future
too..


Now I find that many many think governments are the ENEMY?   you are right but that's because you let them   why you say  WELL you should string the nasty leaders up by their necks  but you have no balls ..

Take Mugabe how on earth did you no hang him   THEN YOU LET HIS BUDDY GET IN   CRAZY PEOPLE ..

AND THAT GIVES ME AN IDEA FOR A NEW TOPIC..BYE ..