Unless you?re residing on another planet or extremely wealthy and living in a cave, you?ve heard how the world is having an economical recession. Most countries suffer from it. Countries on the brink of collapse, the US with their ?fiscal cliff?, Europe and their silly EU rulings.
With this, comes less jobs, less money. Heck, I?ve even been told by social services that they do not have money to set me up with a guidance counselor to get training and a job.
I think I?ve figured a way out to fix some wrongdoings, fix some of the governments shortage, as well as help smoothen out employment for all ages. Actually I?ve been thinking if I should propose this to my government, yet, I?m willing to share this with y?all. I don?t know if this holds up for any country, but logically speaking, I actually think with minor adjustments it?s more than just this small slab of land (aka The Netherlands) would benefit from it.
I?m in no way an economics major. But I?m an aspie, and that apparently grants me the superpower of thinking rationally (and probably to some extent sensible).
If I just look at my country?s situation, there?s a slight problem in that older people wont get hired, thus they end up on unemployment. This leads to them spending less money. Less stuff needs to be manufactured (or sold), thus companies shrink down, less demand clearly decreases employment. In the next year I predict that in my country the entire Housing business will collapse.
Reason; people will not get a mortgage anymore since that?s not possible if you?re unemployed. No mortgage means no loans, means no interest, means banks need to cut back on the interest they give out. And the game of dominoes keeps going on.
Here?s a proposal (applicable to my country);
Over here; if you?re under 23, you will get a percentage of your actual wage. If you?re 15, you will not get paid full, but say? 30 percent of the actual wage (don?t ask me for exact numbers, I could look them up, but it?s not relevant). That is to encourage teens and adolescents to go to school and get a degree in something (especially since everyone can and most likely will get a college loan and those benefits without any problems). Yet, the result of this is also that because it?s cheap labor, ?older? people will not get hired. And honestly, if I ran a store and I could hire someone for 3 instead of 10 bucks, I would do so as well. But it also discourages companies to hire older people that will have problems getting a job, while they clearly have more obligations than say? an 18 year old (most of the time, there are exceptions). Thus they depend more on having a job. Especially when college loans are only possible for anyone under 30. If you?re under 30 you can still enlist in college. If that fails, you can enlist in the army even. There?s a lot of options. If you?re older, you?re kinda set with what you get. And limited options because of more ?lucrative? and thus cheap employees is wrong if you ask me.
So; how to fix this?
What if? everyone will cost an employer the same amount. Jack is 40 and will cost 10, John is 18 and will cost the same 10. You just tackled the issue of affirmative action based on age (because younger is cheaper).
Problem; John will not be encouraged to go to school anymore.
Solution; Tax John for what he is eligible by according to the current rulings. If John at 18 would get 40% of minimum wage; tax him 60% and take those. Jack and John will cost the employer the same amount.
Where to go with that money? Quite simple? that goes towards the country, just like other taxes and is a good way to make sure to close the national debt through means of taxes, as well as a good incentive for companies to not discriminate based on age. Because that actually is a reason why older people won?t get hired. People should be hired for their quality, not for how cheap their labor can be. I believe it?s just a step short of being called extortion.
With this, comes less jobs, less money. Heck, I?ve even been told by social services that they do not have money to set me up with a guidance counselor to get training and a job.
I think I?ve figured a way out to fix some wrongdoings, fix some of the governments shortage, as well as help smoothen out employment for all ages. Actually I?ve been thinking if I should propose this to my government, yet, I?m willing to share this with y?all. I don?t know if this holds up for any country, but logically speaking, I actually think with minor adjustments it?s more than just this small slab of land (aka The Netherlands) would benefit from it.
I?m in no way an economics major. But I?m an aspie, and that apparently grants me the superpower of thinking rationally (and probably to some extent sensible).
If I just look at my country?s situation, there?s a slight problem in that older people wont get hired, thus they end up on unemployment. This leads to them spending less money. Less stuff needs to be manufactured (or sold), thus companies shrink down, less demand clearly decreases employment. In the next year I predict that in my country the entire Housing business will collapse.
Reason; people will not get a mortgage anymore since that?s not possible if you?re unemployed. No mortgage means no loans, means no interest, means banks need to cut back on the interest they give out. And the game of dominoes keeps going on.
Here?s a proposal (applicable to my country);
Over here; if you?re under 23, you will get a percentage of your actual wage. If you?re 15, you will not get paid full, but say? 30 percent of the actual wage (don?t ask me for exact numbers, I could look them up, but it?s not relevant). That is to encourage teens and adolescents to go to school and get a degree in something (especially since everyone can and most likely will get a college loan and those benefits without any problems). Yet, the result of this is also that because it?s cheap labor, ?older? people will not get hired. And honestly, if I ran a store and I could hire someone for 3 instead of 10 bucks, I would do so as well. But it also discourages companies to hire older people that will have problems getting a job, while they clearly have more obligations than say? an 18 year old (most of the time, there are exceptions). Thus they depend more on having a job. Especially when college loans are only possible for anyone under 30. If you?re under 30 you can still enlist in college. If that fails, you can enlist in the army even. There?s a lot of options. If you?re older, you?re kinda set with what you get. And limited options because of more ?lucrative? and thus cheap employees is wrong if you ask me.
So; how to fix this?
What if? everyone will cost an employer the same amount. Jack is 40 and will cost 10, John is 18 and will cost the same 10. You just tackled the issue of affirmative action based on age (because younger is cheaper).
Problem; John will not be encouraged to go to school anymore.
Solution; Tax John for what he is eligible by according to the current rulings. If John at 18 would get 40% of minimum wage; tax him 60% and take those. Jack and John will cost the employer the same amount.
Where to go with that money? Quite simple? that goes towards the country, just like other taxes and is a good way to make sure to close the national debt through means of taxes, as well as a good incentive for companies to not discriminate based on age. Because that actually is a reason why older people won?t get hired. People should be hired for their quality, not for how cheap their labor can be. I believe it?s just a step short of being called extortion.
