• Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • ___@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jobs are finite. You asked who gets hurt? Someone does.

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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 skilled labor categories with thin applicant pools where an individual working a second job may 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Jobs are finite

        Got a source for that? Or is this just more sophistry?

        • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/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 on Friday and Saturday nights when they need extra staff - the ABS would classify you as “Employed” even though you’re only earning $300 per week.

          The number of people “underemployed” varies a lot from source to source, in part because there isn’t a clear definition of what that means.

        • ___@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No offense, but if you have to ask this question, it’s not worth my time debating with you. If you’re genuinely curious, look up what an equilibrium quantity is in supply/demand economics.