[DetriusXii]

Suppose a person decides that they can't handle retraining to find another job in the free market, since there will be opportunity costs in spending a few years obtaining a new education. Should a person be allowed to terminate their existence if they can't find a job and the opportunity costs of retraining prevents that person from finding another job? This is a fictional economy where there is no government support or charity.

[Esteban]

You're asking if someone should end their life because they don't like their job?

[smashthestate]

So are you basically asking if suicide should be legal or not? Does it really matter?

If someone committs suicide, you can't really punish them after the fact. Also, if someone is thinking about suicide, they'd probably care less if it's legal or not.

As a technicality, though, I'd say it should be legal, so long as no one else gets hurt in any way, shape, or form in the process.

[David]

As a technicality, though, I'd say it should be legal, so long as no one else gets hurt in any way, shape, or form in the process.

I think it's impossible to kill someone, even yourself, and not have others hurt in some way or another. No man is an island.

[DetriusXii]

I think it's impossible to kill someone, even yourself, and not have others hurt in some way or another. No man is an island.

But if we're all just individuals competing against each other, why does one individual owe back anything to any other individual? And the argument I was using that if the person doesn't want to continously adapt to the changes in the free market, that the person should be allowed to have the choice to end his life. It had nothing to do with a person not liking his job.

[SueDeNîmes.]

Yes, anyone should have the right to get off that dead end treadmill.

[David]

But if we're all just individuals competing against each other, why does one individual owe back anything to any other individual?

We're not all just competing against each other. People have family, friends, associates. All of whom can be hurt by another person's suicide. The best example is children. What if the person has children that he should support and raise?

And the argument I was using that if the person doesn't want to continously adapt to the changes in the free market, that the person should be allowed to have the choice to end his life.

It's somewhat irrelevant. No one has ever gone to prison for a successful suicide attempt. So, are you talking about what we should do those who are unsuccessful?

Here's my thinking: Murder is illegal. Suicide is murder. Therefore suicide should be illegal. It's that simple.

[clownboy]

The reasons for the act, in this discussion, are irrelevant. Suicide is against the law currently for good reason. As has been mentioned, we will not imprison the corpse if you are successful. But the act itself is a signal that some serious problems exist in the individual.

If you survive the attempt, we have no other way to ensure (as best we can) that you get help, other than to make the attempt illegal. Since you have broken a law, we can then FORCE yopu to get help if that be necessary. Without the law, we would have no such leverage.

[SueDeNîmes.]

We're not all just competing against each other. People have family, friends, associates. All of whom can be hurt by another person's suicide. The best example is children. What if the person has children that he should support and raise?

Nah, forget the kids. What with all the retraining and restarting at the bottom of the ladder, you won't be able to see much of them or offer them much financial support anyway.

[clownboy]

Nah, forget the kids. What with all the retraining and restarting at the bottom of the ladder, you won't be able to see much of them or offer them much financial support anyway.

Yep, that's right, we can just put the Dems in charge and they'll gladly legalize "post-birth" abortions if you offer them enough money or votes. Kid problem solved.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

What with all the retraining and restarting at the bottom of the ladder, you won't be able to see much of them or offer them much financial support anyway.

Yeah, because retraining is SOOOOO hard. And it's not like you could be trained into a new job with roughly equal skill requirements faster than it took you to learn your first skill set. It's not like an IT nerd can't take his skills and become a secretary in no time flat at a loss of maybe 1/3rd his pay.

Not at all.

[Goranhammer]

It's a coward's way out. But if someone is determined to do it, so be it. I won't shed a tear for them. If anything, it's one less person my taxes support.

[Visage of Glory]

Absolutely not. I think it is completely idioitic to take your life for any reason, especially because they don't think that they are able to cope with a changing economy or retrain for a job. The only time I think that suicide is even remotely feasible is when you believe that your life will be taken soon anyway. But even then it is a terrible reason.

I'd say it should be legal, so long as no one else gets hurt in any way, shape, or form in the process.

Um, the person is killing themselves. I think that could be consider hurting someone. And, as someone else has said, they hurt other people in their passing. Eve seen the movie "About a Boy?" The woman tries to take her life in that movie. She has a son, and it drastically affects his life. Think what would have happened if she had been successful.

[glinert]

Life always looks better looks up. You may say, "give up now you will never make it" but once you get past that advice you have achieved half way goal.

SOmetimes humans will make irrational onspot decisions, but things change, things become better, life will go on, and their always something to enjoy with life. Everyday good, everyday you serve your family, with money or without money with your presence and love.

[SueDeNîmes.]

Yeah, because retraining is SOOOOO hard. And it's not like you could be trained into a new job with roughly equal skill requirements faster than it took you to learn your first skill set. It's not like an IT nerd can't take his skills and become a secretary in no time flat at a loss of maybe 1/3rd his pay.

Fine. But how about when he's learning to flip burgers in his late 50s ? Employers have sussed out that it's cheaper to employ school leavers and graduates who will work longer hours for less because they don't have the family/financial commitments and professional experience that come with age.

"Salary: Dependent on age and experience"
"Duration : Subject to review"

..sound familiar?

THat is the only real change in the economy that necessitates these 8 or 9 career changes we're all supposed to have in a lifetime. And it's unworkable. How is anyone supposed to better themselves? You'll have to flip an awful lot of burgers to pay off your mortgage and save for your pension.

[clownboy]

Sue - the age when an American could go to work for one company, doing one job/using one skill for a lifetime has been over for most of my life (I'm 52). Catch up!

Anyone who believes ONE blue/white collar skill is gonna take them through their entire working career deserves a kick in the nards and a snarky "I told you so!" when they moan about not being able to do anything else.

I've had multiple careers myself.

[SueDeNîmes.]

I'm glad it's worked out for ya, clownboy, but here in Britain it isn't working. Despite (or because of) deregulation of labour and financial markets, people are less economically self-reliant than they were 25 years ago. There is the biggest shortfall in personal pension provision since the days of the poorhouse. People are borrowing ever higher multiples of income in mortgages. THis isn't because people are dumber and lazier, but because they simply don't earn as much in later life as traditional career structures would have provided. They rely on continued house price inflation to meet the shortfall but this cannot continue indefinitely.

No one is suggesting "ONE blue/white collar skill is gonna take them through their entire working career", merely that something economically sustainable be in place. It's fine the right preaching self-reliance, but if they take away peoples' means of acheiving it, then it won't work.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

How is anyone supposed to better themselves? You'll have to flip an awful lot of burgers to pay off your mortgage and save for your pension.

I put away a little money every year. Now. The reason I do this is you don't wait to get handed your retirement, you think about it when you are young.

Because if you don't have your retirement worked out by the time you are 40, you've failed at life. That's harsh I know, but it's still true. You don't think about how to take care of yourself when you are old BEFORE you are starting to lose your knees you have failed at the big game of life.

There is no safe job you can count on forever, there is no magic path to economic surety, there is no government that will protect you from life. You plan, you prepare, and you hope.

It's fine the right preaching self-reliance, but if they take away peoples' means of acheiving it, then it won't work.

If the only job you can get is flipping burgers [and that's almost always not true, people simply lack the ability to "think outside the box" as much as I hate that phrase] you work two shifts. Harsh, but there you go.

That's not enough? Work 2 and get a part time job on the week ends. Work overtime. There's always a way. It's only a question if you are strong enough or smart enough to take it.

I have a job that pays ok. I put a little away. Things continue as they do, and assuming the economy is generally better in 20 years than it is now, I should have a house and a few million to throw around when I retire. Get a boat, point away from land, wait for death in style.

[clownboy]

I'm glad it's worked out for ya, clownboy, but here in Britain it isn't working. Despite (or because of) deregulation of labour and financial markets, people are less economically self-reliant than they were 25 years ago. There is the biggest shortfall in personal pension provision since the days of the poorhouse. People are borrowing ever higher multiples of income in mortgages. THis isn't because people are dumber and lazier, but because they simply don't earn as much in later life as traditional career structures would have provided. They rely on continued house price inflation to meet the shortfall but this cannot continue indefinitely.

No one is suggesting "ONE blue/white collar skill is gonna take them through their entire working career", merely that something economically sustainable be in place. It's fine the right preaching self-reliance, but if they take away peoples' means of acheiving it, then it won't work.

I agree with you there - the opportunity door must be open. It difficult to climb the rungs to success when the ladder has been taken away.

We MAY disagree however on how the ladder got lost. I can remember a lot of talk a couple decades ago about how your "Dole" worked. There were warnings then, from those wacky fiscal conservatives, that the system would eventually lead you here. That and, as I understand it, immigration issues have been kicking your ass lately.

Feel free to call me a know nothing Yank. I'm really just pulling this from memory and what may have been "US propaganda".

[clownboy]

Because if you don't have your retirement worked out by the time you are 40, you've failed at life.

I'm boned.

When I was 40 my idea of retirement involved a sack of peyote, a hike to the Three Sisters Wilderness and park rangers digging what's left out of a snowbank come the next spring.

Got lucky, retired on my 50th.