Legal Theory and Politics: At-Will Unemployment Compensation

Quote:

---

Quoting mitousmom

---

To assume that all individuals with less skills are lazy is rather arrogant and suggests a lack of understanding of the economic and societal forces at play.

---

I never said that. I was referring to those that CHOOSE to not work. That is what this entire thread is about.

Daniela wants to pay everyboty to not work. I disagree.

I don't think people who CHOOSE not to work should be given a financial incentive to stay at home and do nothing. One way or another, we the taxpayers, would end up footing the bill for them. As far as competing with them in the work force... how much of a competition would it truly be? I would think a potential employer would be able to see that the 'couch potato' is just that. And if they did get hired, at least they would be working. Why encourage their laziness? I have worked hard my whole life (something my parents taught me). I am not entitled to anything that I haven't earned or worked for. People are not entitled to something simply because they exist in this world. The welfare system is already abused by people who don't want to work (which ruins for those who really need public assistance), isn't that enough? But this is just my opinion.... take it for what it's worth.

I don't think people who CHOOSE not to work should be given a financial incentive to stay at home and do nothing. One way or another, we the taxpayers, would end up footing the bill for them. As far as competing with them in the work force... how much of a competition would it truly be? I would think a potential employer would be able to see that the 'couch potato' is just that. And if they did get hired, at least they would be working. Why encourage their laziness? I have worked hard my whole life (something my parents taught me). I am not entitled to anything that I haven't earned or worked for. People are not entitled to something simply because they exist in this world. The welfare system is already abused by people who don't want to work (which ruins for those who really need public assistance), isn't that enough? But this is just my opinion.... take it for what it's worth.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

you just don't get it.

If I hire a person and then find somebody that is better at whatever, I fire the first person and hire the second person. So how is the lesser skilled person taking a job that a more skilled person wants? They aren't.

If people are going to be lazy, let them be lazy with their own money, not mine.

If they want to eat, they will work, in some fashion, to earn the abaility to purchase food.

---

I noticed you didn't even try to respond to my other arguments.

The case you present is truer, in spirit, of at-will forms of employment. Consider the opposite of your scenario.

How would you apply your scenario, in that same situation, if the second person you hired, was hired away by someone else who was willing to pay that more skilled person a higher wage? And, you had to resort to rehiring the first person, because that person is now the most qualified person around, at a higher wage?

It is not about laziness. That was just a simple example. It is about frictional unemployment and forms of poverty that can result from a lack of income.

What I understand you to be saying, is that it is better to starve to death, than to be paid to not work. I disagree. How does your logic account for corporate welfare?

I really don't understand your position in a first world economy. It seems that you don't have a problem wasting your tax money on an unconstitutional, and socialized War on Drugs, yet you balk at providing for the general Welfare of fellow human beings.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I never said that. I was referring to those that CHOOSE to not work. That is what this entire thread is about.

Daniela wants to pay everyboty to not work. I disagree.

---

You are misstating my position, just as you are misspelling my name. Having some understanding of economics, I know that market forces will always apply in our mixed market, first world economy.

Some people will not have sufficient private profit motive to provide traditional labor input to the economy, and others will have more private profit motive to provide traditional labor input to the economy.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbent2005

---

I don't think people who CHOOSE not to work should be given a financial incentive to stay at home and do nothing. One way or another, we the taxpayers, would end up footing the bill for them. As far as competing with them in the work force... how much of a competition would it truly be? I would think a potential employer would be able to see that the 'couch potato' is just that. And if they did get hired, at least they would be working. Why encourage their laziness? I have worked hard my whole life (something my parents taught me). I am not entitled to anything that I haven't earned or worked for. People are not entitled to something simply because they exist in this world. The welfare system is already abused by people who don't want to work (which ruins for those who really need public assistance), isn't that enough? But this is just my opinion.... take it for what it's worth.

---

Why do you think normal market forces would not apply? From an economic perspective, only the less marketable individuals would choose to receive an at-will unemployment compensation subsidy. All the other individuals would willing to provide labor input in a market that could be more favorable towards potential employees.

Do you also think that employers who CHOOSE not to hire you, even if you are starving; or CHOOSE to fire you even if it will mean financial hardship, should not be able to do so in states that have at-will employment laws?

The point I am making, is that individuals should have recourse to at-will unemployment compensation in states that have at-will employment laws.

We are already footing the bill for people who can game the system (far more expensively that an at-will minimum wage subsidy). How much fraud, waste, and abuse of current schemes that pay people to not provide traditional labor input to the economy could be saved if people could simply apply for a minimum wage on an at-will basis?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

you just don't get it.

If I hire a person and then find somebody that is better at whatever, I fire the first person and hire the second person. So how is the lesser skilled person taking a job that a more skilled person wants? They aren't.

If people are going to be lazy, let them be lazy with their own money, not mine.

If they want to eat, they will work, in some fashion, to earn the abaility to purchase food.

---

You may be correct in that specific example. However, what if the second (more skilled) person is hired by a competitor who is willing to pay more? In such a case, that employer may have to rehire the person whose employment contract was dissolved, at-will; at a potentially hire rate than before.

How does your scenario solve for frictional unemployment and "natural" rates of unemployment in our current system? Any system that complies with the theory of supply and demand would have a solution to that simple socioeconomic problem.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbent2005

---

I don't think people who CHOOSE not to work should be given a financial incentive to stay at home and do nothing. One way or another, we the taxpayers, would end up footing the bill for them. As far as competing with them in the work force... how much of a competition would it truly be? I would think a potential employer would be able to see that the 'couch potato' is just that. And if they did get hired, at least they would be working. Why encourage their laziness? I have worked hard my whole life (something my parents taught me). I am not entitled to anything that I haven't earned or worked for. People are not entitled to something simply because they exist in this world. The welfare system is already abused by people who don't want to work (which ruins for those who really need public assistance), isn't that enough? But this is just my opinion.... take it for what it's worth.

---

I disagree with you. I think our first world, socialist economy can afford to better comply with the theory of supply and demand; for the public good, and could be considered a form of infrastructure development (human capital).

I agree with you that any employer, in an at-will employment state, should be able to create and dissolve private social contract (that may result in employment) in a manner consistent with the 9A.

How does your scenario solve for frictional unemployment and :"natural" unemployment rates?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

You may be correct in that specific example. However, what if the second (more skilled) person is hired by a competitor who is willing to pay more? In such a case, that employer may have to rehire the person whose employment contract was dissolved, at-will; at a potentially hire rate than before.

How does your scenario solve for frictional unemployment and "natural" rates of unemployment in our current system? Any system that complies with the theory of supply and demand would have a solution to that simple socioeconomic problem.

---

No, they do not have to rehire at a higher rate. If the displaced person wants the job back, they will take it as before. It also gives the employer an additional opportunity to find a third employee that more closely fits the employers needs.

Now to the frictionla unemplyment; hopefully the employee is able to collect UI. If not, then it urges them to take any work, including a job lesser than their skills would allow for, which will benefit an employer by provideing those employers with an opportunity to employ a person with greater skills than the pay scale offered would normally allow which will give the employer additional benefits not normally provided by a lesser employee, which will improve the employers situation.

Frictional unemployment is simply that unemployemnet that results from job changes and such. It is impossible to eleminate. That is what the current unemployment insurance system is designed to provide for, nothing else. With the limitations in place, it encourages a person to seek employment.

"Natural" states of unemeployment will always be here. They encourage a person to seek employment or additioanl training so as to secure employment. By eliminating such unemployment, or the need to seek work, it would actually injure the entire situation by allowing people to remain idle and not seek to improve themselves. This would result in a even more unemployable position and only feed the unemployment problem. If one is not progressing, they are regressing. There is no static state in the marketplace.

Always remember; idle hands and idle minds are the devils playground.

I suppose we can always go round robin with hypothetical scenarios. In your current example, the employer will still have the costs of creating and dissolving employment contracts. In addition, what if it takes longer than expected to find another qualified individual (a consideration in your frictional employment example), and that employer finds that it would be less costly to rehire the first individual at a higher rate of pay?

In your example of simply encouraging an individual to seek employment; it is only a motivator if there is employment available. Employment may not be available immediately and there are no guarantees of employment in at-will employment states.

"Natural" states of unemployment can be considered forms of market failure or market inefficiencies (from a theory of supply and demand perspective), and are not considered natural because in perfectly competitive markets, there would be full employment of resources. What you are implying, is that it is ok to have a less efficient economy, rather than a more efficient economy. Another way of saying that, is some people would rather have a less developed economy (and all the socioeconomic problems that go with it), rather than have a more developed economy and the improved standards of living that go with it.

Having at-will unemployment compensation would complement at-will employment laws in states that have at-will employment; and ensures than anyone who needs an income in a mixed market economy can obtain one. Your comment about idle hands applies mostly to people who would otherwise engage in forms of privateering that are not market friendly or conducive to reducing public and private sector costs, or ameliorating the effects of frictional unemployment in at-will employment states.

From my perspective, anyone pursuing happiness (or art, or education) would not be considered to have idle hands or minds.