Legal Theory and Politics: At-Will Unemployment Compensation

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

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?

---

My scenario is my opinion. Nothing else. I just don't think that someone should get paid to do nothing (especially if it is through a choice of their own). If you want to work, you will find a way to work. If you don't want to work you will find a bunch of excuses to keep from working. Like I said, this is strictly my opinion. I am entitled to it. I respect your point of view but I don't (and won't) share it.

You always welcome to your opinion. I am mostly interested in the logic and reason in how people arrive at their opinions.

What is your opinion of multimillion dollar corporations, that can afford to have entire departments dedicated to obtain forms of corporate "welfare", and not have to produce anything for that money? Do you have the same opinion about working and entities that are merely legal fiction of individuals, or are you only against "welfare" for fellow human beings?

If we were to bring up the question of ethics and morality, is it better to pay a multimillion dollar corporation, what we would deny fellow human beings?

Is it more ethical or moral to allow forms of poverty that are more characteristic of third world economies, in our first world economy; than to use the wealth of our first world economy to improve the standards of living of everyone in that economy, even if it involves paying some people to not provide traditional labor input to the economy?

One of the reasons for my opinion: my step brother. He is truly a waste of good oxygen. He is 36. He has NEVER held a steady job in his life. Not because he couldn't find work. He liked to party (his pursuit of happiness) alot. And he chose to screw up every job he ever had. Why does he deserve any money for choosing to be irresponsible? I honestly don't see how a blanket at-will uneployment compensation program could ever work or be really fair. Look at welfare. It's an all or nothing program. So (many, not all) people abuse the system to get the benefits.

I think that oxygen could be recycled by a generation of artists, or even dreamers; that we currently do not have, or are less artistic because they have to provide traditional labor input to the economy, instead of producing art in a manner most conducive to it.

I am of the opinion, that any first world economy could simply pay artistically inclined people to produce art (a form of happiness.) In this sense, it could reduce the commercialization of art, merely for the sake of grant money.

What about the economic argument of not having to compete with someone for the same job, if one of them chooses to be a couch potato?

What about unfunded mandates such as leaves of absence? Wouldn't it be better to allow people to have recourse to an income?

From another perspective, anyone on at-will unemployment could be available for civic duties. How much could that save the private sector in lost labor due to civic responsibilities?