4 ms·

I think you grossly overestimate how much money unemployment insurance schemes actually pay out. It's certainly far from anything that creates an "incentive" to

I think you grossly overestimate how much money unemployment insurance schemes actually pay out. It's certainly far from anything that creates an "incentive" to avoid work or creating a moral-hazard as you suggest. It's also very time-limited, you can't make claims for more than a few consecutive months at a time (depending on your state). Unemployment insurance serves a valuable role in giving people (barely enough) means to look for new employment - which can consume a lot of time - without needing to immediately seek new employment outside of their area of expertise and thus damage their chances of getting a new job in a field that suits them, and if a job suits someone then it suits everyone because it means someone is capitalising on their potential. Wage-slavery is not how any employment system should work.

PhileinSophia 5y ago
"wage-slavery" is not a rational idea at all. By the very nature of your existence you have to eat, drink, sleep somewhere, etc. What's "forcing" you into "slavery" is your own life as a human being. That's obviously not a proper way to describe the situation. The employer that's giving you a wage is giving you a means of survival, you are free to refuse it and pay the consequences. They have no moral obligation to take the shirt off their back to cover yours.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass had this to say on the subject[1]: > experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other According to Wikipedia[1]: > Douglass went on to speak about these conditions as arising from the unequal bargaining power between the ownership/capitalist class and the non-ownership/laborer class within a compulsory monetary market: "No more crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern laborers could be adopted than the one that substitutes orders upon shopkeepers for currency in payment of wages. It has the merit of a show of honesty, while it puts the laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and the shopkeeper" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#History
eru 5y ago
On the margin, a dollar is an incentive. (Not a big one, of course!) > Unemployment insurance serves a valuable role in giving people (barely enough) means to look for new employment [...] Unemployment insurance is very weird: I agree that insuring against unemployment can be a good idea for many people. But why can't they purchase that insurance like eg their car insurance? Then everyone can buy the type of insurance they want. They can decide how long they want their payouts to last and how high they should be. (And, of course, also how high their insurance premiums are going to be.) No need to involve one-size-fits-none central decisions. (Though from what I can tell, when people prepare privately against bouts of unemployment, they typically 'self-insure', ie they accumulate savings, instead of buying an insurance policy.) Just to be sure: providing publicly for the needy can be a worthwhile goal. But that should likely be means tested, and not called an insurance, and should probably also not be linked to _not_ having a job.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > But why can't they purchase that insurance like eg their car insurance? They can. And in many cases they should, on top of the mandated minimum insurance. That won't stop the state taxing them and providing minimum insurance with the taxes. Why? Because unexpected negative income volatility that isn't covered has social as well as personal costs, and the simolest way to mitigate the social costs is to assure that people are insulated against some of the personal costs.
  - eru 5y ago
    > And in many cases they should, on top of the mandated minimum insurance. It's not only mandated minimum insurance, you also have to buy it from a monopoly provider. And you can't opt out by pointing to your pile of cash for self-insurance, either. (At least not without jumping through a few legal loopholes.) > That won't stop the state taxing them and providing minimum insurance with the taxes. Why? Because unexpected negative income volatility that isn't covered has social as well as personal costs, and the simolest way to mitigate the social costs is to assure that people are insulated against some of the personal costs. That's just welfare, not really insurance. Welfare for poor people is a different thing.

PhileinSophia 5y ago

"wage-slavery" is not a rational idea at all. By the very nature of your existence you have to eat, drink, sleep somewhere, etc. What's "forcing" you into "slavery" is your own life as a human being. That's obviously not a proper way to describe the situation. The employer that's giving you a wage is giving you a means of survival, you are free to refuse it and pay the consequences. They have no moral obligation to take the shirt off their back to cover yours.

heavyset_go 5y ago
The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass had this to say on the subject[1]: > experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other According to Wikipedia[1]: > Douglass went on to speak about these conditions as arising from the unequal bargaining power between the ownership/capitalist class and the non-ownership/laborer class within a compulsory monetary market: "No more crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern laborers could be adopted than the one that substitutes orders upon shopkeepers for currency in payment of wages. It has the merit of a show of honesty, while it puts the laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and the shopkeeper" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#History

eru 5y ago

On the margin, a dollar is an incentive. (Not a big one, of course!) > Unemployment insurance serves a valuable role in giving people (barely enough) means to look for new employment [...] Unemployment insurance is very weird: I agree that insuring against unemployment can be a good idea for many people. But why can't they purchase that insurance like eg their car insurance? Then everyone can buy the type of insurance they want. They can decide how long they want their payouts to last and how high they should be. (And, of course, also how high their insurance premiums are going to be.) No need to involve one-size-fits-none central decisions. (Though from what I can tell, when people prepare privately against bouts of unemployment, they typically 'self-insure', ie they accumulate savings, instead of buying an insurance policy.) Just to be sure: providing publicly for the needy can be a worthwhile goal. But that should likely be means tested, and not called an insurance, and should probably also not be linked to _not_ having a job.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> But why can't they purchase that insurance like eg their car insurance? They can. And in many cases they should, on top of the mandated minimum insurance. That won't stop the state taxing them and providing minimum insurance with the taxes. Why? Because unexpected negative income volatility that isn't covered has social as well as personal costs, and the simolest way to mitigate the social costs is to assure that people are insulated against some of the personal costs.
- eru 5y ago
  > And in many cases they should, on top of the mandated minimum insurance. It's not only mandated minimum insurance, you also have to buy it from a monopoly provider. And you can't opt out by pointing to your pile of cash for self-insurance, either. (At least not without jumping through a few legal loopholes.) > That won't stop the state taxing them and providing minimum insurance with the taxes. Why? Because unexpected negative income volatility that isn't covered has social as well as personal costs, and the simolest way to mitigate the social costs is to assure that people are insulated against some of the personal costs. That's just welfare, not really insurance. Welfare for poor people is a different thing.