3 ms·

Are you suggesting that in a society without a government there would be no unemployment? (To clarify, unemployment is the opposite of employment. Unemployment

by Weltan 13y ago

Are you suggesting that in a society without a government there would be no unemployment? (To clarify, unemployment is the opposite of employment. Unemployment is 'not working'.) On your first point, it's not whether or not it comes with a cost that is the relevant question. The relevant question is: If it does come with a cost, does the cost justify the benefits and/or are we willing to pay the cost?

oleganza 13y ago
Unemployment will always be voluntary. I'm not employed on Sundays, Saturdays and during vacations absolutely voluntarily. I'm employed 16 hours in a row some days absolutely voluntarily. Unemployment is involuntary when there are people who are willing to pay for some work and people who are willing to earn that for that work, but they can't meet together because: 1) wage is below government-approved limit or 2) this type of job is forbidden, or 3) employer cannot fire the person when the job is done or 4) it's damn too expensive to even start filing all papers to hire someone.
- Weltan 13y ago
  So there's no room in this case where and individual would be unable to find work? Somehow, everyone will have a skill-set and the personal capability (even quadriplegic people?) at any given time to find work on demand and to change their work on demand as well. What is your definition of voluntary, by the way? Is a person taking a job they don't want to do, but have to in order to feed themselves, a voluntary decision?
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Say, I would like to be an astronaut. I'm thus unemployed because no one will voluntarily take me to an orbit just because I want that. Is it bad for society? Well, who knows? But I sure can find million other jobs to work at until we hit real resource limits and 100 trillion head count on this planet.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    It's very good that you ask this question. There was always and always will be scarcity in the world. Everyone wants more than it's available right now. To avoid poverty we need ways to save, build capital and insure ourselves against rainy days. This won't eliminate poverty, but nor rape and murder will help removing it. The only way to know how to rationally use resources is to do so without acts of violence. Then we can talk about how to make sure that most people have something useful to do and have enough money to feed themselves.
  - snitko 13y ago
    I think what oleganza is trying to say here is that while unemployment may indeed exist under any system, what we have to understand is that by creating laws and regulations to fight it, we really are doing it at someone else's expense. For instance, if an automobile factory produces cars and people don't really need so many cars, then this factory fires workers. If it's impossible or difficult to fire them, then this means the cost goes on to consumers and prices of cars go up. The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs. There are plenty of job positions that can't be filled because there are no people willing and/or skillful enough to fill them. The reason unemployment exists in the wild (with no regulation) is because the market needs to readjust itself to produce something people want in the quantities people want. When government interferes into this process, it only delays this adjustment.
    - Weltan 13y ago
      Right, and I guess what I'm saying is that it's fine to do so at someone else's expense. But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed. If you believe it is illegitimate, that's ultimately your problem and you live in a reality where most people do not agree with you. That's fine, we can disagree and move on. But the problem comes in when unsubstantiated statements come into this. I don't see any evidence presented at all that what you go on to say in your last paragraph is true. "The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs." I'm sorry, but my country's unemployment rate is 22%[1], and we have no welfare state worth mentioning. The minimum wage is under $1/h, and there are no restrictions on hiring nor on firing. We've had this same rate of unemployment for decades with constant economic liberalization. Now, I suppose under oleganza's view, we can still blame the very fact that government (anywhere) exists on this problem, but at a certain point you cannot blame the government anymore. [1]http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.aspx?rptKey=indId%3d240100IND01%2635%3d6%266%3d1%2c2%2c3%2c4%262%3d%23last%232%2640%3d15%2cL15-64%26sAreaId%3d240100%26dType%3dName%26lType%3dEnglish http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.as...
      - snitko 13y ago
oleganza 13y ago
Talking about cost. We can only evaluate things when we are free from coercion to run experiments and measure the results independently. If there is a huge federal government monopoly on economic policy, there's no way we can find out if it's efficient or good enough. The only way to find out - remove the government coercion and then see how each family decides on their own: on which money to use, where to invest, what medicine to take etc.
- Weltan 13y ago
  I didn't say we have to evaluate the cost in any sort of vacuum of political power, the tools are here and the tools are perfectly capable of taking into account government. In fact, the tools necessitate a governmental economic policy at this point. Government measurements often are independent measurements insofar as they are measurements done by an entity that has more neutral stake in the economic function of a nation than any constituent citizen, company or body corporate. Who is the neutral arbiter in a society without government? Added: Who else can require corporations/individuals to release correct/non-fraudulent financial data, and who else can hold them to account if they don't do so?
  - oleganza 13y ago
    In an experiment you not only measure, you also conduct an experiment. And in an economy every decision affects everyone to varying degree. Especially government's because only violent actors can reach those who would otherwise not be reachable. E.g. when I sell you my service, it does not greatly affect anyone except you. But when I start doing my service for you as a government agency, I suddenly affect everyone because I have to tax everyone and do that I have to create ten more agencies including IRS, police, SWAT etc.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    "Who else can require corporations/individuals to release correct/non-fraudulent financial data" People will figure this out. And if they don't, who is to come with a gun and tell them how to live? In many cases it's not even needed. Who needs to know how much do you earn? Only those who confiscate from you.

by Weltan 13y ago

oleganza 13y ago

Unemployment will always be voluntary. I'm not employed on Sundays, Saturdays and during vacations absolutely voluntarily. I'm employed 16 hours in a row some days absolutely voluntarily. Unemployment is involuntary when there are people who are willing to pay for some work and people who are willing to earn that for that work, but they can't meet together because: 1) wage is below government-approved limit or 2) this type of job is forbidden, or 3) employer cannot fire the person when the job is done or 4) it's damn too expensive to even start filing all papers to hire someone.

Weltan 13y ago
So there's no room in this case where and individual would be unable to find work? Somehow, everyone will have a skill-set and the personal capability (even quadriplegic people?) at any given time to find work on demand and to change their work on demand as well. What is your definition of voluntary, by the way? Is a person taking a job they don't want to do, but have to in order to feed themselves, a voluntary decision?
- oleganza 13y ago
  Say, I would like to be an astronaut. I'm thus unemployed because no one will voluntarily take me to an orbit just because I want that. Is it bad for society? Well, who knows? But I sure can find million other jobs to work at until we hit real resource limits and 100 trillion head count on this planet.
- oleganza 13y ago
  It's very good that you ask this question. There was always and always will be scarcity in the world. Everyone wants more than it's available right now. To avoid poverty we need ways to save, build capital and insure ourselves against rainy days. This won't eliminate poverty, but nor rape and murder will help removing it. The only way to know how to rationally use resources is to do so without acts of violence. Then we can talk about how to make sure that most people have something useful to do and have enough money to feed themselves.
- snitko 13y ago
  I think what oleganza is trying to say here is that while unemployment may indeed exist under any system, what we have to understand is that by creating laws and regulations to fight it, we really are doing it at someone else's expense. For instance, if an automobile factory produces cars and people don't really need so many cars, then this factory fires workers. If it's impossible or difficult to fire them, then this means the cost goes on to consumers and prices of cars go up. The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs. There are plenty of job positions that can't be filled because there are no people willing and/or skillful enough to fill them. The reason unemployment exists in the wild (with no regulation) is because the market needs to readjust itself to produce something people want in the quantities people want. When government interferes into this process, it only delays this adjustment.
  - Weltan 13y ago
    Right, and I guess what I'm saying is that it's fine to do so at someone else's expense. But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed. If you believe it is illegitimate, that's ultimately your problem and you live in a reality where most people do not agree with you. That's fine, we can disagree and move on. But the problem comes in when unsubstantiated statements come into this. I don't see any evidence presented at all that what you go on to say in your last paragraph is true. "The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs." I'm sorry, but my country's unemployment rate is 22%[1], and we have no welfare state worth mentioning. The minimum wage is under $1/h, and there are no restrictions on hiring nor on firing. We've had this same rate of unemployment for decades with constant economic liberalization. Now, I suppose under oleganza's view, we can still blame the very fact that government (anywhere) exists on this problem, but at a certain point you cannot blame the government anymore. [1]http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.aspx?rptKey=indId%3d240100IND01%2635%3d6%266%3d1%2c2%2c3%2c4%262%3d%23last%232%2640%3d15%2cL15-64%26sAreaId%3d240100%26dType%3dName%26lType%3dEnglish http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.as...
    - snitko 13y ago

oleganza 13y ago

Talking about cost. We can only evaluate things when we are free from coercion to run experiments and measure the results independently. If there is a huge federal government monopoly on economic policy, there's no way we can find out if it's efficient or good enough. The only way to find out - remove the government coercion and then see how each family decides on their own: on which money to use, where to invest, what medicine to take etc.

Weltan 13y ago
I didn't say we have to evaluate the cost in any sort of vacuum of political power, the tools are here and the tools are perfectly capable of taking into account government. In fact, the tools necessitate a governmental economic policy at this point. Government measurements often are independent measurements insofar as they are measurements done by an entity that has more neutral stake in the economic function of a nation than any constituent citizen, company or body corporate. Who is the neutral arbiter in a society without government? Added: Who else can require corporations/individuals to release correct/non-fraudulent financial data, and who else can hold them to account if they don't do so?
- oleganza 13y ago
  In an experiment you not only measure, you also conduct an experiment. And in an economy every decision affects everyone to varying degree. Especially government's because only violent actors can reach those who would otherwise not be reachable. E.g. when I sell you my service, it does not greatly affect anyone except you. But when I start doing my service for you as a government agency, I suddenly affect everyone because I have to tax everyone and do that I have to create ten more agencies including IRS, police, SWAT etc.
- oleganza 13y ago
  "Who else can require corporations/individuals to release correct/non-fraudulent financial data" People will figure this out. And if they don't, who is to come with a gun and tell them how to live? In many cases it's not even needed. Who needs to know how much do you earn? Only those who confiscate from you.