**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

How about person E, who spends his life smoking weed, talking shit on the internet, at taxpayer's expense, then one day he debunks the accelerating universe theory? Had person E got off his lazy ass and got a job, he wouldn't have time to smoke at 1am, talking bollocks, and the rest of the world would still live in the deluded belief that we live in the dark energy era.

You should show more respect to the unemployed. Sometimes they do something useful, thanks to the time they had. Take that silly cow who wrote the Harry Potter books. If she got off her lazy ass and got a proper job instead of chasing her dreams writing about wizards while lying to the jobcentre about how she spends her time, then all those children wouldn't have grown up without that specky geek flying on a broom. Just imagine if that world was real.

[wufwugy]

How about person E, who spends his life smoking weed, talking shit on the internet, at taxpayer's expense, then one day he debunks the accelerating universe theory? Had person E got off his lazy ass and got a job, he wouldn't have time to smoke at 1am, talking bollocks, and the rest of the world would still live in the deluded belief that we live in the dark energy era.

You should show more respect to the unemployed. Sometimes they do something useful, thanks to the time they had. Take that silly cow who wrote the Harry Potter books. If she got off her lazy ass and got a proper job instead of chasing her dreams writing about wizards while lying to the jobcentre about how she spends her time, then all those children wouldn't have grown up without that specky geek flying on a broom. Just imagine if that world was real.

Does this mean that subsidizing unproductive behavior is productive?

[OngBonga]

Does this mean that subsidizing unproductive behavior is productive?

Well JK Rowling's behaviour wasn't unproductive. Subsidising the unemployed can be productive. Probably more productive than forcing them into work and expecting them to provide more value to the employer than their wage is worth.

[wufwugy]

Well JK Rowling's behaviour wasn't unproductive. Subsidising the unemployed can be productive. Probably more productive than forcing them into work and expecting them to provide more value to the employer than their wage is worth.

How is not paying somebody to not work forcing them to work?

Do you know that wages are set quite robustly based on the value to both employee and employer?

[OngBonga]

Do you know that wages are set quite robustly based on the value to both employee and employer?

Do you suppose someone who doesn't want to do a job will do as productive a job as someone who does want the job?

Given the answer to that question, do you then suppose that two different employees provide the same value to their employer?

Further, is there a critical point where the money an employee is paid is worth more than the value they provide?

How many people do you suppose do less that the minimum required amount of work to reach this critical point?

The wage an employer is prepared to pay is related to the value the employer anticipates. That might not equal the value the employee actually provides. The employer might not even have the means to calculate the value the employee provides. The employer can be less productive a business if they employ useless staff.

The point is... from an individual company's point of view, some people are better off out of the workforce. This is easy to imagine by asking yourself... would you employ someone who doesn't want the job? Not if you can help it, because you know it will affect your profits. Thus, it's a net loss to your business, and thus the greater economy.

Now, is that loss to the economy worth more than employment benefits? Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question. But still, if I'm an employer, I don't want to employ people like me.

[BananaStand]

Do you suppose someone who doesn't want to do a job will do as productive a job as someone who does want the job?

Yes, absolutely. Assuming we're talking about entry level and/or unskilled labor jobs, then yes, for the most part productivity is uniform across all human beings. Like how bad could you possibly be at scooping ice cream?

do you then suppose that two different employees provide the same value to their employer?

In many many many cases yes.

is there a critical point where the money an employee is paid is worth more than the value they provide?

Not really. And if so, it's the company's problem. Better equipment, more training, or sometimes just better leadership can solve this problem.

The wage an employer is prepared to pay is related to the value the employer anticipates. That might not equal the value the employee actually provides. The employer might not even have the means to calculate the value the employee provides. The employer can be less productive a business if they employ useless staff.

Dude, it's 2017! There are entire fields of business study dedicated to the management and motivation of people. Of course companies can measure the value of their employee's work.

The point is... from an individual company's point of view, some people are better off out of the workforce..

You keep saying this, and it seems more and more like you're trying to convince yourself, rather than us. You're going a little too far out of your way to deny feeling guilty about your own sloth. It's pretty transparent at this point.

If someone is truly a detriment to an employer, then it's because of conscious decisions that they made to be a fuck-up on purpose. Lateness, no-shows, insubordination, being drunk at work.....shit like that is totally within every able-bodied, able-minded person's control. If you choose to be that way, fine. I guess everyone has a right to be an ass-hole. I don't see why non-ass holes have to pay for it though.

This is easy to imagine by asking yourself... would you employ someone who doesn't want the job?

Dude, this happens hundreds of millions of times around the world every single day!! How many people really LOOOOOOOOOOOVE their jobs? How many people are at work right now but would rather be doing something else? Employing 'someone who doesn't want the job' is a simple reality.

Now, is that loss to the economy worth more than employment benefits?.

Not even close

What did you say you were getting in benefits? $600/week? Explain to me how in the world you could fuck up a job bad enough to cost the entire economy that much money.

Your wages don't count in the cost either. You're getting paid one way or the other. Now explain to me why it's cheaper to pay you to stay home rather than have you do something productive.

[wufwugy]

Do you suppose someone who doesn't want to do a job will do as productive a job as someone who does want the job?

Given the answer to that question, do you then suppose that two different employees provide the same value to their employer?

Further, is there a critical point where the money an employee is paid is worth more than the value they provide?

How many people do you suppose do less that the minimum required amount of work to reach this critical point?

The wage an employer is prepared to pay is related to the value the employer anticipates. That might not equal the value the employee actually provides. The employer might not even have the means to calculate the value the employee provides. The employer can be less productive a business if they employ useless staff.

The point is... from an individual company's point of view, some people are better off out of the workforce. This is easy to imagine by asking yourself... would you employ someone who doesn't want the job? Not if you can help it, because you know it will affect your profits. Thus, it's a net loss to your business, and thus the greater economy.

Now, is that loss to the economy worth more than employment benefits? Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question. But still, if I'm an employer, I don't want to employ people like me.

The economic concepts we're dealing with are in aggregation. The setting of wages where what the employers and employees value equal doesn't happen perfectly on the individual firm level but does happen at the market level. I'm not sure how much headway we're gonna make on this, in part because it involves the utility theory discussed on this board a while back that does not go over well. Just know that it's at the backbone of microeconomics and assumed as given in the labor economics subfield.

A way of looking at it is that when a person sells his labor, he ONLY does so when it provides him equal or greater utility* than not doing so. The same goes for those who purchase labor.

*Recall that "utility" means "happiness" and is probably best thought of as "better-offness" or "preferredness".