|
Force the unemployed into prostitution?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Let's make some assumptions:
1. Prostitution is just a job like any other, with no particular negative moral nature or consequences that attach to it, and should be legal for all people over the age of consent (whatever you believe that to be).
2. Governments should be able to force those taking unemployment benefits into an occupation whenever one becomes available.
3. If prostitution is legal, there will be situations in which people are on unemployment benefits and jobs as prostitutes become available in their vicinity.
Now let's draw a conclusion:
4. Governments should be able to force those taking unemployment benefits into becoming prostitutes whenever such jobs become available in their area.
-----
If you agree with all of the premises but object to the conclusion, explain why you object to it. If you don't agree with one or more of the premises, explain your objections.
---
I expect that most people will object either to (1) or (2), although in many cases I suspect that an objection to premise (2) in this particular situation will rest on an implicit rejection of (1), even if the person might not openly acknowledge such a rejection at the risk of appearing socially "regressive" or narrow-minded. And I suppose one might argue that a personal reluctance to engage in prostitution could itself disqualify a person for the job, since most clients presumably want the prostitutes they visit to at least appear to enjoy the business.
[Edit: I got the general gist of this argument from this article.] |
|
|
| Psy-T |
i'm having a hard time getting a job at the moment. i wouldn't hesitate to take one up as a prostitute if the pay was fair.
the reason i wouldn't hesitate is that i share your view regarding the premises, rather than some sex addiction or juvenile attitude.
so if you know a pimp in my area, be sure to recommend me to him :gsmile: |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
2. Governments should be able to force those taking unemployment benefits into an occupation whenever one becomes available.
|
no thats terrible |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
no thats terrible |
So you think that people should be able to remain on unemployment benefits indefinitely as long as they object to doing the jobs that become available? Or do you think that there should be no unemployment benefits in the first place? |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
So you think that people should be able to remain on unemployment benefits indefinitely |
No, there are time limits that function perfectly fine |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
So you think that people should be able to remain on unemployment benefits indefinitely as long as they object to doing the jobs that become available? Or do you think that there should be no unemployment benefits in the first place? |
An unemployed professor has every right to turn down a grocery position. The government coming in an allocating skilled human capital wherever they please is a huge violation of their liberty. Besides, these benefits often times are ensured by previous wealth they have created. Im not too well versed on how much pressure the unemployment office can put on unskilled labourers, but I would imagine there is a large debate as to what constitutes as suitable employment for these people in question,and how far they can excercise their right to turn down positions without being penalized.
If I was a prostitute, i would be the type that chooses who the customer is, and charge whatever price i feel like.In other words, a petty theif/rapist:wtf: |
|
|
| owien |
| well even if it was legal i doubt the current job crises would change. selling your body as a full time profession is certainly not in the education system. and holds no standing in our society. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
So there are a lot of investment bankers that are now unemployed, right? Should they all be forced by the government to take open janitorial positions?
Underemployment is only slightly less desired than unemployment. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
2. Governments should be able to force those taking unemployment benefits into an occupation whenever one becomes available. |
This would be ill-advised.
There are many occupations, for instance, which pose a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Currently, individuals who choose to work in such jobs receive higher pay than they would if the job were less dangerous. This "risk premium" also allows people to make more money than they otherwise would by being willing to take on a job that carries risks.
One of the additional effects of the labor market is that it has the effect of facilitating an efficient level of safety for such jobs. So long as it is cheaper for an employer to make the job safer than pay the risk premium, then the employer has an incentive to make the job safer and reduce pay accordingly. Beyond that point, the worker would actually prefer the risk to the increased safety, and it would therefore be inefficient to increase safety further.
However, if unemployed persons are required to take any job that is available, employers will have no incentive to pay any risk premium for such jobs as there will be an ample supply of labor from people who quite literally cannot refuse to bear the increased risk. Not only that, but because they need not pay any risk premium, they have less incentive to expend resources to create a safer work environment. Effectively, these people would be forced to work dangerous jobs, which would become even more dangerous since they would have a captive labor market, for less than the labor is actually worth, since the government is interfering with the labor market.
Even for non-dangerous jobs, the availability of a potential source of forced labor would greatly distort the efficient operation of the labor market. It would be a classic case of over-regulation leading to economically inefficient outcomes, since a significant number of employers would no longer need to provide compensation adequate to attract willing employees.
Furthermore, to the extent that people are unwilling to take some jobs--for whatever reason--such a policy might induce some individuals to opt-out of the unemployment system and pursue other means of sustaining themselves, such as failing to support their children or engaging in criminal activity. This would substantially undermine the whole point of having unemployment benefits to begin with. |
|
|
| Orbital32 |
| If the government makes you do it, are you considered gay? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Just make radical social changes so that people feel so disgusted that they do not have a job that they kill themselves.
Then make suicide legal! :)
It works in Japan. |
|
|
|
|
