A case for government intervention: unemployment

[Victor Danilchenko]

This is my first stab at a middlingly simple economic analysis, so bear with me.

Humans in general are risk-averse; this is why insurance industry exists. The expected (average) outcome of a risky situation being the same as the expected out come of a non-risky situation (i.e. 50/50 chance of losing $10K or winning $10K, vs. nothing happening), the risk itself has negative utility. This fact is further compounded by diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

Together, these two factors imply that society-wide welfare would be greatly increased by availability of some sort of protection scheme for risks. In fact, we have insurance for a vast number of eventualities; but not all of them are insurable. What conditions are necessary for insurance to be viable in a given domain? The standard list goes like this:

• The occurrence of insured events must be independent: me suffering X should have no causal relationship to you suffering X.
• Probability of the insured event should be less that 1.
• The average rate of the insured event's occurrence must be predictable.
• There must be no adverse selection. "Adverse selection" is when the insuree is able to conceal from the insurer his or her true risk. If adverse selection is a factor, then the insurance company is forced to charge average premiums of everyone, high- and low-risk; this means that the low-risk individuals would find it inefficient to be insured, and leave the insurance, thus driving up the cost of servicing the remaining higher-risk individuals, in turn driving up the premiums, which in turn causes the next layer of low-risk individuals to leave, etc; resulting in a downward death spiral of the insurance market.
• There must be no moral hazard. Moral hazard is similar to adverse selection, except that it's the situation where the insuree is able to influence frequency of accurence and/or duration of the insured event. Presence of the moral hazard in a given insurance domain similarly tends to cause the downward death spiral of the insurance market.
  
  Note that the problem posed by adverse selection and moral hazard aren't merely a question of inefficiency, but rather of creating a sort of downwards vicious cycle that is causes by iterative abandonment of the insurance by increasingly higher-risk individuals.

Examining various insurance domains in light of these considerations is instructive. Healthcare for example is susceptible to moral hazard somewhat, but the moral hazard can be controlled by the insurance companies double-checking the medical records, and/or instituting efficient co-payment and coverage rates, and/or getting proactive and forming HMOs. Nonetheless, we see the inefficiency cost that the medical insurance industry has to put up with, in the form of both inefficiently high premiums and the proverbial reluctance of the HMOs to actually treat serious problems.

Onwards to unemployment!

Unemployment is a significant risk, and we would want it similarly covered. Furthermore, not only does the occurrence of unemployment carry great negative utility for the individual, it also incurs negative externalities -- the loss of excess production over labor cost, the abandonment of various financial obligations (such as house foreclosures), the bread-winner's family would suffer from privation, society would have to suffer higher crime rates, and in the worst-case scenario, society would have to pony up the cost of disposing of the bodies. No matter which way you slice it, society pays for uninsured unemployment indirectly.

So we want to have unemployment insurance, right? Nice try. Unemployment, turns out, is suspectible to three out of five problems listed above:

• Society-wide unemployment rate fluctuates with economy, making occurrences of unemployment be causally dependent upon each other.
• The average rate of unemployment is predictable only in the short term (and would become even less predictable under libertarian-style market); in the long term, it's no more predictable that the rate of inflation.
• The moral hazard in unemployment insurance is virtually uncontrollable. It's basically impossible to account for me telling my boss that I would work a week for free, if she lays me off afterwards; similarly, it's essentially impossible to tell the difference between legitimate but lengthy search for a good job, and mere procrastrination.

The former two problems, with luck, merely cause inefficiency; but the last one in effect sounds a death knell for the very possibility of unemployment insurance.

Of course, the ultimate test is reality. It's a telling fact that not even in US, the least welfarish of the 1st-world states, there is no unemployment insurance. In fact, AFAIK, there has never been a successful unemployment insurance industry anywhere!

So what do we do? We want to mitigate the negative utility for both individual and society which are inherent in the risk of unemploymenmt; but for technical reasons, private unemployment insurance seems impossible. The solution? Compulsory government unemployment support scheme. In fact, it probably couldn't be a true actuarial insurance for technical reasons, but it can accomplish the goal -- alleviate the detrimental effects of risk of unemployment; and the fact that it would be compulsory is what would make it possible to defeat the monster of moral hazard -- instead of causing the death spiral due to iterative departure of low-risk individuals, compulsory unemployment "insurance" would merely pay the inefficiency price, and not a very big one at that. The moral hazard doesn't have to be effected by a large segment of the insuree population, you see, and indeed most people who collect unemployment do so honestly.

So what are we left with? Our choices basically are either to left unemployment risks go uncontrolled, and pay the exorbitant price in both individual negative utility, and in negative externalities; or to have the government intervene and provide some sort of compulsory unemployment support scheme. I know which one I would choose...

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Argo Nimbus]

Of course, the ultimate test is reality. It's a telling fact that not even in US, the least welfarish of the 1st-world states, there is no unemployment insurance.

Actually, the State of Nebraska (and I would assume every other State in the US) has what it calls "unemployment insurance". In Nebraska this is administered by an Office of Unemployment Insurance Services. The insurance is compulsory and paid for by employers through a tax on payroll. The insured receives up to six months of weekly checks based on length of previous employment and wages earned. The checks I've seen amount to 40 hours at $5.95 per hour, or $238. This terminates after six months unless Congress votes an extension.

most people who collect unemployment do so honestly.

Okay, so you're not totally unaware that "some sort of compulsory unemployment support scheme" already exists?

So what are we left with? Our choices basically are either to left unemployment risks go uncontrolled, and pay the exorbitant price in both individual negative utility, and in negative externalities; or to have the government intervene and provide some sort of compulsory unemployment support scheme. I know which one I would choose...

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

So what is the issue? Is it that current levels of unemployment benefits are not adequate?

--- Argo

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Re: Re: A case for government intervention: unemployment

Argo Nimbus

Actually, the State of Nebraska (and I would assume every other State in the US) has what it calls "unemployment insurance". In Nebraska this is administered by an Office of Unemployment Insurance Services. The insurance is compulsory and paid for by employers through a tax on payroll.

This is how it works in all US states, AFAIK; but the key words here are 'cumpulsory' and 'administered by OUIS...'. It's a compulsory state-run scheme, just what I advocate. It might be an actuarial insurance, but I rather suspect that it's 'insurance" in name only.

Okay, so you're not totally unaware that "some sort of compulsory unemployment support scheme" already exists?

My whole point is that it should exist, just as it does.

So what is the issue? Is it that current levels of unemployment benefits are not adequate?

the issue is that libertarians are against government intervention of this sort. This is really an argument with libertarians, which fact I guess I should have made more clear.

 

[shanek]

There are two causes of unemployment.

One is called "natural unemployment." It's unemployment that just happens. Even in a booming economy, there's going to be a natural amount of unemployment because people change jobs, and may be out of work for a bit while they do so. So there may always be 1-2% unemployment, but it's a different 1-2% every few weeks or so. The other form takes place in the downswing of the business model. For about 3-6 months usually (unless government actions extend the recession like it's been doing lately), the economy drops below the level of total production, and you have unemployment until it ramps up again. This is part of the business model. In both cases, the unemployment is there for a reason, and you couldn't stop it even if you wanted to.

The other cause of unemployment, and the only cause of major long-term unemployment is, you guessed it, GOVERNMENT!

One of the big things the government does to cause unemployment and even underemployment is related to its "desire" to stop the big, evil corporations from exploiting workers, making them work in "sweat shops" for "slave wages." What they don't understand is that these are crucial entry jobs for people starting careers. Even if you don't make much money, one major benefit you get is work experience. Another is on-the-job training. This is crucial in advancing your career to the next level. Being "exploited" is the smartest career move one can make!

When the government regulates a minimum wage, it creates unemployment and hurt those it supposedly helps. Here [PDF file] is a study from David Neumark and William Wascher of actual payroll records before and after a minimum wage hike in New Jersey. They found that "the New Jersey minimum wage increase led to a 4.6 percent decrease in employment in New Jersey relative to the Pennsylvania control group." Prof. Kevin Lang of Boston University did a study [PDF file] of the effect of minimum wage laws and found, "When the minimum wage is set above the level that would be offered by low-wage firms in the absence of legislation, low-wage jobs become attractive to some high-quality workers... The employment rate for low-quality workers will generally fall as may their expected wage."

This makes perfect sense if you study basic economics. Look at the supply/demand model for the job market. When the minimum wage is greater than the equilibrium wage (which is the only time it has any effect at all), you end up with the supply (the number of potential employees) being greater than the demand (the number of jobs available). Hence, unemployment. Also notice that the supply is greater than it was at the equilibrium. Who do you think those extra potential employees are? They're the ones who can demand the higher wage! And when you're an employer, of course you're going to hire the most qualified of all the applicants. So those who can only demand a lower wage, instead of being helped, are being put out of jobs!

It snowballs from there. Let's say your neighbor, Fred, wants his house painted. A local high school girl, Janie, offers to paint his house for $4/hr. Fred agrees. That summer, she turns 16 and goes for her first summer job. She has an advantage of her peers—she has work experience! She can have Fred give her a recommendation and have a greater chance of getting the job. And so on. Once she graduates, all of this work experience might let her easily start a career, say, as a bank teller. The glowing recommendations from Fred and all of the employers she worked for as a result of Fred's recommendation give her an advantage over other applicants and she has a much better chance of being hired.

But if the government steps in and says, "No, you have to pay her $6/hr," Fred might decide that it's not worth it; the paint job can last another two years or so. So Janie doesn't get that first job with Fred, doesn't have a recommendation going into that summer job, and her entire career is hurt as a result! All to keep mean, evil, nasty Fred from "exploiting" her.

Fred himself might also be harmed. Let's say that he's an unskilled worker working in a factory for $5/hr. The factory has two pay schedules: $5/hr for unskilled workers, and $6/hr for skilled. With the new $6 minimum wage, Fred gets a pay raise. Good for him, right?

But the skilled workers are having problems making the same amount of money as the unskilled, and rightly so. So, the factory raises their pay to $7 to avoid losing them to other factories. Wow! Everybody's benefitting from this minimum wage, right?

Not so fast. With the increased costs of employee wages, profits are down. Maybe they're even in the negative. So the company has no choice but to raise prices, meaning we all pay more. The minimum wage leads to inflation. But it's worse than that; the higher price of the goods reduces demand for the product. Now, the company isn't producing as much and is forced to cut back. They have to let workers go. Who do you think they're going to lay off, the skilled or the unskilled? And even if they decide to lay off a bit of both, the skilled workers are in a much better position to get new jobs than the unskilled. So Fred might find himself out of a job, all to stop him from being "exploited" by the factory owners.

Also, according to Masanori; Hashimoto, MINIMUM WAGES ON-THE-JOB TRAINING, (Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1981) p. 2, and Walter Williams, STATE AGAINST THE BLACKS, (New York:New Press, NcGraw Hill, 1982) p. 37, blacks and other minorities are harmed the most by minimum wage laws.

The layoff effect also takes place because of the cost of regulatory compliance. As I have shown in other threads, even the smallest regulation can have enormous costs to businesses. More costs mean less (or no) profits, the raising of prices, and the laying off of workers. W.G. Laffer III, in How Regulation Is Destroying American Jobs, using statistics from the US Dept. of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, concluded that for every Federal regulator that is hired, more than 150 private sector jobs are destroyed!

If you really want to solve the problem of unemployment, and reduce the risks of job loss, then get the government out of the economy!

 

[Tmy]

There is never a lack of minimum wage jobs. If you lose your job because minimum wage went up another 15 cents, you can just go down the street and get another minimum wage job.

Whats teh fed minimum at nowadays??

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane,

Would you please consider staying on topic? Government's contribution to unemployment is not the issue here; with or without government intervention, unemployment would happen at non-trivial level, and would still have to be addressed. Would you please not change the subject, and address my economic arguments for unviability of private unemployment insurance?

Don't use this topic as the soap-box to rant abut evils of government -- just address the topic itself, if you would, please. I made a specific point, and I would like that point answered.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: A case for government intervention: unemployment

Actually, the State of Nebraska (and I would assume every other State in the US) has what it calls "unemployment insurance". In Nebraska this is administered by an Office of Unemployment Insurance Services. The insurance is compulsory and paid for by employers through a tax on payroll.

It's "unemployment insurance" in NC, too. And if NC is anything to go by, state governments have given themselves a monopoly on this market. No one else could sell unemployment insurance if they wanted to!

 

[shanek]

Would you please consider staying on topic?

The topic, as YOU titled it, is "A case for government intervention: unemployment." I am taking the contrary viewpoint.

But I'm glad you gave my extensively argued and sourced arguments, which took me over an hour to compile and type, a full nine minutes of thought and consideration. Your bias is plain for all to see.

Government's contribution to unemployment is not the issue here; with or without government intervention, unemployment would happen at non-trivial level, and would still have to be addressed.

As I showed in my post, without government intervention the only unemployment is the small amount necessary for total economic growth and cannot be avoided no matter how much one tries.

But, as usual, you're being a complete weasel on the topic...

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Re: Re: Re: A case for government intervention: unemployment

shanek

It's "unemployment insurance" in NC, too. And if NC is anything to go by, state governments have given themselves a monopoly on this market. No one else could sell unemployment insurance if they wanted to!

is it your contention then that private unemployment insurance could have existed if not for the state's legal monopoly on unemployment insurance? Can you reference specific laws mandating such a monopoly -- and can you address my economic arguments for unviability of private unemployment insurance?

The topic, as YOU titled it, is "A case for government intervention: unemployment." I am taking the contrary viewpoint.

Then support it by demonstrating how my argument is unsound. As it is, you instead make a point that is, once again, completely irrelevant to what I said.

Your bias is plain for all to see.

I made a specific argument; your repeated refusal to address it is telling, IMO.

As I showed in my post, without government intervention the only unemployment is the small amount necessary for total economic growth and cannot be avoided no matter how much one tries.

But I never made any claims about avoiding unemployment; my point was that only the government is capable of mitigating its deleterious effects. Since by your own admission a measure of unemployment would have existed regardless of government policy, the question is what to do about it; I gave an answer. If you want to dispute my answer, please do so, instead of evading and changing the subject.

But, as usual, you're being a complete weasel on the topic.

Why am I not surprised by the fact that you have once again manifested the amazing combination of prodigious lack of comprehension, and bulletproof self-righteousness? You didn't even understand what i wrote...

 

[Michael Redman]

Unemployment insurance is a Federal Government program (remember when in January, folks around the country stopped getting benefits because Congress "forgot" to authorize them?) The program is administered by the states within guidelines set by the Feds, and (I think) completely funded by the Feds, but actually workings of the program vary from state to state. You'll notice that states are not talking about cutting unemployment benefits due to their present economic difficulties.

It seems to me that strong economic expansion requires a pool of unemployed, but qualified workers. The market, on it's own, will allow those without jobs to starve to death (or force them to commit crime to feed themselves), rather than provide support to keep them alive until they are needed. A free market required unemployment, and yet does not provide for the need of the unemployed. The market needs government to keep these people alive and law-abiding until industry needs them.

At least, until we remove all government regulation of business, and allow them to practice the most profitable method of labor: slavery. Then, it will be in the interest of the business to feed the worker, even in periods of economic downturn. Until then, however, I'll stick with government sponsored unemployment insurance.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A case for government intervention: unemployment

is it your contention then that private unemployment insurance could have existed if not for the state's legal monopoly on unemployment insurance?

It could have, yes. People are worried about unemployment, just as they are worried about fires etc.

Can you reference specific laws mandating such a monopoly -- and can you address my economic arguments for unviability of private unemployment insurance?

If I do, will you take more than nine minutes to consider it? Or will I be wasting my time with you, as always?

Then support it by demonstrating how my argument is unsound.

I did. I also showed how the government is responsible for most of the unemployment we're currently experiencing. Fixing the problem would be a lot better than throwing money at it, wouldn't you agree?

As it is, you instead make a point that is, once again, completely irrelevant to what I said.

It's not at all irrelevant! The idea is to help as many unemployed people as possible, isn't it?

I made a specific argument; your repeated refusal to address it is telling, IMO.

I did address it. Your refusal to acknowledge my addressing of your argument is, as usual, quite telling.

But I never made any claims about avoiding unemployment;

Weasel, weasel, weasel...giving jobs to the unemployed is better than just giving them money, is it not?

my point was that only the government is capable of mitigating its deleterious effects.

And my point is that it should not do the things that cause the deleterious effects in the first place!

Since by your own admission a measure of unemployment would have existed regardless of government policy, the question is what to do about it; I gave an answer. If you want to dispute my answer, please do so, instead of evading and changing the subject.

Your quesiton was not, what to do about the small amount of unemployment that maturally exists in an economy. Your question was, what to do about unemployment, period. You're the one who's being evasive, and ignoring every single point I've made.

 

[shanek]

It seems to me that strong economic expansion requires a pool of unemployed, but qualified workers. The market, on it's own, will allow those without jobs to starve to death (or force them to commit crime to feed themselves), rather than provide support to keep them alive until they are needed. A free market required unemployment, and yet does not provide for the need of the unemployed. The market needs government to keep these people alive and law-abiding until industry needs them.

Once again, you're ignoring the fabulous work of charities, who as I have repeatedly shown would have more than enough resources to help those in need were the government not taking 48% of the National Income in taxes. Why do you people keep ignoring the free market creation of charities?

At least, until we remove all government regulation of business, and allow them to practice the most profitable method of labor: slavery.

How do you get the insane idea that slavery is the most profitable method of labor?

 

[Thanz]

Once again, you're ignoring the fabulous work of charities, who as I have repeatedly shown would have more than enough resources to help those in need were the government not taking 48% of the National Income in taxes. Why do you people keep ignoring the free market creation of charities?

\

Do you have a link to where you have explained this in greater detail? Or, if you have it handy, can you just post it again?

Thanks.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A case for government intervention: unemployment

shanek

It could have, yes. People are worried about unemployment, just as they are worried about fires etc.

So address my economic argument for why private unemployment insurance is not viable!!!

If I do, will you take more than nine minutes to consider it?

Sure, provide evidence that private unemployment insurance doesn't exist primarily due to government forbidding its existence, and i will consider it. I doubt you will find any such evidence.

I did. I also showed how the government is responsible for most of the unemployment we're currently experiencing. Fixing the problem would be a lot better than throwing money at it, wouldn't you agree?

but you can't fix the problem; some rate of unemployment is unavoidable. the question is, what do we do about those unemployed?

It's not at all irrelevant! The idea is to help as many unemployed people as possible, isn't it?

And market cannot help them all, or even enough of them.

Dude, you are totally missing the point.

Suppose we have a libertarian government; no regulations creating unemployment, and the unemployment rate is, say, 2% (ridiculously low BTW). And so we all libertarians get together and ask ourselves: gee, these poor 2% of unemployed suffer some pretty hefty hardships, and the negative externalities thereof create a drag on the economy. What can we do to improve things? Then i get up and give my schpiel about how only government unemploymenr protection scheme can help. Mind you, this is in an environment where you cannot blame government regulations for creating extra unemployment (a most debatable point, but not one I want to discuss in this thread).

As you can see, my argument doesn't depend on current extant welfare state; it's a theoretical argument that applieds to any possible state with non-zero unemployment rate, even a libertarian one. You blaming government regulations and minimum wage completely misses the point!

You are like the campaigning politicians in a televized debate:

"Mr. Candidate, what is your position on universal healthcare?"
"My history as a successful administrator of the 2000 olympiad in Salt Lake City speaks for itself!"
"Mrs. Candidate, what is your position on universal healthcare?"
"I was extremely successful in running the state finance office, and uncovered major fraud at the Big Dig!"

That was a paraphrase of our local MA governor's debates. You sound almost as bad: "My argument is that government intervention is required to alleviate unemployment hardships for those unemployed, as private unemployment insurance is impossible. What do you say to that?" "Government is bad, it creates unemployment!"

I did address it.

No, you didn't. You addressed some other argument that i am completely unaware of. I didn't argue about who or what created unemployment; I argued about how this exdtant and unavoidable problem is to be made less damaging to individuals and society. Since my argument is not conditional on USA-style regulatory state, you answering my argument by blkaming state regulation is completely, totally irrelevant.

Weasel, weasel, weasel...

You know, you really sicken me. I thought you had a modicum of integrity and intelligence left.

giving jobs to the unemployed is better than just giving them money, is it not?

You can't give jobs to all of them; and the rest will still suffer, and create negative externalities for the economy. The fact that market economy and scientific progress greatly improved healthcare, does not alleviate the need for health insurance, does it?!.

And my point is that it should not do the things that cause the deleterious effects in the first place!

And if it doesan't, if we lived in your libertopia, unemployment would still exist; and what would you want to do about it?

Your quesiton was not, what to do about the small amount of unemployment that maturally exists in an economy. Your question was, what to do about unemployment, period.

yes -- and cutting unemployment rate does not address "unemployment problem, period" -- it merely reduces its scope; just as having good hygiene does not address the problem of what to do when you do get sick.

 

[Michael Redman]

Once again, you're ignoring the fabulous work of charities, who as I have repeatedly shown would have more than enough resources to help those in need were the government not taking 48% of the National Income in taxes. Why do you people keep ignoring the free market creation of charities?

Charities are great. If they took care of all the folks that needed help, I would agree that government should not get involved.

But they don't.

How do you get the insane idea that slavery is the most profitable method of labor?

Were all slaveholders of the past insane? No. Being free market actors, they did what was in their best interest, right? Did slavery die out because it became unprofitable? No.

 

[Thanz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A case for government intervention: unemployment

Suppose we have a libertarian government; no regulations creating unemployment, and the unemployment rate is, say, 2% (ridiculously low BTW). And so we all libertarians get together and ask ourselves: gee, these poor 2% of unemployed suffer some pretty hefty hardships, and the negative externalities thereof create a drag on the economy. What can we do to improve things? Then i get up and give my schpiel about how only government unemploymenr protection scheme can help. Mind you, this is in an environment where you cannot blame government regulations for creating extra unemployment (a most debatable point, but not one I want to discuss in this thread).

First, I don't think that government policies are the sole cause of unemployment, as shanek does, but I think that in the libertarian utopia that shanek dreams about the 2% unemployment rate can be effectively ignored. The idea being that while 2% of the population is always unemployed, it is not the same 2% all the time. It is just frictional unemployment - the time between jobs. And I think that shanek would say that time is limited - say, 2 weeks or one month - so the deleterious effects don't really emerge.

In such a world (where anyone who wants a job can find one rather quickly) I don't think that there would be much demand for unemployment insurance.

However, while I don't profess to know the history, wouldn't you expect there to be private unemployment insurance before the governement stepped in to do it if it were economically feasible? Or, wouldn't insurance companies be lobbying to get the business if it could be a moneymaker? I certainly haven't heard of any insurance industry lobbying for unemployment insurance. If there was money to be made there, I'm sure they would lobby hard to get it.

 

[shanek]

\

Do you have a link to where you have explained this in greater detail? Or, if you have it handy, can you just post it again?

I found one after running a search. There's one I posted with more detailed figures, but I can't find that one right now but this one will do:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=326608#post326608

Notice that a_unique_person had nothing to say after that. In fact, that post pretty much killed the thread.

 

[reprise]

In the US, is the minimum wage tied in any way to age?

 

[shanek]

In the US, is the minimum wage tied in any way to age?

No.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A case for government intervention: unemployment

So address my economic argument for why private unemployment insurance is not viable!!!

I DID!!!!!

but you can't fix the problem; some rate of unemployment is unavoidable.

And even desirable. Remember that this natural unemployment doesn't harm the unemployed—they're changing jobs! Presumably to a better job! Why do you refust to get this through your head???

Suppose we have a libertarian government; no regulations creating unemployment, and the unemployment rate is, say, 2% (ridiculously low BTW). And so we all libertarians get together and ask ourselves: gee, these poor 2% of unemployed suffer some pretty hefty hardships,

No, they don't, because it's a different 2% every few weeks! But you apparently don't want to know, as you only spent at the most nine minutes glossing over the post where I explained all of this!

and the negative externalities thereof create a drag on the economy.

No, they don't. Natural unemployment improves the economy by providing competition in the workforce. Unemployment is only bad when it goes above this amount, and that is where all of the other factors I mentioned come in.

[Victor's typical irrelevant blather deleted]

No, you didn't. You addressed some other argument that i am completely unaware of.

I pointed out how the economy naturally uses unemployment as a growth and balancing factor, thus rebutting your main point. I then went on to explain the reason why unemployment is such a problem! If it weren't for these government regulations and programs, the only unemployment in the economy would be the levels that are there naturally—AND THEY AREN'T A PROBLEM!!!!

I didn't argue about who or what created unemployment; I argued about how this exdtant and unavoidable problem

BUT IT'S NOT EXTANT AND UNAVOIDABLE!!!! If we get rid of these government programs, we get rid of the problematic aspects of unemployment!

READ MY FSCKING POST!!!!!

I'm really getting sick and tired of you...

You can't give jobs to all of them;

The free market can!

and the rest will still suffer, and create negative externalities for the economy.

See, there you go continuing to spew the same thing over and over again with no regard for anything I've said!

The fact that market economy and scientific progress greatly improved healthcare, does not alleviate the need for health insurance, does it?!.

The need for health insurance is because government programs drive the price skyward. We've been over that one, too. But you don't want to know; you don't even want to consider anything that might interfere with your pathetic little delusions.

And if it doesan't, if we lived in your libertopia, unemployment would still exist; and what would you want to do about it?

Nothing, because the natural amount of unemployment that exists in the economy is A GOOD THING!!! It means people are switching jobs!!!!

Sheesh....