The Right to a Job

Nima · December 6, 2016

In my most recent article on Being Libertarian I explore the idea of how someone could make the case that he has a "Right to a Job" in a fiat money system, where people are usually forced to pay tax in a specified medium of exchange that only the government can net inject:

An unemployed person is, by definition, someone who is willing and able to work for money, but doesn’t have a job. In the historically documented sequence of events in a fiat money economy, the fact that the government has imposed a tax in a certain form of money is what gives that money value, since people in the private sector now need it to pay taxes.

So when a government first imposes a tax, the next thing that happens is that a whole lot of people are now by definition unemployed: They need the money to pay the coercively imposed tax, but they have no job that pays it. Of course, from here a private sector can develop and have internal capital development, consumption, employment, imports & exports, but as shown previously, a solid basis of growing net private saving still seems to be necessary for the private sector to feel safe enough to consume enough to keep the economy from slipping into recession and ensuing unemployment.

The people who are unemployed and willing to work in any given country that employs a fiat money system with a balanced budget (without export surplus) could make a valid case that they have a claim to a government job that pays the money needed to pay the government imposed tax. In other words, a “right to a job.”

Input/thoughts/violent smackdowns appreciated as always!

Jot · December 6, 2016

What is funny is that looked at only from this perspective communism looks like it has the moral edge over democracy.

DaVinci · December 6, 2016

I've often wondered what would happen to the economy if everyone got a government provided well paying job, a brand new car, and a new house when they turned 18. That would eliminate 90% of what most people currently spend their paychecks on.

Nima · December 6, 2016

What is funny is that looked at only from this perspective communism looks like it has the moral edge over democracy.

I don't see how that follows given that communism flat out denies any and all rights to private ownership of the means of production which, aside from moral implications, is important to facilitate competition & quality of output, even in a fiat money system.

thebeardslastcall · December 6, 2016

How can you have a right to something that doesn't exist? That's the problem communism/socialism ignores. They presume the wealth just exists and is merely being gobbled up by the "greedy" and they merely need to step in to alter the allocation. Houses don't exist until someone creates them. Jobs don't exist until someone creates them. The right isn't to have a job, it's to be allowed freedom from violence to create one for yourself. What's stopping you from developing a plot of land, building a farm and home on it? That's your right, so much as such can be non-violently acquired, and it's governments and violence that are preventing you from your right to work. The idea they can grant everyone something they don't have without stealing from someone else who has it is a immorality and failure. Life isn't a given or a right. Life must be earned.

Talking about rights in the context of a life and rights denying system is a fool's game.

Donnadogsoth · December 6, 2016

Second Bill of Rights

ValueOfBrevity · December 7, 2016

I've often wondered what would happen to the economy if everyone got a government provided well paying job, a brand new car, and a new house when they turned 18. That would eliminate 90% of what most people currently spend their paychecks on.

The people paying all those taxes would stop producing wealth for the society.

In my most recent article on Being Libertarian I explore the idea of how someone could make the case that he has a "Right to a Job" in a fiat money system, where people are usually forced to pay tax in a specified medium of exchange that only the government can net inject:

Input/thoughts/violent smackdowns appreciated as always!

What happens in the US if you, for example, owe property taxes but cannot get a job?

I am guessing unemployment insurance isn't enough to cover property taxes for most people.

Slavik · December 7, 2016

The right to a job has two perspective, but all end in immorality since force is involved.

1) The right to public job. Int his case it is meant that it is a right to work for payment that is collected through taxation. Taxation is theft, hopefully I do not need to explain that one, so we end up the right to someone's stolen money.

2) The right to a job in privately owned company, means that in this case you are forcing an individual to give a job to another person. Forcing others with a threat of a gun is once again immoral.

You can have many different perspectives from consequentialist view, in my personal view, I like to see it from moral perspective.

Nima · December 7, 2016

How can you have a right to something that doesn't exist? That's the problem communism/socialism ignores. They presume the wealth just exists and is merely being gobbled up by the "greedy" and they merely need to step in to alter the allocation. Houses don't exist until someone creates them. Jobs don't exist until someone creates them. The right isn't to have a job, it's to be allowed freedom from violence to create one for yourself. What's stopping you from developing a plot of land, building a farm and home on it? That's your right, so much as such can be non-violently acquired, and it's governments and violence that are preventing you from your right to work. The idea they can grant everyone something they don't have without stealing from someone else who has it is a immorality and failure. Life isn't a given or a right. Life must be earned.

Talking about rights in the context of a life and rights denying system is a fool's game.

A right is a universally defensible claim. You are right that in a state of peace and without any preconditions I don't have the right to a job. But if someone imposes a tax in his currency and then demands that I pay him a tax in his currency, and is threatening to seize my property if I don't, then I can make the case that even legally he is responsible for making sure that the tokens he demands in tax payments are sufficiently introduced into the economy. It is he who initiated the threat of aggression, I as a taxpayer am just responding, if that makes sense.

I'm an anarcho capitalist, so you don't need to preach to the choir with me. I notice these kinds of reactions and taking it to a higher moral realm every time I post something that presupposes a fiat money system. A fiat money system is aggression from the outset. There is no morality involved in this examination, it's merely to understand what goes on in the world as it exists around me, and to make investment choices that protect me in the long run.

Will Torbald · December 7, 2016

A tax is something you pay if you make money. If you're unemployed, you're don't have to pay income taxes since you have no income. What are they going to tax you specifically for? You're saying the government expects money from you even if you don't work, which doesn't actually happen.

Nima · December 7, 2016

A tax is something you pay if you make money. If you're unemployed, you're don't have to pay income taxes since you have no income. What are they going to tax you specifically for? You're saying the government expects money from you even if you don't work, which doesn't actually happen.

If you're just observing the individual case you're correct. On the aggregate it doesn't matter how exactly you arrive at depriving the private sector of needed net saving. What matters is that if you do, you cause unemployment because you're monopoly supplier of net private saving.

I've explained this in more detail here:

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/sectoral-balances-and-private-saving/

https://beinglibertarian.com/balanced-budgets-can-create-unemployment/

dsayers · December 7, 2016

What is funny is that looked at only from this perspective communism looks like it has the moral edge over democracy.

Immoral vs immoral. I see no "edge."

I've often wondered what would happen to the economy if everyone got a government provided well paying job, a brand new car, and a new house when they turned 18. That would eliminate 90% of what most people currently spend their paychecks on.

You've already seen what happens to the economy when coercion and forced wealth re-distribution is in play. Do you know how many man hours go into the production of a car or a house?

What happens in the US if you, for example, owe property taxes but cannot get a job?

What is meant by "cannot get a job"?

You are right that in a state of peace and without any preconditions I don't have the right to a job. But if someone imposes a tax

This reads to me as "In the real world, I do not have a right to a job. But in fantasy land..."

thebeardslastcall · December 7, 2016

A right is a universally defensible claim. You are right that in a state of peace and without any preconditions I don't have the right to a job. But if someone imposes a tax in his currency and then demands that I pay him a tax in his currency, and is threatening to seize my property if I don't, then I can make the case that even legally he is responsible for making sure that the tokens he demands in tax payments are sufficiently introduced into the economy. It is he who initiated the threat of aggression, I as a taxpayer am just responding, if that makes sense.

Doesn't really make sense. Translated to my ears I hear it as "He kidnapped me, beat me up, and locked me up in his basement, so I have a right to be fed food, because he's caged me." It's true if he doesn't feed you, you'll die in there, but to call anything in this situation "rights" is just going to cause people confusion and in the situation of a state it will mask and help hide the violence and injustice of the situation, which is exactly what we should probably be trying to illuminate as much as possible. So talking about "rights" in this context is antithetical to the goal of having non-violence as the baseline.

thebeardslastcall · December 7, 2016

A tax is something you pay if you make money. If you're unemployed, you're don't have to pay income taxes since you have no income. What are they going to tax you specifically for? You're saying the government expects money from you even if you don't work, which doesn't actually happen.

That's an income tax. There are property taxes that take merely for you having something, like a home. Thus if you lose your "job" and are just living off growing food on your plot or doing nothing, they'll keep taxing you until you lose your home too in some places. Taxes are anti-life.

Nima · December 7, 2016

Doesn't really make sense. Translated to my ears I hear it as "He kidnapped me, beat me up, and locked me up in his basement, so I have a right to be fed food, because he's caged me." It's true if he doesn't feed you, you'll die in there, but to call anything in this situation "rights" is just going to cause people confusion and in the situation of a state it will mask and help hide the violence and injustice of the situation, which is exactly what we should probably be trying to illuminate as much as possible. So talking about "rights" in this context is antithetical to the goal of having non-violence as the baseline.

... that's correct regarding the kidnapping analogy. That's basically the nature of the situation here. The goal I have here is to explain the causes of unemployment in the real world, not "having non-violence as the baseline", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Nima · December 7, 2016

This reads to me as "In the real world, I do not have a right to a job. But in fantasy land..."

No, actually not at all. I'm talking about the very economy that you and I are living in right now and for explanations of phenomena that we observe therein and ways to cure those. Government budget deficits are a real thing, sectoral balance flows are real events, net private savings are objectively quantifiable, recessions and depressions are very well predictable from those things, unemployment is occurring in many places and affecting many people's lives all over the world. But feel free to make your case as to where I veered off into fantasy land.

Tyler H · December 7, 2016

If you're just observing the individual case you're correct. On the aggregate it doesn't matter how exactly you arrive at depriving the private sector of needed net saving. What matters is that if you do, you cause unemployment because you're monopoly supplier of net private saving.

I've explained this in more detail here:

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/sectoral-balances-and-private-saving/

https://beinglibertarian.com/balanced-budgets-can-create-unemployment/

But the inability for the government to allocate resources as efficiently as the free market would inevitably lead to further economic damage. So the government giving people jobs will only make matters worse. I'm having trouble differentiating what you're talking about from communism, which we know is a massive failure.

If the argument is that one coercive action justifies another, then where does it end?

Correct me if I've misunderstood.

dsayers · December 7, 2016

No, actually not at all. I'm talking about the very economy that you and I are living in right now and for explanations of phenomena that we observe therein and ways to cure those. Government budget deficits are a real thing, sectoral balance flows are real events, net private savings are objectively quantifiable, recessions and depressions are very well predictable from those things, unemployment is occurring in many places and affecting many people's lives all over the world. But feel free to make your case as to where I veered off into fantasy land.

You either have the right to force somebody to trade with you for your labor/service or you do not. The fact that there are other people pretending they have power and stealing from you doesn't change this.

Nima · December 8, 2016

You either have the right to force somebody to trade with you for your labor/service or you do not. The fact that there are other people pretending they have power and stealing from you doesn't change this.

I agree. And it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

But the inability for the government to allocate resources as efficiently as the free market would inevitably lead to further economic damage. So the government giving people jobs will only make matters worse. I'm having trouble differentiating what you're talking about from communism, which we know is a massive failure.

If the argument is that one coercive action justifies another, then where does it end?

Correct me if I've misunderstood.

It is true that the government can't allocate resources as well as competing entrepreneurs, which is why we want to allow for a big private sector. The purpose of deficit spending is just to supply the private sector with net saving which it seems to have a certain ongoing demand for (empirically, you can observe that for the majority of history the private sector has been running surpluses, and the 6 out of 7 times it didn't, a catastrophic depression ensued, the 7th time being the Great Recession of 2008). The government just happens to be the sole monopoly supplier of such net saving.

We do want a large private sector to develop from there of course, with private investment spending to grow productivity etc., and there is nothing that prevents that, even in a fiat money system, but it can't happen without the necessary net saving, that's just what we observe in the game called "fiat money capitalism".

ValueOfBrevity · December 8, 2016

What is meant by "cannot get a job"?

When one cannot find a legal means of acquiring income. For example, minimum wages laws prevent one from finding a job when the production value of their labor skills is under the minimum wage.

dsayers · December 8, 2016

I agree. And it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

Nothing I've said has anything to do with what you wrote. The point of contention is when you said you don't have a right to a job, but you do, which I pointed out is inconsistent. You asked me to point out where fantasy was encroached, I did, and you've agreed. It's all right here.

When one cannot find a legal means of acquiring income. For example, minimum wages laws prevent one from finding a job when the production value of their labor skills is under the minimum wage.

Here, you've entered a new variable while also not answering the question. You've described WILL NOT get a job, not cannot.

Mister Mister · December 8, 2016

unemployment requires no "explanation" as to it's causes; just like poverty, it is mankind's natural state. Employment and wealth can be explained in general by the accumulation of capital, and as a corollary, huge reductions in employment and wealth are generally caused by mis-allocation of capital

Nima · December 9, 2016

unemployment requires no "explanation" as to it's causes; just like poverty, it is mankind's natural state. Employment and wealth can be explained in general by the accumulation of capital, and as a corollary, huge reductions in employment and wealth are generally caused by mis-allocation of capital

You say it "requires no explanation" but in the next sentence you happily provide an explanation. Interesting. I have also provided my explanation and I've supplied empirical evidence & logic to back it up.

thebeardslastcall · December 9, 2016

The guy locked up in the basement, who may or may not be fed, depending on whether we deem him to have the "right" to be fed (for now), is most certainly, probably, likely "unemployed", but maybe will be given some arbitrary task and be told it will have an effect on whether or not he gets a meal (it won't and will do nothing productive towards the acquisition of food or anything else).

virtue · December 9, 2016

Input/thoughts/violent smackdowns appreciated as always!

The sentiment sounds good to me, but something about it also rubs me the wrong way. I can't quite put my finger on it right now. I'm not talking about your article. I'm referring to the idea "right to a job" in itself.

Here is why it sounds good to me. These are not arguments, but rather the mental primordial soup I would use for further reflection on the idea.

It seems to me, at least for the basics of life, a man can provide for himself in the wild. He can live off nature (or the land). If he's hungry he can hunt. If he's thirsty he can get water. Nature provides for him the same way it provides for the animals. Will he starve at times? Yes. But for the most part if he's in tune with nature, he'll do alright.

Unlike the city man, the man in the wild can build himself a house, rip the benefits of his labor, work when he needs to and rests when wants to. In many ways he's more efficient and self sufficient. More importantly he determines the value of things - which is the effort he wishes to put to obtain them. If he wants meat, the price to get it is hunting (all that goes with it), but no more (like license to hunt or other bureaucracies)

The city man arguably loses what nature provided him for free in the wild. Since his new home is the city (rather than the wild), if one can show that a man in the city can do better in the wild, then one can potentially make the argument that such a man has a right to a job that will allow him to get that which he himself, if he were in the wild, can get from nature.

Your argument as I understand it is based on the fiat monetary system. Monetary systems change. What happens to the "right to a job" when the reason for it, namely the fiat system, changes? Aren't you justifying a permanent thing by a temporary thing?

I don't mean to diminish your argument. I do want to point out that perhaps an argument from nature, rather a monetary system, might be better for something as permanent as a "right to a job". It's easy to give a right, but try taking it away once given.

dsayers · December 9, 2016

You say it "requires no explanation" but in the next sentence you happily provide an explanation. Interesting. I have also provided my explanation and I've supplied empirical evidence & logic to back it up.

Requires no explanation is not the same as unexplainable. If I understand his point correctly, he was pointing out that it is the origin. We are born unemployed.

Tyler H · December 9, 2016

I am curious, what is the motivation for developing this argument? In my view, any measure of success will only serve to arm the enemy with more sophistry. Is it an anticipatory maneuver in order to defeat the argument?

Nima · December 9, 2016

I am curious, what is the motivation for developing this argument? In my view, any measure of success will only serve to arm the enemy with more sophistry. Is it an anticipatory maneuver in order to defeat the argument?

Haha, I don't know if I'd call it a "maneuver", but maybe it is somehow. For example, why does an aviation engineer study the mechanics behind a plane? I'd say I'm examining and making empirical and logical connections about the functioning of the mechanics of the machine called the "fiat money system", if that makes sense? I think lots of Austrian economists try to do this all the time, they just make terrible mistakes in my opinion, impelling them to go on public TV and make fools of themselves by predicting hyperinflation, etc. I'd just like to retain the ability to make more sober predictions for my own finance's sake, if that makes sense?

The guy locked up in the basement, who may or may not be fed, depending on whether we deem him to have the "right" to be fed (for now), is most certainly, probably, likely "unemployed", but maybe will be given some arbitrary task and be told it will have an effect on whether or not he gets a meal (it won't and will do nothing productive towards the acquisition of food or anything else).

That is precisely correct. The idea of guaranteeing a government job in a fiat money system is not so the jobs created from there will lead to magnificent productivity growth, it's rather for mechanical reasons, e.g. supplying the net saving people need in a fiat economy to feel comfortable about the level of government imposed taxation, and then those people will hopefully soon find a better paying job in the private sector sooner or later. It's a stepping stone more than anything.

Employment and wealth can be explained in general by the accumulation of capital, and as a corollary, huge reductions in employment and wealth are generally caused by mis-allocation of capital