I am not limiting my argument to any special pleading since that can usually be associated with demand side economics in modern times. I subscribe to this usage of the term, subsidy: "A subsidy is an assistance paid to a business or economic sector." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy In this case, potential labor being potentially subsidized can be considered a sector of our economy. Potential labor could be subsidized in a manner analgous to agricultural subsidies in the US, that pay a producer to not provide some specific "produce" or product; in this case labor, and instead pursue some other opportunity cost. Simply solving for a poverty of money in money based markets also requires changes to the socioeconomic determinants, such that it may only require better money managements skills to rise above being poor, regardless of many other factors. In our US case, a simpler social safety net would draw persons from more expensive means tested welfare and result in a cost savings and improvement to our economy and its efficiency in the process. Are you claiming a shirker would rather have to lie to be hired than simply pursuing Happiness while increasing the circulation of money in money based markets, as an opportunity cost?
Meaningless! A labour subsidy is well understood, referring to a means to supplement wages (typically to increase employment rates such that human capital is protected) That isn't a subsidy. That's a social insurance used to ensure 'potential' labour is maintained. Meaningless! Meaningless! Again you haven't got an argument. You're merely cobbling together economic terms incoherently
From my understanding, human capital only needs more protection (from exploitation) whenever there is any official poverty, otherwise, labor would be busier attempting to command an efficiency wage in a more efficient market for labor. The point about paying people not to be exploited is that it could lower our tax burden by reducing the need for more regulations and litigiousness.
More nonsense! Labour doesn't pursue an efficiency wage. That is purely about the profit motive for the employer
In the US, unemployment compensation is mostly self-funding with the public sector making up for any shortfalls. I only quibble because some potential labor market participants may not have actually worked but still need unemployment compensation under this model.
Simply solving for a poverty of money in money based markets also requires changes to the socioeconomic determinants, such that it may only require better money managements skills to rise above being poor, regardless of many other factors. Are you claiming that someone who has enough money to no longer be considered in official poverty would have the same determinants to consider as someone who doesn't?
Copying and pasting stuff which has already been described as nonsense won't help you much! Again you don't make any sense
Nothing about my beliefs, its about understanding efficiency wages (which you clearly don't). As the 'external wage' (here unemployment benefit) increases, the perceived risk from being caught shirking and sacked falls.
Are you claiming determinants don't change according to wealth in any political economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?
I don't subscribe to your line of reasoning because simply improving our human capital infrastructure should engender an improvement to our "morals".
No it isn't. Here, its an automatic stabiliser that merely ensures workers are not forced out of the labour force
Are you claiming a person with a wealth of money in money based markets has the same determinants as someone who has a poverty of money in money based markets? If not, then my line of reasoning must be more consistent.
No I'm claiming that none of your comments make any sense. I'm guilty of only one thing: stating the obvious