Get to work, Fraulein

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the IS the argument in a nutshell. There's some truth to it, although I don't know if I believe that a full-on laissez faire health insurance market would cover everyone.

Although laissez faire couldn't be much worse than the current state which includes a remarkable about of regulation and oversight by govt.

The libertarian answer, the part I agree with 100%, is that the answer is not MORE govt. Some lesser amoutn of govt, done differently, is probably the right answer.

natedogg

[Kaz The Original]

In Canada atleast, unemployment insurance is paid for by workers. The government puts nothing in to it.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
In Canada atleast, unemployment insurance is paid for by workers. The government puts nothing in to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

More half-truths:

The Dominion Government contributes to the unemployment fund one-fifth of the aggregate deposits of employers and employees and also bears the cost of administering the system and of maintaining the public employment offices. Exclusive of administrative expenses, the costs of the system are borne in the following proportions: Employer, five-twelfths; employee, five-twelfths; Government, two-twelfths,

The employer pays the total of his own and his employees' contributions. The portion due from the employee may be recovered by the employer by wage deduction.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS OF THE CANADIAN EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE ACT

See Paragraph IV. Contributions

[Hasso]

ve heve vays of making you pork

[nicky g]

As this thread has been revived (and no, it was not me under an alias that made the terrible joke), I should point out that a couple of weeks ago there was an article in the UK's Private Eye, a satirical/investigative journalism magazine, indicating that the story is untrue. Private Eye isn't online and I threw out my copy of the relevant edition so I can't give you the full details; there is a letter her ethat makes some similar points though: A Telegraphical error

[The once and future king]

I think unemployment benefits are a economic necesity of any indusrialised state.

Market economies will inevitably have periods of boom and bust, and there will allways be a finite and fluctuating amount of jobs at any one time making it impossible for evryone to have a job as the majority of the time labour supply>labour demand.

During recession the labour force must be preserved for time of boom. This is the purpose of unemployment benefits. This is also made more pertinent now that economic migration is becoming more easy.

The state in my view makes for the most effective administration of this benefit as private citizens cannot be trusted unfortuantely to make provisions for times of bust.

Their micro choices about this provison could have a massive negative effect on the Macro economy slowing any return from stagnation to growth if the labour force has not mainted itself adequately as is not able to return to work.
That is why such things must be organised collectively.

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why is unemployment insurance not something that private industry offers to workers? If I'm concerned about weathering a job loss, I buy insurance. If I'm not, I don't. Seems pretty simple. Why all this mess created by government?

Am I missing something? Seems like yet another paternalistic coercion into participating in something for our own good with no choice in the matter."

There is a good discussion in John Kay's "The Truth About Markets" (may have a different title in the US) about why private insurers do not offer unemployment insurance. It says the consensus is that whether or not government provides unemployment benefits, private insurers won't for a variety of reasons (the main one being something along the lines that unlike health which can be mesured reasonably accurately, the perosn seeking insurance will always have a much better idea of his employment prospects than the insurer) - that it's an area where markets fail. Has there ever been an example of widely available private unemployment insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Health insurance is something the indviduals wants/needs for protection against a small more or less random risk but with very large negative impact in many cases. I would also guess that in terms of "lifetime EV" this is also relativly close to zero for most people.

With unemployment insurance I don't think this generally is the case. Usually a small part of the work force (perhaps 10% or so) will in the lifetime perspective recive most of the unemplyment payments. In this regard unemplyment benefits is much more about redistribution between "strong" and "weak" individuals than actual insurance.

Most people probably wouldn't even need unemplyment insurance or it would (if fairly priced) be very cheap, while for those who needed it the most it would be prohibtly expensive.

In fact I think calling the system for unemployment payment system we have in sweden or the similiar systems of most european countries "unemployment insurance" is a missuse of the word insurance.

/Bjorn

[lastchance]

In high injury positions, this would be a godsend. In many cases, your viewpoint could be correct, but there are a lot of situations where this is huge +EV.