You know, I think that this is the single most inhumane thing I’ve seen posted on this Board, unrelated to nuclear war, genocide, or child abuse.
I don’t think I wish to know you, Mr. BlackKnight. :mad:
Moral bankruptcy, & all that…
Wait a minute?! German unemployment benefits last OVER A YEAR?
In Ireland and the UK they can last in perpetuity. How’s the aneurism? 
Except, of course, in a non-welfare state that I assume you espouse (correct me if I’m wrong), the choice for the unemployed is still between total destitution and “any job at all”, which might indeed include the sex industry too.
I don’t see how governmental involvement contributes anything at all to this ethical dilemma - the situation would be exactly the same without the government’s “cookie cutter”.
After the most recent reforms the regular benefits last one year (by default 60% of your last net salary,) but there is a transition period where benefits for older people still last longer - up to 32 month for those over 57. After those benefits you get a minimum living wage for an indefinite time, plus possibly subsidized rent and benefits in kind.
Basically, yes. It used to be that such applicants told the employer “don’t bother with the interview, I’m just here because the employment office sent me”. After a number of employers reported this to the employment office this happens less often (but any applicant nominated by the employment office meets with prejudice because of this 
). Nowadays unemployment benefits recipients who are not hired for a long time (years) can get a temporary public-service job assigned (peeling potatoes in a school cafeteria, sorting archives, sweeping parks, this sort of thing). If they refuse this their benefits get cut to a minimum level.
The initial unemployment benefit (funded from unemployment insurance contributions; not means-tested) lasts one year (provided you have worked at least three years before that). After that a tax-funded, means-tested benefit cuts in which used to be indefinite but now is phased down to general welfare level over two years.
A lot of the unemployed are unemployed for a long time because German companies usually consider unemployed fiftysomethings unemployable (most companies don’t hire fortysomethings either, and generally being unemployed at the time when you apply for a job is considered a major black mark against you). More than 40 per cent of the unemployed have been unemployed for a year or longer.
So, if I point a gun at you and say “gimme all your money” no FORCE is going on at all, because you have options of:
- Saying no and let me shoot you
- Saying no and running away, or trying to
- Saying no and trying to wrestle the gun away from me
- Giving me your money
My feeling is, so long as the options are sufficiently dire, they have the effect of force, which sounds like might be the case in some instances.
Well, for libertarians and conservatives, any act of inhuman barbarity is A-OK if it’s done by a person or a corporation. It’s only when governments do it that it’s a problem.
It’s not really very different over here in the U.S. for older workers, just there’s no sense that it’s anything but the workers’ fault.
The gun adds the “force” element. No gun in our OP. And as our expert in Germany tschild pointed out, the circumstances are far from what alarmists have speculated.
So- if I find a pretty woman who needs to money, and offer her $100 for sex- i am now “forcing her” to go into prostitution? :dubious:
I still say sufficiently dire circumstances are equivalent to “force.” Let’s take your example:
No, you are not, but depending on the nature of her need for money, her circumstances might force her into prostitution. If she needs to money to pay for premium cable channels, I’d say it’s a free choice – her circumstances are not dire at all. If she needs money because she is going hungry or homeless, or her children are, and she can find no other alternative, then I would say her circumstances are forcing her into prostitution, although you are not personally culpable, as you are not the one who rendered her starving, and are in fact offering her an alternative. But still, the starvation/homelessness thing has the effect of force. I do not see how a reasonable person could argue otherwise.
They’re going to make the elderly work in the sex industry?
I don’t think your analogy is quite right.
Try this one: An employer forces a woman to have sex or she will get her pay cut in half.
In this case, the gov’t is the employer, since they are providing unemployment benefits.
Huh?
If many conservatives had their way, there would be no unemployment benefits at all. How is that not a cookie cutter solution made by people who are wholly disconnected and uncaring?
Let’s assume for the moment that the article is factual. This “liberal” solution means that most people get money. Some few don’t because they turn down jobs they find morally repugnant.
We compare that to the US market. Most people get money for a shorter time. Some few don’t because they turn down jobs or don’t find a new job fast enough.
Now we compare that to the libertarian ideal. Most people don’t get money. Perhaps all.
How can you argue that situation 1 is more “uncaring” than 2 or 3? How can you argue it is more “cookie cutter”?
Aha, but in the first analogy, the employee is doing the same amount of labour for less pay (unless she gives in) thus it is immoral, and unethical. )If she accepts the deal, that’s between her & her employer.)
But I don’t consider Unemployment to be a “right”.
Neither do I, but they do in Germany, so I think we have to look at it from that standpoint.
While I assumed the article was spiced up it you didn’t address the ability of companies to “go fishing” for labor through government databases. I would hope this is illegal. If the article is correct, a business could challenge anyone who doesn’t submit an application at their request.
And on a side note: I can’t imagine why a whorehouse would object to someone with alcohol on their breath. I would assume that was a requirement for the job.
Reading between the lines, what seems to happen is this; the employer registers his vacancy on the database, indicating (presumably in standardised “tick-the-box” form) the skills, characteristics, etc of the job specification. The agency then compares this with the skills, characteristics, etc of the candidates on it’s books and, where there is a match, notifies the candidates of the vacancy. The first the employer knows of an individual candidate is when the candidate contacts him to enquire about the job.
Even if the employer could identify a candidate who could have applied for the job but didn’t, why on earth would he wish to “challenge” the candidate? Nobody wants to force an uninterested candidate to work for him. The employers’ interest is to ensure that the agency circulates the vacancy to all the appropriate candidates who might be interested and, if the employer applies pressure anywhere, it will be there. Remember, as far as employers are concerned, this is a cheap way of advertising a job vacancy.
It’s thread like this that remind me why, despite our current Presidential administration, I’m still a Republican.
Here’s a fact that may have eluded those of you complaining about being “forced” to go work: unemployment benefits do not appear by magic. They are there because somebody else went to work and then gave some of their money to the government. So every person who argues they personally shouldn’t be forced to work is actually forcing other people to work.
So we’ve got two choices. We can set up a system where nobody pays taxes, nobody receives any government services, and nobody is forced to work. Of course while nobody is forced to work, those who don’t starve to death. Or we can set up a system where some people are working and some people are not and the working people help support the non-working people. But the non-working people shouldn’t be surprised when the working people give them a nudge once in a while.
Except in this case, instead of having a gun pointed at you and being threatened to be shot, the consequence is that nothing will happen to you and you’ll be completely ignored. You’d have to define “force” pretty loosely to call that a threat.
Well, I’m glad you didn’t see my post about abusing radioactive child survivors of genocide!
Is there a particular reason you singled out my post for this attack?
Is not wanting tax-payer money to continually support someone who can work but won’t work such a horrible position?