I was reading a liberal forum, and one poster claimed that the "free market''-private employers were largely to blame for crime, that is, employers who are unwilling to hire ex-cons so therefore the ex-cons go unemployed and back into a cycle of crime. supposedly this was supported with data stats yada yada yada. no kidding.
imo, an objection. Lets just say their argument is that criminality is a function of whether or not someone is employed. Assume that the convict was unemployed when he broke the law and went to jail, then he leaves jail- remains unemployed, then commits a crime again. This seems like more of an indigtment against the socialist criminal justice system, since he spends 10 years in jail and the experience didn't change his assumed criminal mentality. Assume the convict was employed when he went to jail, oops then maybe employment isn't really a variable to predict criminal behavior
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Even if this were true, well, who the hell made them convicts? Setting asise actual crimes such as murder, theft, battery, and the like, it is the government that has made millions of people criminals by making drugs illegal and by making other actions that do not violate the rights other illegal. As for the murderers, theives, and batterers, that is criminal's fault.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Also, were firms allowed to pay rock-bottom prices until the ex-cons had proved themselves, then the ex-cons would be employed - there is no involuntary employment in the free market. When the ex-cons had built up trust with the employer, they would be paid higher wages, and would have better employment prospects, but as someone once said on these forums, "reputation is everything in the free market". Notwithstanding the appalling socialist justice system, employers are rightly wary of those who have been convicted of committing (possibly multiple) crimes. However, this does not mean they ignore their productive potential. In a free market, ex-cons will find jobs, and if they do well, be re-integrated into society.
Bear in mind that in a free society, if the criminal was, let's say, a multiple rapist and serial killer, and he refused to accept the court's judgement, he would probably be shunned for the rest of his life, and were a firm to employ him, I can see it being likely for people to boycott this firm's products.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Here are a few points:-In a higher time preference society, as we have today thanks to coercive monopolies on justice, defense, currency etc, crime is naturally much higher.-Very many crimes are simply 'paper' crimes - that is to say those which do not violate life, liberty or property and hence shouldn't be punished. For example, prostitution, drug dealing/taking, speeding, posession of 'thoughtcrime' images.-Minimum wage laws put a price floor on labour, preventing reformed ex-cons from entering the job market (who might wish to accept a lower salary initially in order to get a foot in the door and prove themselves)
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
FreedomIsYellow:-Minimum wage laws put a price floor on labour, preventing reformed ex-cons from entering the job market (who might wish to accept a lower salary initially in order to get a foot in the door and prove themselves)
This is right exactly.
Competition in a free market without a price floor on wages should allow an ex-con to eliminate any prejudice against him or her in the market.
You have all heard the argument before in regards to employer discrimination, the market would begin to equalize wages between ex-cons and regular workers assuming they have the same productivity. Obviously an ex cons wages would start lower due to the added risk the employer is taking by hiring them, however after time if they have proved themselves as reliable, stable and productive workers and still receiving wages lower then their non-ex-con colleagues then another employer would bid a higher wage for them. Competition in a free market should allow an ex-con to eliminate any prejudice against him or her in the market. Unfortunately price floor
Being a criminal, even if the crime is invented by the state, carries a severe social stigma. Few employers can afford this. The solution is for criminals to be self-employed, but in a state-corporate economy that is not a viable option.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger:Few employers can afford this.
If there wasn't a minimum wage, and the productivity of the ex-con was the same as another worker.... Why couldn't the employer afford this? The risk of the ex-con committing and additional crime should reduce their wage and therefor give this employer a competitive advantage of cheaper labor (assuming the ex-con just doesnt come to work to kill everyone right off the bat).
Solarist:If there wasn't a minimum wage, and the productivity of the ex-con was the same as another worker.... Why couldn't the employer afford this? The risk of the ex-con committing and additional crime should reduce their wage and therefor give this employer a competitive advantage of cheaper labor (assuming the ex-con just doesnt come to work to kill everyone right off the bat).
The productivity of an ex-con, by the fact that he is an ex-con, is negative. He drives away other employees and customers.
1) Many of these crimes would not have been crimes had the government not had insane laws (drug laws, tax evasion, etc)
2) If the criminal behavior is due to a habit of violence or even a habit of drugs, I would imagine that person would have a hard time finding/keeping a job regardless, as they have undesirable traits.
3) Many ex cons can indeed find jobs, I have hired many and seen many employeed elsewhere. That being said, it would be a lot easier to hire and fire people when I don't have employment restrictions and regulations. If I can not fire some one at will, the felony charge can indeed become a red flag and prevent hire; this is probably a reason I noticed many clean ex cons working under the table. Usually it is the really bad people who will forever be really bad. Not much can be done about that.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Stranger:The productivity of an ex-con, by the fact that he is an ex-con, is negative. He drives away other employees and customers.
Maybe this would be the case if business required him to be face to face with customers. But if you knew a large manufacturing type company hired ex-cons would that drive you away from purchasing their products, even if that meant those products were cheaper then the competitions because of the reduced labor costs associated with hiring ex-cons?
The driving away other employees is a sort of grey area, I don't think you can make that assumption and then deem a ex cons productivity to be negative. Also, what if there were no regulations and you were able to hire all ex cons? I understand that an ex-con isn't going to be the host at your restaurant... but there is plenty other places he could work.
Solarist: Stranger:The productivity of an ex-con, by the fact that he is an ex-con, is negative. He drives away other employees and customers. Maybe this would be the case if business required him to be face to face with customers. But if you knew a large manufacturing type company hired ex-cons would that drive you away from purchasing their products, even if that meant those products were cheaper then the competitions because of the reduced labor costs associated with hiring ex-cons?
Just as a data point, most of my customers are quite aware of the fact that I'm an ex-con, as is most of my large social circle. I have seen myself judged negatively because of my ex-con status exactly once in over 15 years, and the person who did so was immediately shunned by our shared social circle.
I suspect that 'ex-con' can be generalized about just as validly as 'entrepreneur' can, or 'economist'. All 3 labels cover a wide variety of individuals.
Danno, wondering when he lost the "ex-con" tattoo on his forehead....
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Stranger:Being a criminal, even if the crime is invented by the state, carries a severe social stigma. Few employers can afford this.
The consequences with finding insurance and premium rates are probably another factor for prospective employers to consider as well.
In Canada, most of the businesses that have employees in your house (renovation, cleaning services etc) expect their employees to be bondable, that is to pass a police check. I presume they would have a difficult time getting indemnity otherwise. And of course, the reputation factor you mentioned.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap