In our world, we all seem to suffer. If you are in group A or B you need to pay taxes and premiums to unemployed people who do nothing in return. If you are in B, you are even worse off, because you would like to be such an unemployed person, but you are not allowed to (unless you have the luck to be fired). If you are in C, you are not given the opportunity to work, and so do something in exchange for your income, and you do not like that. If you are in D, you cannot even say so openly, because you are likely thereby to violate the conditions under which you receive your unemployent benefit.

What preference should we have, if we listen to what people tell us? We tend to consider "full employment", a job for each and every able-bodied adult citizen, as the ideal situation, though most of us realize this cannot be done. It is clear that nobody needs to be ashamed to be in A (voluntary employed). How about B? Apart from morals, it seem a little embarrassing to be continuously in a situation you do not prefer, and to do nothing about it. But in the case of involuntary employment, there is a big consolation: you do your Duty. The origins of this moral gratification are deep and old. These very ideas frame our directionist quasi-communist regulation of the labour market: labour is Sacrifice, income is Mercy. (Let us face it: also socialists and liberals usually have a labour ethics that is essentially christian.) If you acquire an income without labour, your are utilistically better off, but this type of being better off is the type shared by thiefs, burglars and other parasites who escape from their duties. The satisfaction, if you are in B, is moral. Eunians would not understand this, and would immediately sell their Labour Rights. Members of B who feel like such Eunians, that is, people whose labour preference is so low as to offset even this moral compensation, need to take immoral actions: they negotiate an involuntary dismissal with their employer, go to the social security authorities, declare solemnly they will swiftly apply for vacant jobs and enter one as soon as possible, but don't mean a word of it. In our culture, it may not be forbidden to have such preferences (how, after all, can you forbid preferences?), but you are supposed not to translate your preference into actions. A morally sound able-bodied adult citizen who does not like to work, is supposed to stay in B and be happy about this, proud to do something for his income. Nonetheless, we all believe there are some people in D. Your estimation of their number depends on your political preferences. But most of us judge them uniformly and negatively.

Who is Good? Our rules are such that the unemployed are forced to be willing to enter a job, and, though nobody asks for preferences, it is clear that, as an unemployed person, you make a decent impression if you assume a C-profile. We generally consider membership of B to be preferable to membership of C: involuntary employed do their duty, and this unfortunately cannot be said of those in C (and D). With a C-profile, you can claim pity, and solidarity. Not so with a D-profile! This explains that the four groups have a decreasing order in social "visibility" A � B � C � D. This order also gives our moral ranking, though there may be some discussion in comparing the praiseworthiness of A and B. Both groups do their duty, but with an A-profile, you claim this is no sacrifice to you. With a B-profile, you do your duty though you would prefer to be in D. Now, some of us have moral convictions that rank a Service that is felt as a sacrifice higher that a service that isn't.

Notice that A and C-members have been disqualified as objects of economic inquiry by distinguished professors: "... 'Political Economy' .. makes entire abstraction of every other human passing or motive: except those which may be regarded as perpetually antagonizing principles to the desire of wealth, namely aversion to labour, and desire of the present enjoyment of costly indulgences."

In our worlds, it is relatively easy to know whether someone is employed (A, B) or unemployed (C, D). But it is much harder to distinguish A-members from B-members, and, similarly, C-members from D-members. Even for yourself, if you work, it is difficult to know whether you are an A or a B-member. When you negotiate your wage with your employer, you certainly assume a B-profile. You want a good compensation for your labour. But in you leisure time you may score better with an A-profile: you love your work, you couldn't do without it. We have no point at which the personal, internal choice of an A or a B-profile has market consequences for ourselves. The structure of the world we live in thereby creates loss of self-confidence. It is this kind of self-confidence that Eunians are trained to have.

Unemployed persons have, in our world, the same problem of really knowing about themselves whether they are in C or D. In their contacts with social security authorities, they will certainly assume a C-profile. But somewhere else you may hear them deriving esteem from claiming that unemployment is no problem to them, and is even preferred to a working life. Who is serious about that, who isn't? This is hard to know, even for yourself, because you have no choice to make, as the Eunians have. For us, it is made hard to acquire the relevant self-knowledge.

This is caused by the prevailing ideology of labour. It supplies the ideal of a world without and C or D-members: no unemployment. Eunians have another ideal: a world without involuntariness. And they have realized it: at the moment Labour Rights were first issued, B-members exchanged with C-members. The former C-member thus went to A: the involuntarily unemployed became voluntarily employed. We tend to like that. But, in our world, this is impossible because these jobs are occupied by B-members, whom we do not want to deprive of the opportunity to do their duty, for moral reasons. In Eu, this obligation is cancelled, so jobs of B-members are left open, and B-members become D-members.

In Eu, B and C are empty. Cancelling the moral obligation to work did not lead to any vacancies: as long as there are vacancies, less than 4 million able-bodied adult citizens prefer work. So some are still trying to sell Labour Rights, at that moment receiving neither a wage, nor a yield from selling Labour Rights. The Labour Right-price will go down, the wage/unemployment benefit-ratio goes up until exactly 4 million prefer to enter a job, and prefer working to enjoying a yield from selling Labour Rights with no job. Thus it is guaranteed that, in Eu, Group A contains 4 million and D contains 1 million able-bodied adult citizens. B and C being empty, nobody suffers.

If unemployment in Eu rises to 40%, all able-bodied adult citizens get 3 Labour Rights and will be told that they need 5 to enter a job. This reduces A to 3 million able-bodied adult citizens, and increases D to 2 million, while B and C remain empty!

If, later on, unemployment in Eu goes down to 4%, all able-bodied adult citizens get 24 Labour Rights and will need 25 to enter a job. Maybe some Eunians feel sorry for such a development, because average labour preference might have gone down in the period of high unemployment. Maybe, on the contrary, they thank their Gods (certainly different form ours) for this rise of employment. Anyhow, exactly 4.800.000 will immediately opt for working, and the remaining 200.000 will immediately opt for being unemployed.

PHiLES 0.1: Top of Page Menu; Next Section; Previous Section