Yes, just like non-purchase of any good or service from a would-be seller of that good or service punishes him. This is precisely what “market discipline” means… produce what buyers want at a price they are willing to pay or else no money for you!
But the cause of unemployment in Kalecki’s view is not merely people not doing something for the unemployed (a negative). It also entails the (positive) use of force. It seems natural to me that an unemployed person would start working unused resources to employ himself. But when this happens in capitalism, someone else almost invariably uses force to prevent him from working such idle resources. So people are literally forced to be unemployed. The reason this force is used, IMO, is not due to a merely abstract principle of property, but because if it were not, the whole capitalist system would collapse. It is a desire for profits, not a desire to abide by a principle. And this is the ultimate purpose of the state, I think, to maintain capitalism and to increase the profits of the capitalists.
So it should be employed regardless? A laborer’s wage is a function of his or her discounted marginal value product (DMVP), which in turn is a function of said loberer’s marginal productivity and the additional revenue gained by the firm from his or her employment (MPxMR) and the natural rate of interest. It is unprofitable to hire a worker when a laborer demands a wage rate higher than his or her DMVP or when his or her DMVP is below the market wage rate.
Why it is “punishing” workers to not hire them when they will be unproductive and waste scarce resources is totally beyond me.
There is no praxeological law which states that increased unemployment will or will not cause uncertainty. But we know from experience that during recessions bussinesses have continued to expand and labor has been employed.
Either you are misrepresenting Kalecki or Kalecki is a hack. A business does not “force” someone into unemployment when they choose not to continue to pay them. No property rights are being violated in this scenario.
Under corporatism or socialism perhaps, but under capitalism violating someone’s property rights to keep them unemployed (e.g. destroying factors of production) would be illegal.
Considering how well-defined property is by libertarians, to call it “abstract” is a laughable misuse of the term.
Every government across the globe pursues full employment as an ideal. Do you deny that this is the case?
This is just a platitude.
It’s good to know that the fallacious idea of a caste system in capitalism hasn’t died out yet. Centuries-old Marxist talking points are always amusing.
Either you are misrepresenting Kalecki or Kalecki is a hack. A business does not “force” someone into unemployment when they choose not to continue to pay them. No property rights are being violated in this scenario.
I didn’t say not paying them was a use of force, I said that keeping them from using the means of production constitutes a use of force. They’re preventing them from being self-employed. Imagine a “socialist” country where the government “owns” everything. If the government doesn’t give people jobs and won’t let them use any resources, would you not say that the government is forcing them to be unemployed?
under capitalism violating someone’s property rights to keep them unemployed (e.g. destroying factors of production) would be illegal.
Agreed.
Considering how well-defined property is by libertarians, to call it “abstract” is a laughable misuse of the term.
Perhaps I should’ve said that they aren’t following a deontological principle. They aren’t following categorical imperatives for the sake of following categorical imperatives. Rather their actions are determined based upon what consequences they wish to achieve in a given case.
Every government across the globe pursues full employment as an ideal. Do you deny that this is the case?
Yes. Most people here seem to believe that minimum wage laws cause unemployment. So it seems that you’re in a minority if you think all governments pursue full employment. Additionally, some governments have openly followed monetarist policies, which hypothesize a “natural” unemployment rate.
It’s good to know that the fallacious idea of a caste system in capitalism hasn’t died out yet. Centuries-old Marxist talking points are always amusing.
Unions now are what they always were: labour cartels. That never has and never will change. All professional vocational organizations are cartels. They go by an assortment of euphemisms, such as: association, society, union. Their first priority is to minimize the number of other people that can work in the same positions. Large employers want a big pool of workers. However, what unions do to cause unemployment restricts the utilization of that pool. Random Business does not benefit from a 100% unemployment pool caused by HR management costs.