tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post7303829052981011510..comments2024-03-17T09:15:54.642+00:00Comments on Sinclair's Musings: An employment Huqabust?Matthew Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05948452770723874618noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-40731974912082248162008-01-25T09:48:00.000+00:002008-01-25T09:48:00.000+00:00Absolutely. But they need to be significant chang...Absolutely. But they need to be significant changes. A good comparison would be the proposal to make the unemployed clean up parks. It makes unemployment less attractive as there isn't time to watch Ms. Huq or do whatever else.<BR/><BR/>My point is that your mechanism for changing the incentives was what was absurd, not the idea of changing incentives in general. Which is quite plausible and, indeed, the rationale behind the citizen's basic income.Matthew Sinclairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948452770723874618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21959228.post-24559214020303198412008-01-25T09:38:00.000+00:002008-01-25T09:38:00.000+00:00Konnie doesn't have to have made a big difference ...Konnie doesn't have to have made a big difference to the utility of being unemployed. She only has to make a very marginal one, the one that tips the balance between work and not. <BR/>It's true that images of beautiful women are easy to come by. But it's much easier to do so at home than at work. <BR/>Which is the point. If you believe a cut in unemployment benefit would get people back to work, why shouldn't cuts in other forms of out-of-work utility - be it daytime TV, internet porn or whatever - do so?chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09279640048551726176noreply@blogger.com