Unemployment exacts a high cost to its victims, not only in lost income, but also in terms of quality of life (insecurity, depression, abandoned families, divorce, suicide, poorer health). It also exacts a high cost to society in terms of lost output, foregone tax revenue, depreciating human capital, and increased costs of welfare, crime, and health care. Yet modern wealthy societies have, principally for the sake of price stability and to avoid the budget costs of a full remedy, chosen to tolerate a substantial level of permanent unemployment. This article explores the moral conditions of this social choice and its rationality in terms of social welfare. It makes and develops support for two claims: society’s tolerance of involuntary unemployment is morally wrong, and it is socially and economically irrational. It concludes that government should guarantee employment by serving as employer of last resort and where appropriate provide for retraining

Jon D. Wisman ()

No 2008-20, Working Papers from American University, Department of Economics

Keywords: unemployment; employer of last resort; social morality; social rationality; happiness (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008-10
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://w.american.edu/cas/economics/repec/amu/workingpapers/2008-20.pdf First version, 2008 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:amu:wpaper:2008

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from American University, Department of Economics
Series data maintained by Thomas Meal ().