Hacker News Reader

> Also the far-left shared some fake stories (but not totally implausible scenario) under which legalization of prostitution could mean that unemployed women could be forced by unemployment office to accept prostitution jobs or lose their unemployment benefits. They used the outcry to justify that prostitution is not a job like every other one.

It would be just as outrageous if an unemployed actress had to chose between shooting a pornographic movie or lose her unemployment benefits. I don't see anyone using that argument to outlaw pornography.

I'm sure some anti-pornographers would actually use that if they heard if from you...

But I totally agree that there is no need to go so far. I think it is generally accepted that not everyone is expected to accept every job:

- A muslim or jew and a job handling non-halal/non-kosher meat

- A "pro-lifer" in an abortion clinic

- A teetotaler at a liquor store

- An ideologue vegetarian or vegan handling meat, leather, etc.

- Washing/preparing bodies in a funeral home / crematorium

- A butchering job involving killing animals

Lists as such are, in fact, implemented in every "you have to accept job offers" situation, usually officially and with a procedure you can apply for to add a new one to the list or at least get a special exemption. Almost always, "personal service" jobs are exempt.

I'm sure no one would object if no job that required "no clothing", "skin on skin contact" or "insertion of anything into a body cavity" are exempt. I mean, one should never be forced to be a food taster either.

I am pretty sure that the French unemployment office is strictly forbidden to ask their religions to practitioners. And French law does not recognize any religion, so it would actually be a breach of our very strict secularity laws to give rights (to refuse a given job and keep benefits) to a believer of one religion compared to another.

Actually this office is widely criticized to propose absurd job offers to candidates as they are pressured to remove candidates from benefits lists, either by finding them a job (rare) or by having them refuse two jobs in a row (more common).

Their scenario was really not that implausible.

The French have been proud of having technical separate religion and state since 1905. But I question this - it was only 1993 when babies quit being required (by law) to be named after Catholic saints. Religion inserts its power in many ways.

Well, knowing first hand that some French-born nationals that were not names after saints I knew this was not true but you made me google it to see where this specific date comes from. So here is the whole thing.

The law (from the early 19th century) said that names for newborns should either be chosen in the calendars (plural, no religion mentioned) or from known people in history. So from the beginning, Mohammed was an acceptable name for instance.

A law from 1966 recognized that this was vague and not really applied, as usage varied (basically it was just used to deny too harmful names to kids) and decided to give a broader definition, allowing explicitly names from mythology, regional names, composed names, variation and abbreviated versions.

In 1981 the sole interdiction was to choose a name that "would not be judged ridiculous".

The 1993 version changes even that and says (more appropriately IMO) that the officer registering the names can delay the thing, if he judges that the choice of name is contrary to "the interest of the child". A judge then has to decide or deny. I remember a case involving a «Pikachu», a «Satan» and, I think, a «Jihad».

Names like Anakin or Gandalf were likely acceptable even under the 1966 law.

For more on how legibility (through naming, street grids, single-crop farms etc) acts a prerequisite for manipulation, check out Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/d...

An excellent recommendation which I unreservedly second.

Thanks! I too researched it, but did not find your sources. I appreciate the effort!

> Also the far-left shared some fake stories (but not totally implausible scenario) under which legalization of prostitution could mean that unemployed women could be forced by unemployment office to accept prostitution jobs or lose their unemployment benefits.

Is this how the system really works in France? If a programmer is unemployed and some manager at McDonald's offers them a job flipping burgers, they have to either take the McDonald's job or they lose their benefits? Do the unemployed really have to accept the first job offer anyone gives them, no matter what?

You will be proposed job offers from «Pôle Emploi», the unemployment office. The job will be "within your abilities" and in a certain distance from your residence but in practice, Pôle Emploi is known to send pretty much random job offers to people. They have something like 50 categories for job seekers and job offers and make matches automatically.

After two refused job offers, your unemployment benefits will be discontinued.

Programmer and cook are probably in different categories, but there is no way for someone to say "I don't want to work with meat" like the comment I answered to suggested. As a programmer doing robotics, I made the choice to refuse military jobs but I know that in France that's more than 50% of the jobs in the field.

I would not be 100% sure that sex workers would be put in a different categories than "entertainers" making it plausible that an actress would be proposed a job in a porn studio.

Thing is, a member of a porn studio reacted to this scenario: he basically said "we know Pole Emploi does not filter offers at all. Porn acting is very specific, the last thing we want is to force people into it. It would be contrary to our work ethic and probably to the law."

They know they would be blamed for it, so the unlikely part is that they would post such an offer. If they did, however, it is likely that it would be send inappropriately.

Extrapolating from the Netherlands, it isn't an 'accept the job or go to jail'. Instead its an 'accept the job or lose your "unemployment benefit". Here "unempolyment benefit" is a lacking translation. This is basically the last safety net. As there is a freeloader stigma for people receiving these benefits, these requirements are a condition for receiving the benefits.

Doesn't that encourage coercive behavior from employers? It seems like they could lowball an unemployed individual because they know they'll be strongly penalized for not accepting even a bad job offer. The earlier comment also makes it sound like even if you don't apply for a job, someone could offer you a bad one and you'd be forced to either accept it or lose your benefits (which sounds ripe for abuse).

In the US there is a comparable work component. You are allowed to refuse any offer that isn't reasonable or comparable work. Sometimes you have to convince a judge, but there is an appeals process and so it isn't hard to argue that a bad job is beneath you.

Note that the above is about accepting a job. At times you may be required to fill out so many job applications (per week) and you are not allowed to refuse any interview offered. The result is people do apply for bad jobs and get an offer in the interview they have no intention of accepting.

Of course after a few months your benefits run out and then the low ball offer is more appealing as at least it gets you something. However even then a low ball offer isn't as common as you might think. Someone with no place to go will take it, but you cannot stop them from finding a new job next week. Offer someone too low and your risk they collect your money just long enough to become useful and then find a new job. You are paid for your first week of work even though you spend most of it learning and so you cost the company money in training, thus once a company hires you they need to keep you long enough for you to pay off that first week training time.

Note that in the US each state does things differently. The above is a generalization based on what I've seen in different states. The details are different and change.

> At times you may be required to fill out so many job applications (per week)

> and you are not allowed to refuse any interview offered.

>

We have this in Norway. If one has been unemployed for a while the state run employment agency will often force you to "voluntarily" agree to send 10 employment applications per week and you have to go to any offered interview.

Thus applicants are feared by everyone doing recruiting because no one wants to hire anyone that does not want to be hired. If you do the candidate may be totally unmotivated and even hostile to his new employer. This would be a very bad start for everyone.

In my experience candidates like this will often not show up for a scheduled interview, and if they do they will clearly state that they are there just to satisfy the state employment agency.

Well I imagine it's accept it, or loose your unemployment benefits.

No one should be forced to take any job they don't want. The premise that it's ok to force anyone to take any job or lose their unemployment benefit is incredibly damaging to society. The whole system is a shambles. I would consider myself quite left oriented and I feel Europe has it all wrong. We really love to take the nanny state route rather than empowering people through education, opportunity and self-actualisation. Unfortunately this point of view seems to fall completely outside of the Overton window at the moment.

I think the premise is that you are not entitled to unemployment benefits in the first place. The government provides some aid but you have to be trying to help yourself first. It sounds fair to me that if you are offered a job and you refuse then you have breached that contract. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.

Having seen the real world consequence of this I disagree. I have some friends who were the typical starving artists. They had this ignominy of shitty job centre jobs forced upon them and suffered greatly. They opted to go the hard route and reject the job and lose their unemployment benefit. Now they have well enough paying careers in their area, are tax payers etc, as they dedicated their time to their craft rather than washing dishes or some such other pointless work. This brain dead approach of any job that pays is more valuable than one that doesn't sucks the life out of society and reduces innovation, artistic endeavour and creativity across the board. It's 2017, we have the world's library in our pockets, we can talk to friends on the other side of the globe instantaneously yet somehow we're stuck in the 1700's when it comes to jobs. We have so much over-productivity that we have to create fake jobs to keep people occupied [1] yet somehow we can't afford to allow poor people the option to follow the endeavour of their choice, invest in, and figure shit out for, themselves.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-compani...

Are you going to fund my passion for building model tractors? I would much rather build model tractors all day and support myself by charging admission to my museum. The above business is just as valid as your "starving artists" who made it after hard work. My family cannot afford to let me follow my dreams though so I work a standard job.

Sure. As another proponent of a guaranteed minimum income, I would be delighted if you could build model tractors all day, and even start a museum dedicated to them.

Would I pay for that through taxes? You bet.

(I'm a proponent of guaranteed minimum income even for people who want to drink beer and watch tv all day. I really don't care what people do with their money.)

A guaranteed minimum income is only solution to this problem I've ever heard of that doesn't have many large flaws. I'm not entirely convinced minimum income is something I agree with (there are always hidden downsides - thus I'm reserving my judgement until after we know what they are)

However the topic is unemployment, which is designed for those are choose to make more than the minimum income to keep a good income (not as good as before, but perhaps better than minimum). This is a different discussion with different pros and cons.

> However the topic is unemployment, which is designed for those are choose to make more than the minimum income to keep a good income (not as good as before, but perhaps better than minimum).

In EU countries, unemployment is not necessarily linked to the size of the salary you were making before. And actually, unemployment can be very limiting in many countries and a basic income would be preferable. The reason for that is that with unemployment, you immediately lose your benefits if you pick up any work, even if the work is low-paying or it’s not certain you’ll be able to stay with it long. UBI, on the other hand, is intended to be something you always keep regardless of what else you try to do to make some money. When the UBI trial was launched in Finland, several of the people involved (longtime unemployment recipients) said they were keen to start their own business or take on unusual forms of employment because there was no longer a risk in doing so.

So...you're agreeing with the point you replied to? They went the hard route and became successful, that's great for them! Do you think it would be the case if they stayed on benefits that they would be where they are today?

It's hard to go back in time and do that experiment, but I'd say with certainty that some stress and pressure leads to a net gain in the long run. Clearly in the short run that's not the case.

They would have gotten there quicker... like my richer friends who where bank rolled by mum and dad.

From what I understand the real reason they're trying to get rid of the brothels is they bring in considerably less tax money than high-end retail.

One of my big disappointments in visiting Europe the last time is how the major cities are all starting to look the same, with big shopping districts devoted to the same high end brands. It sounds like Amsterdam is heading in that direction as well.

Good point, seems a pretty straightforward observation, that a shady business will attract shady people. And that shady people would already be in that business and roll over into any new legal allowances. I remember a friend in the San Francisco area telling me about these Asian communities somewhere in Daly City or maybe SF itself who clamored to prevent Marijuana shops opening up in their area because it would attract shady characters and what not. Seems be an interesting division in California regarding legalization, some cities (the nicer ones from what I can tell) ban the dispensaries while the poorer ones wind up setting up multiple shops.