This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Muthafukajones · 46-50, M
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Muthafukajones
Hmmmmmmmm .... most jurisdictions have licensing or other legitimizing requirements for people engaged in occupations where there is a risk of spreading diseases or harm to customers. Like food service workers in some jurisdictions must have certifications. Also, hairdressers, barbers, massage therapist, health care providers, day care workers, and such, in many jurisdictions, require certification or licenses. A license is needed even to sell or dispense alcoholic beverages to the public.
A problem with decriminalizing but not legalizing is that it would open a door to health and other risks. Legalizing isn't the same as sanctioning.
Hmmmmmmmm .... most jurisdictions have licensing or other legitimizing requirements for people engaged in occupations where there is a risk of spreading diseases or harm to customers. Like food service workers in some jurisdictions must have certifications. Also, hairdressers, barbers, massage therapist, health care providers, day care workers, and such, in many jurisdictions, require certification or licenses. A license is needed even to sell or dispense alcoholic beverages to the public.
A problem with decriminalizing but not legalizing is that it would open a door to health and other risks. Legalizing isn't the same as sanctioning.
Muthafukajones · 46-50, M
Actually legalizing prostitution is akin to permitting slavery.
In many western countries people pay deductions on their checks to have unemployment insurance. This is not welfare. These benefits are paid when someone loses a job due to no fault of their own such a illness or layoff. If prostitution were a legitimate legal alternative then people would be required to apply for work in brothels or seek customers as a condition of receiving unemployment insurance benefits. @Heartlander
In many western countries people pay deductions on their checks to have unemployment insurance. This is not welfare. These benefits are paid when someone loses a job due to no fault of their own such a illness or layoff. If prostitution were a legitimate legal alternative then people would be required to apply for work in brothels or seek customers as a condition of receiving unemployment insurance benefits. @Heartlander
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Muthafukajones
In most states in the US, unemployment taxes are paid by the employers to both the state (SUTA) and the federal government (FUTA) and the payment process is basically invisible to employees. The taxes paid are accrued in account for each employer. Then, when there's a claim by a former employee, the money comes from that individual's employers accounts. The tax rates for individual employers are variable based on historical experience and adjusted up and down based on the how much is drawn from their account. It's a little more complicated, but essentially the $$ to pay unemployment benefits comes from the unemployed worker's previous employers.
In the states I'm aware of, only legal "employees" are entitled to receive unemployment benefits. That means that independent contractors, self employed, business owners who aren't also employees don't qualify. If a prostitute working in a brothel is working as an "employee", the responsibility to fund her/his unemployment benefits would come from the business that serves as employer. If she/he works as an independent contractor, there would be no unemployment benefit entitlement. The logic being that independent contractors work for themselves, they are their own employer, so the shortcut process is for independent contractors to fend for themselves.
When people do become unemployed, while they have some requirement to seek employment, they are given the latitude to seek employment within their line of work or profession, and wouldn't be required to take any job that's within their line of skills, professions, experience, etc. An unemployed cook wouldn't be required to take a job as an insurance salesperson, or a prostitute.
In most states in the US, unemployment taxes are paid by the employers to both the state (SUTA) and the federal government (FUTA) and the payment process is basically invisible to employees. The taxes paid are accrued in account for each employer. Then, when there's a claim by a former employee, the money comes from that individual's employers accounts. The tax rates for individual employers are variable based on historical experience and adjusted up and down based on the how much is drawn from their account. It's a little more complicated, but essentially the $$ to pay unemployment benefits comes from the unemployed worker's previous employers.
In the states I'm aware of, only legal "employees" are entitled to receive unemployment benefits. That means that independent contractors, self employed, business owners who aren't also employees don't qualify. If a prostitute working in a brothel is working as an "employee", the responsibility to fund her/his unemployment benefits would come from the business that serves as employer. If she/he works as an independent contractor, there would be no unemployment benefit entitlement. The logic being that independent contractors work for themselves, they are their own employer, so the shortcut process is for independent contractors to fend for themselves.
When people do become unemployed, while they have some requirement to seek employment, they are given the latitude to seek employment within their line of work or profession, and wouldn't be required to take any job that's within their line of skills, professions, experience, etc. An unemployed cook wouldn't be required to take a job as an insurance salesperson, or a prostitute.
Muthafukajones · 46-50, M
Your examples are highly specific to the United States. The requirement to seek work to receive employment insurance benefits is that the person be able to perform the work not that it be work that is related to their skills. Since able bodied people can have sex, people would be required to seek work in brothels in many western countries in many jurisdictions if prostitution were to be legalized. The Health argument doesn’t work either. Presumably most adults monitor their health. Making it mandatory is not going to ensure health or safety any more than it already has..@Heartlander
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@Muthafukajones So in some countries, if a Muslim becomes unemployed, he/she would be required to take a job cleaning a christian church? If not they would lose their unemployment compensation? Would the christian church also be required to hire the unemployed muslim worker?
I think I like the US system better :)
With sex workers, I believe most would prefer to work as independent contractors, even in a brothel. That would give them the flexibility to screen customers based on their judgment, not be subject to direct supervision and all the other things that legally define an employee.
I think I like the US system better :)
With sex workers, I believe most would prefer to work as independent contractors, even in a brothel. That would give them the flexibility to screen customers based on their judgment, not be subject to direct supervision and all the other things that legally define an employee.