Much of #economicpolicy aims to 'fight' #unemployment. This is entirely unnecessary, because there is no such thing as lasting involuntary unemployment. This is unfortunately little understood today, but it is nevertheless a created problem. And since it is created, the solution
should be to remove the cause--not add countermeasures. That it is a created problem becomes obvious if we look at the basic market mechanisms. Labor is a means: it is effort, time, and expertise applied toward creating something that increases our wellbeing. Its value to us is
derived from the wellbeing it creates. If we are living like Robinson Crusoe on a deserted island, we might invest our labor to gather food and branches for a fire. Without this labor, we'd have neither. But it is not the labor itself that is wellbeing, because if Crusoe would
instead draw images in the sand the food and fire would not be produced. We thus economize, and invest our labor to the best possible expected outcomes. In a market, we can sell our labor to others and get something in return. This means we can use our labor where it makes most
difference in people's wellbeing, which also then means we get the highest possible payment in return. To say there is involuntary unemployment means labor is left on the wayside and cannot be used to improve anyone's wellbeing. This situation is inconceivable--there are always
things we can do to improve our own or another's wellbeing. Even we could imagine such a situation, we are nowhere near it. Is there nothing at all that you lack? Is there nothing at all that anyone lacks? Of course there is. And to the degree it can be provided through exerting
labor, that labor has value. If labor has value, it can earn a wage. In other words, unemployment is the choice not to exert labor for some valuable return, either as one's own wellbeing or wage for contributing to someone else's. This is why Mises noted that "Unemployment in the
unhampered market is always voluntary" (Human Action, p. 596). If anyone who has the option to produce value chooses not to, it is not involuntary unemployment: it is a choice to forego the value possible. But this seems outlandish considering our present economy: many people are
unemployed not because they turn down a bunch of low-paying jobs, but because there are no jobs to be found. Does this not show that the theory is flawed? Let's see. First, let's look at the theory's assumptions. We are not in the proverbial Garden of Eden, so there are (should
be) ways our wellbeing can be improved. There are also ways that labor can be used to make our lives better. The issue cannot be that the pay is too low, which would make unemployment voluntary and a choice. So what could possibly make people unwilling to either pay someone for
increasing their wellbeing or, even stranger, exert labor to increase their own wellbeing? Simple: if there are costs imposed on selling one's labor so that the beneficiary must pay more than they get out of it, then there will be no offers and no deals. This is what minimum wage
requirements do to those who do not have enough effort, time, or expertise to produce enough wellbeing to exceed the value bar. But wage is not the only cost to which the wellbeing created must be measured. Requirements for paid vacation (non-labor time), health/safety standards,
etc. have similar effects. But even more important is the restrictions upon entry by buyers of labor. Because all industries have imposed barriers to entry, there are many fewer buyers bidding for labor. Entrepreneurs are not openly welcomed, but burdened with regulations, taxes,
license and certification requirements, and required to meet costly standards. This means there are fewer jobs overall, so the sellers of labor have fewer options to earn an income. And these options are overall lower paid as there are many sellers, few buyers. At the same time,
the bar for becoming an entrepreneur is raised by regulations, licensing requirements, and so on. And other non-employment options such as self-sufficient communities, mutual aid or gift economies, etc. are made practically impossible. Among other things, you must earn a money
income to pay taxes. This makes all non-employment options much less valuable, practically forcing people onto the job market. So while the quantity demanded for labor is lower because of these imposed costs, its availability is increased for the same reason. In different words,
what we're seeing is artifically low demand for labor and artificially high supply. This means there will be a shortage, in other words: unemployment. The solutions sought by policy only add more of the same: subsidize employers instead of lowering the bar for entry and fund
those without work instead of liberating their creative powers. But there is a better way. If a stream is upset by a rock, removing the rock is a better and more permanent solution than building an aqueduct around it.
