"No value is favor with God or man." "Or value is meaning in the development of human culture." "Or value is relevance in the progression of art." "Or value is purpose in species advancement." - Could you clarify how you intend the above sentences to be interpreted?
In a very real sense that's true because value is subjective to the circumstances of the person. A person dying of thirst in the desert could easily value a drink of water over all of their other physical possessions combined. But when it comes to comparing the value of real property to the "dollar" the only time it's no longer subjective if when that real property is traded for dollars and even that is subject to the circumstances of the person. The woman would not sell her $5,000 diamond neckless for only $2,500 if circumstances didn't dictate that transaction.
Capital in capitalism is measured in dollars but real property only has a quantifiable value in dollars when it's exchanged for dollars. For example a person could purchase 100 shares of stock at $10/share and ten years later they could sell that same stock for $10/share. It doesn't matter what the "stock prices" on stock exchange were between the time of purchase and the time of sale. The only thing that matters was that the person purchased the stock for $10/share and later sold it for $10/share. Those were the only two times where those 100 shares of stock had a quantifiable value in dollars for the person that owned the stock.
As alternatives to measuring value solely in monetary terms. - - - Updated - - - Exactly. Value is subjective while wealth is not.
That may be true for illiquid assets but otherwise monetary value is easily quantified by comperable sales. Secured loans do this all the time. Inheritance taxes are based on this. Selling or buying a home uses comperable sales. Buy or sell a stock or bond and you use comperable sales. To generalize almost any financial transaction uses comperable sales to determine price. Not saying you can't buy or sell blind but it isn't usually a very intelligent move. This may be hard to believe but my broker seems perfectly comfortable valueing my portfolio. Never had them say "gee, we can't tell you what your stocks are worth until you sell them" They are even willing to lend me money to buy on margin based on the current value of my portfolio.
I almost spewed coffee all over my computer reading this. Try telling that to the former management at Countrywide, Washington Mutual, and hundreds of other mortgage lending institutions that went bankrupt with the mortgage crisis. Apparently the "appraised value" and the "actual value" of the real estate was considerably different because these lending institutions went bankrupt when they got stuck with the actual property. In point of fact while these are "secured loans" that actual loan is based upon the banks assessment of the person's ability to repay the loan and is not based upon the property used for collateral. The lending insitutions know that they probably can't sell the property for the assessed value to to cover the loan amount. Excluding inheritance taxes, which only a very small percentage of Americans pay, all of these others related to an actual sales transaction and not to an assessed value. Even when we address inheritance taxes that are only imposed upon the very wealthy it often requires the liquidation of the assets such as the sale of the real estate or the sale of the stocks to settle the estate. Has your broker ever guaranteed what you could sell the assets in your portfolio for or does the broker only tell you that "if you sold today this is what you might expect" for those assets? Is the broker merely expressing an opinion about the potential value or are they establishing an actual price in dollars that you know you can always get for your assets? There's a huge difference between the "IF" value and the "IS" value of any item. "IF" is what you might receive while "IS" is what you do receive. In about 1998 I purchased 100 $50 American Gold Eagle coins for $270 each and that was what they were actually worth because that's what I paid for them. Between then and now we've seen the market price of gold go up to about $1800/oz and today it's back down about $1100/oz but I haven't sold those Gold Eagle coins so none of those "values" in dollars for $50 American Gold Eagles have any meaning for me. I didn't earn or lose a single dime relative to the $270 I paid for each of those coins. Only if/when I decide to sell those coins will the actual value, in dollars, for those coins be once again established. Those coins will be worth exactly what I sell them for and not a dime more or a dime less than that amount. Last year, due to family reasons, I had five weeks to sell my home, close escrow, and relocate from Washington to Arizona. To accomplish this I sold my house for about $25,000 less than the "assessed value" based upon other sales in my area. Don't try to tell me that the "assessed value" has any relevance to the actual value established by the sale of the item.
Let's put it this way. I don't accept arguments from Adam Smith that rejected the "natural/inalienable right of property" as proposed by John Locke almost 100 years earlier and that embraced an economic philosophy based upon a few people becoming very wealthy while a significant percentage were left to starve to death while producing the wealth for the "capitalist" in society. Adam Smith's economic philosoply is based exclusively upon the greed of the wealthy capitalist where they would secure far more from the labor of others than they could ever possible need or use. At best Smith refers to the "hidden hand" where the greedy capitalist might accidently do something that benefits society but we know in reality that this almost never happens. My economic philosophy is based upon the "natural/inalienable right of property" as presented by John Locke and it's juxtaposed to the economic philosophy of those that argued for the capitalistic model, such as Adam Smith, historically. Here's the difference in a nutshell. Under our current capitalistic models "statutory title" establishes "ownership" of property. Under Locke's arguments the "natural (inalienable) right of property" establishes "statutory title" to the property. Many today believe that statutory title establishes a "right of property" but that's only the "legal right" and often is not the "natural (inalienable) right" of property. For example every bare piece of land you see where someone holds "title to that land" is a violation of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" as argued by John Locke. Unused land belongs to the "common" and not to any person based upon the natural (inalienable) right of property. Any person that has more wealth than they can conceivably use is violating the natural (inalienable) right of property of the common (i.e. all people). A person can hold statutory title as well as having a natural (inalienable) right of property but it's by accident and not by intent in our economic system that was foremented under the teachings of Adam Smith. So I reject Smith and embrace Locke economically.
Why not simply go with simple explanations? Do you subscribe to some economic school of dogma on this issue?
The right claims there is no inalienable right to unemployment through equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States.
There isn't an inalienable right of commerce either but the "right" ignores that fact. A "natural/inalienable right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon any other person" and commerce always requires another person.
Whatever can you mean? An alienable right means that even Labor has to be taken seriously, regardless of how inconvenient it may be for public policy choices from politicians. employment at will, is simply that; employment at the will of either party, for legal purposes.
Employment at will IS simply that, employment at the will of either party. For legal purposes, if you lose your job for no cause of your own, you are entitled to unemployment compensation.
Becoming employed does not mean the employer has assumed responsibility to provide you an income for the remainder of your life, and in most every case unless written in a contract the term of employment is at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation was created to provide assistance to those who lose their source of income because they have become unneeded by their employer. An at will employee who is needed by their employer and quits is the source of their own problem, loss of income, as well as that of their employer who is left to find a replacement and is therefore NOT entitled to unemployment compensation, but is neither liable for any losses of the employer. As an employee, should you be employed for a specified duration, or to accomplish a specific goal and decide to quit early or fail to accomplish the goal you contractually agreed to, your employer would have legal grounds to sue, and neither would you be entitled to unemployment compensation. It is the responsibility of each individual to find employment or to otherwise produce the means of their survival, and government is needed to protect those who who do so without infringing on others from those who would do so by infringing on others.
can an employer only fire for Cause and not at-will in any at-will employment State? we could be decreasing the cost of litigation to the private sector. - - - Updated - - - Unemployment compensation is a State program not a private program. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
But there is RIGHT to unemployment compensation. We as a society establish it through our government, we can also end it and no RIGHT would be violated. The only RIGHT that would come into play is equal protection, if there is going to be unemployment compensation then everyone has a RIGHT to be treated equally with regard to it.
Unemployment compensation is more cost effective than means tested welfare. It is about using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual. - - - Updated - - - Yes, why is only Labor as the least wealthy, being denied and disparaged, and even Infringed in their natural and civil right to equal protection of the law.
So, why does anyone need any Cause to quit under any form of employment at will, in order to receive unemployment compensation?
If equal protection is the objective, then when your employer lets you go you should be entitled to unemployment compensation, and if the employee quits the employer should receive compensation for the loss instead of the employee. The unemployment insurance system is a Federal-State run program in which employers, NOT employees, are taxed by both State and Federal government. It is a social insurance program which provides some income support for persons who lose their jobs for no cause of their own making. Like any insurance program, payment is received only if the claimant is not at fault for the loss.
