Economists believe that a certain percentage of the workforce (maybe 1-2%) is so useless and unproductive, that it's cheaper for society to pay their unemployment benefits since they are actually a net drain on an employer who is unfortunate enough to give them a job. They actually decrease productivity and increase costs so much when they are working, that it's cheaper to keep them on the dole.
Where did this statement come from? I can't see an employer keeping on a "worker" who is a net drain on the company. Why keep them on the payroll?? Put their derriers out the front door. If someone is able to work, but chooses not to work, they shouldn't be paid by the government, by charities, or by businesses.
I can't see an employer keeping on a "worker" who is a net drain on the company. Why keep them on the payroll?? Any large organization, whether a corporation, government or Free Republic, is going to have a certain percentage of dead wood. Unfortunately, some of the really bad dead wood is also very good at keeping their heads down and avoiding scrutiny, especially in a large corporation.
If someone is able to work, but chooses not to work, they shouldn't be paid by the government, by charities, or by businesses.
You'll get no argument from me on this one. I was just trying to make the point that, if we're going to have the dole anyway, it's actually more economically efficient to keep certain people out of the workplace altogether.