In 2005, about 5 percent of all members of the U.S. labor force were holding more than one job. This is called moonlighting. To reduce unemployment, should the government ban moonlighting?
What will be an ideal response?
In most cases, second jobs are skilled or semiskilled jobs that could not be filled by many unemployed, unskilled workers. In other cases, the second jobs are part-time positions that do not require or offer full-time employment. In still other cases, they involve working at odd hours that would make it more difficult for an unemployed person to find permanent full-time work. Consequently, banning moonlighting would probably not reduce unemployment by very much.
When the possible benefits are measured against the cost of policing such a ban, and the ban’s infringement of economic freedom, it does not appear to be an effective way to reduce unemployment.
You might also like to view...
A stable rule of law
A) invariably turns losses into profits. B) allows people to cooperate more effectively with one another. C) converts price searchers into price takers. D) renders the law of comparative advantage ineffective.
Assuming that the exchange rate rises by 5 percent, hence, the dollar volume of exports rises by 5 percent, then foreign exchange earnings would
a. remain constant. b. increase by 5 percent. c. actually decrease by 5 percent. d. increase by 10 percent.
When an economy is operating inside its production possibilities frontier, we know that
a. there are unused resources or inefficiencies in the economy. b. all of the economy's resources are fully employed. c. economic growth would have to occur in order for the economy to move to a point on the frontier. d. in order to produce more of one good, the economy would have to give up some of the other good.
Usury laws lead to
A. a surplus of loanable funds. B. a shortage of loanable funds. C. a floor under interest rates. D. more lenders than borrowers.