For me, a free labor market starts with freedonm of the workers…

All people residing on a nations soil should have the full right to work, as if they are citizens or legally residing …

AND,if cities, parks, and land are not so regulated that newcomers (babies or foreigners) have no chance at reasonable accomodation, they will become free agents, and not sell themselves so easily to employers offering rotten jobs at rotten prices…but instead opt to employ themselves or go to school, thus greatly weakening the power of employers, and increasing wages. This scenario plays out best when capital, with all its transient nature, is made accountable for projects it undertakes, like moving families from a big city to an unfriendly environment to mine something, then reversing “field”, and shooting off to an underdeveloped country.

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution

Prostitution Research & Education

Sex: From intimacy to ?sexual labor? or Is it a human right to prostitute?

Like, with prohibition in the US. Yes!

Incorrect. Labor flexibility’s relationship to income insecurity is dependent on a number of variables, including skill levels, retraining opportunities, whether or not one is in a growing or dying industry, level of replacement benefits (and the effect on reservation wages thereof), technological turbulence, etc. You paint with an excessively broad brush. For what reason I can only guess…

You’re telling me that people will rationally choose less state provided security because they have more security provided by other means – e.g., their own money. In short, it’s not a con for rich people. It’s still a con when you convince people to believe that their income is secure when the very essence of labour flexibility is that it isn’t. If they con themselves into believing that without prompting, then it is just stupid. I think you are perhaps a touch arrogant to assume that people are wrong in choosing – rationally as far as I can tell – to keep their security over hollow promises that only other people will ever need a safety net.

‘Tis not a _con_, my man. There are any number of reasons why a rational human being would choose a weaker safety-net. i.e. a low subjective estimate of lambda (the likelihood that said individual will get laid-off), a position in the income distribution high enough to make replacement benefits irrelevant, the knowledge that high levels of such benefits are counter-productive to society as a whole when given a high-turbulence economy, etc. You appear a might arrogant, to assume that those who make decisions contrary to your own have been in some way (to borrow an old leftist term of art) mystified. :^)

Since European voters and the governments they elect – outside the UK – seem reticent to live without their safety nets and have expressed that preference repeatedly, I assume it can be removed as a genuine option.”

To paraphrase Joe Biden, the European people have the right to be wrong. But a current reticence does not imply that it will always be so, or that the decision is in any sense correct. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

?I have always found the word Europe in the mouth of those politicians who were demanding from other powers something that they did not dare demand in their own name.? ? Otto von Bismarck

The costs of hiring an apprentice in Germany vary wildly depending on industry.
Generally, it is more expensive the more sophisticated the respective jobs are.
The proposed tax/benefit-scheme of, say, 7.000€ for each apprentice will generally not be enough to make BMW hire additional apprentices (because BMW spends more than 7.000€ a year on an apprentice).
For the barber shop around the corner, the matter is different: For the shop owner, an apprentice is basically chap labour and an additional 7.000€ are nice to have.

The result of this calculation will be a major trend favouring low skill apprenticeships…

I predict that the brothel owners affected will shortly band together to put together such a training scheme at lesser cost than the tax.

“However, people who want freer labour markets have to understand that that means very high taxes on the people who most gain from flexible labour markets: employers.”

This presupposes a high degree of equality-of-outcomes. It is quite possible that an individual (i.e. moi) might be willing to see labor markets liberalized without any jump in either corporate or personal taxes, as long as said individual is willing to see the safety-net shrink a bit. To imply that the size of the net is in some way set in the firmament is incorrect. That doesn’t mean you have to _select_ a reduction in benefits from the menu available, but don’t pretend it’s an exogenous variable. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, but you can always go on a diet…