<p>Employment seems like a lessor/lessee relationship to me. The lessor being the state and the lessee being a company. In exchange for the lease, the state receives taxes, the employee receives pay, the lessee receives labor and through labor generates profit/loss. This is how the unemployment rate is a gauge of how successful a state is in producing employable citizens. Am I wrong in thinking about (un)employment this way?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-06T15:00:06.430Z
I just think, the economy would not work without employed people, no tax would be collected at all, no profit/loss made.
user1095108
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-06T15:09:27.917Z
Why would the state strive for full employment? Being employed means being useful in some way. The company makes some income off of you, the state collects the tax (lease), the employee the pay and everyone is happy?
user1095108
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-06T16:02:19.737Z
but it does just that, the state has the sole authority to print money. It does so and then collects it back in addition to money printed by other states. No one takes money with them to the afterlife, the state will collect. But I think that's another topic, what I meant with my question was, that the state is trying to maximize the amount of taxes it takes in, just like a lessor is trying to maximize the lease it collects. Without citizens, the state would be unable to collect any lease (tax) and if a citizen works in another state, the home state still usually benefits.
user1095108
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-06T16:41:03.140Z
The state usually does not want hyperinflation either. Usually hyperinflation results, if the state keeps printing money excessively, Zimbabwe is an example of that. No one trusts the Zimbabwean dollars anymore.
user1095108
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-06T17:45:52.500Z
How do you explain this quote then: `Developing countries are only able to raise a small share of taxes. Typically, they collect between 10% to 20% of GDP. The average in high-income countries is double this, at 40%.` High-income states collect more of GDP as taxes, how could maximizing collected taxes not be a goal then? Only issuing money, without collecting taxes, would render the issued money worthless, IMO. I see issuing and taxation as a kind of regulation of how much value the issued money actually has.
user1095108
<unemployment>
Are citizens being leased by their state?
user1095108
# Are citizens being leased by their state?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-04-06)

Employment seems like a lessor/lessee relationship to me. The lessor being the state and the lessee being a company. In exchange for the lease, the state receives taxes, the employee receives pay, the lessee receives labor and through labor generates profit/loss. This is how the unemployment rate is a gauge of how successful a state is in producing employable citizens. Am I wrong in thinking about (un)employment this way?

**Tags:** unemployment
> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I just think, the economy would not work without employed people, no tax would be collected at all, no profit/loss made.  
> **username_0**: Why would the state strive for full employment? Being employed means being useful in some way. The company makes some income off of you, the state collects the tax (lease), the employee the pay and everyone is happy?  
> **username_0**: but it does just that, the state has the sole authority to print money. It does so and then collects it back in addition to money printed by other states. No one takes money with them to the afterlife, the state will collect. But I think that's another topic, what I meant with my question was, that the state is trying to maximize the amount of taxes it takes in, just like a lessor is trying to maximize the lease it collects. Without citizens, the state would be unable to collect any lease (tax) and if a citizen works in another state, the home state still usually benefits.  
> **username_0**: The state usually does not want hyperinflation either. Usually hyperinflation results, if the state keeps printing money excessively, Zimbabwe is an example of that. No one trusts the Zimbabwean dollars anymore.  
> **username_0**: How do you explain this quote then: `Developing countries are only able to raise a small share of taxes. Typically, they collect between 10% to 20% of GDP. The average in high-income countries is double this, at 40%.` High-income states collect more of GDP as taxes, how could maximizing collected taxes not be a goal then? Only issuing money, without collecting taxes, would render the issued money worthless, IMO. I see issuing and taxation as a kind of regulation of how much value the issued money actually has.  

---

## 0 answers

