Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?A simple problem if i live at home with my mom. I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.
Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?
LMAO!!! Have you priced private insurance lately? When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife. The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week. Good luck making that $500 last you the month.
I do not have a problem solving simple poverty. Nothing you have suggested would do that. It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud. Which would mean it cost more and did less.
Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market. If you had the money to start.
Why didn't you?
i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry? There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around. We already know that.
The "too little capital" is the main point.
People pursue happiness in many different ways. For some, their work is a source of happiness. For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone. The standard relationship is employer/employee. The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer. If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income. The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?A simple problem if i live at home with my mom. I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."LMAO!!! Have you priced private insurance lately? When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife. The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week. Good luck making that $500 last you the month.
I do not have a problem solving simple poverty. Nothing you have suggested would do that. It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud. Which would mean it cost more and did less.
Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market. If you had the money to start.
Why didn't you?
i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry? There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around. We already know that.
The "too little capital" is the main point.
People pursue happiness in many different ways. For some, their work is a source of happiness. For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone. The standard relationship is employer/employee. The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer. If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income. The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not? There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour. And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour. The 40 hour work week would pay $600. Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560. How many people would continue to work?
And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?A simple problem if i live at home with my mom. I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market. If you had the money to start.
Why didn't you?
i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry? There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around. We already know that.
The "too little capital" is the main point.
People pursue happiness in many different ways. For some, their work is a source of happiness. For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone. The standard relationship is employer/employee. The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer. If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income. The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine? You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
only the nine hundred ninety-nine, say that.only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.you could say that. it certainly isn't average.So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.
Only a moron would post that...oh wait, you are one.
Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not? There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour. And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour. The 40 hour work week would pay $600. Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560. How many people would continue to work?
And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
It should be a boon to Any local economy.
Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?A simple problem if i live at home with my mom. I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market. If you had the money to start.
Why didn't you?
i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry? There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around. We already know that.
The "too little capital" is the main point.
People pursue happiness in many different ways. For some, their work is a source of happiness. For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone. The standard relationship is employer/employee. The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer. If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income. The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine? You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market. If you had the money to start.
Why didn't you?
i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry? There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around. We already know that.
The "too little capital" is the main point.
People pursue happiness in many different ways. For some, their work is a source of happiness. For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone. The standard relationship is employer/employee. The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer. If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income. The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine? You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
you need more than fallacy to do it with. i resort to the fewest.only the nine hundred ninety-nine, say that.only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.you could say that. it certainly isn't average.
but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.
Only a moron would post that...oh wait, you are one.
999%? lol, you don't have to prove you are a moron, we all know that you are.
You don't know what you are talking about. Any taxes are a form of income redistribution. providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad. It says so in our supreme law of the land.Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not? There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour. And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour. The 40 hour work week would pay $600. Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560. How many people would continue to work?
And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
It should be a boon to Any local economy.
Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy. But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend. In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
the employer has no say in employment at-will.Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?
i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry? There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around. We already know that.
The "too little capital" is the main point.
People pursue happiness in many different ways. For some, their work is a source of happiness. For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone. The standard relationship is employer/employee. The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer. If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income. The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine? You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
You have nothing but stories, story teller. Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
all the Richest had to do was lie to their shareholders to get a bailout.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.
all the Richest had to do was lie to their shareholders to get a bailout.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.
under our form of Capitalism.all the Richest had to do was lie to their shareholders to get a bailout.Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by. And the work was brutal. But there was a future in it. My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net. The lineman got 80%. He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning. But I learned and got a raise to 30%. Then to 40%. Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made. But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more. When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand. After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman. I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one. I made good money with that crew. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director. I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.
Which has nothing to do with what I posted.
You don't know what you are talking about. Any taxes are a form of income redistribution. providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad. It says so in our supreme law of the land.Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not? There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour. And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour. The 40 hour work week would pay $600. Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560. How many people would continue to work?
And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
It should be a boon to Any local economy.
Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy. But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend. In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
the employer has no say in employment at-will.Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?The "too little capital" is the main point.
People pursue happiness in many different ways. For some, their work is a source of happiness. For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone. The standard relationship is employer/employee. The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer. If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income. The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine? You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
