So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

[danielpalos]

If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.

Why? You left of your own free will. If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.

The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck. The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you. Equality under the law.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Employment is at-will not for-cause.

It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.

Employment is at-will under most circumstances. Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.

Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important. For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies. And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.

from: What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
"If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."

So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.


And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.

all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.

What you are describing is a result of our current regime. I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function. Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues. Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits. Taxes would be general not direct on employers.

I understand what you want. You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked. No oversight to prevent fraud. And no requirement to show whether you need it. Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why? You left of your own free will. If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.

The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck. The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you. Equality under the law.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Employment is at-will not for-cause.

It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.

Employment is at-will under most circumstances. Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.

Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important. For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies. And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.

from: What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
"If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."

So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.


And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.

all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.

What you are describing is a result of our current regime. I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function. Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues. Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits. Taxes would be general not direct on employers.

I understand what you want. You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked. No oversight to prevent fraud. And no requirement to show whether you need it. Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Employment is at-will not for-cause.

It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.

Employment is at-will under most circumstances. Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.

Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important. For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies. And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.

from: What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
"If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."

So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.


And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.

all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.

What you are describing is a result of our current regime. I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function. Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues. Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits. Taxes would be general not direct on employers.

I understand what you want. You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked. No oversight to prevent fraud. And no requirement to show whether you need it. Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

 

[WinterBorn]

It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.

Employment is at-will under most circumstances. Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.

Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important. For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies. And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.

from: What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
"If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."

So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.


And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.

all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.

What you are describing is a result of our current regime. I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function. Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues. Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits. Taxes would be general not direct on employers.

I understand what you want. You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked. No oversight to prevent fraud. And no requirement to show whether you need it. Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Have I said anything of the sort?

 

[WinterBorn]

It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.

Employment is at-will under most circumstances. Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.

Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important. For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies. And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.

from: What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
"If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."

So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.


And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.

all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.

What you are describing is a result of our current regime. I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function. Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues. Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits. Taxes would be general not direct on employers.

I understand what you want. You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked. No oversight to prevent fraud. And no requirement to show whether you need it. Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

 

[danielpalos]

all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.

What you are describing is a result of our current regime. I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function. Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues. Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits. Taxes would be general not direct on employers.

I understand what you want. You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked. No oversight to prevent fraud. And no requirement to show whether you need it. Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

 

[WinterBorn]

I understand what you want. You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked. No oversight to prevent fraud. And no requirement to show whether you need it. Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital? What do they do with it? I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.

 

[WinterBorn]

I understand what you want. You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked. No oversight to prevent fraud. And no requirement to show whether you need it. Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.

 

[danielpalos]

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital? What do they do with it? I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.

How much capital are the homeless circulating?

 

[danielpalos]

beats your plan. which is Nothing.

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.

no, it isn't.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital? What do they do with it? I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.

How much capital are the homeless circulating?

I never said everyone was part of circulating capital. But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment. And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic. I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic. Obviously you don't need money. You have all your needs met by living with your mother. You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it. Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate? The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.

no, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all. And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same. You would just have higher wages.

 

[danielpalos]

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital? What do they do with it? I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.

How much capital are the homeless circulating?

I never said everyone was part of circulating capital. But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.

No, it isn't. Why do you believe it is? If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.

 

[danielpalos]

Government is Socialism?

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.

no, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all. And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same. You would just have higher wages.

Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages. Wages should always beat inflation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital? What do they do with it? I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.

How much capital are the homeless circulating?

I never said everyone was part of circulating capital. But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.

No, it isn't. Why do you believe it is? If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.

Yes it is. Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate. What do those who earn it do with the capital?

 

[WinterBorn]

Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.

no, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all. And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same. You would just have higher wages.

Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages. Wages should always beat inflation.

No, it will not. Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.

 

[danielpalos]

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital? What do they do with it? I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.

How much capital are the homeless circulating?

I never said everyone was part of circulating capital. But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.

No, it isn't. Why do you believe it is? If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.

Yes it is. Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate. What do those who earn it do with the capital?

lol. it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.

 

[danielpalos]

Not with our current inequality. The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.

Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.

no, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all. And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same. You would just have higher wages.

Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages. Wages should always beat inflation.

No, it will not. Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.

You make up your own stories. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[WinterBorn]

So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital? What do they do with it? I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.

How much capital are the homeless circulating?

I never said everyone was part of circulating capital. But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.

No, it isn't. Why do you believe it is? If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.

Yes it is. Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate. What do those who earn it do with the capital?

lol. it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.

That is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy. Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.

Simple question. Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?

 

[WinterBorn]

Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.

no, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all. And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same. You would just have higher wages.

Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages. Wages should always beat inflation.

No, it will not. Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.

You make up your own stories. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Yes, it does. But you are ignoring the point of our conversation. We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare. The higher wages is not part of that conversation. Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?

In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves. You earn more so you spend more. When you spend more your lifestyle changes. Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.