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

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. That Is employment at the will of either party. Why do You require a work ethic? Are you a priest or moral authority?

No it does not.

I don't require a work ethic. But if you want money you need one.

I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.

For many people taxes cause a hardship. But you want to raise them.

lol. Poverty is worse. You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.

Dear danielpalos
1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),

2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE. You can be rich and
miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.

danielpalos
I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
don't help people become independent.

Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.

The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org

It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.

danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.

it is about equality and equal protection of the law. we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.

only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.

No I think you misunderstand where the "rightwing" has a problem with the "leftwing" approach danielpalos

1. To you, solving poverty issues through govt is a reflection of the people doing that.
So you see it as democratic protection and participation.

To the rightwing, going through "federal govt" means giving UP power of the people to Congress
which is REMOVED from the people and forces us to jump through hoops hoping to get what we want.
That still inserts Parties and Politicians as the MIDDLEMAN that too easily abuses this power
and SELLS OUT and exploits the people that are supposed to be represented.

What you want is something more DIRECT and GUARANTEED to represent the people.
Govt is not it, because it is set up to be representative, and too much gets lost in the process.

You forget danielpalos, if you keep trying to go through FEDERAL GOVT - that is REQUIRED
to represent ALL THE OTHER TAXPAYERS not just you and what you believe. So you end up
fighting these political and ideological battles because all people have equal freedom of BELIEFS.

You can't just get govt to dictate things YOUR WAY.

If you want direct representation and protection of your beliefs, you have to govern yourself
through your own programs. You'd be better off setting up the benefits program through your
own party, voting in what you want and representatives who believe the same things, and
fund it yourself while deducting those expenses from your federal taxes so you invest directly
and get what you want by building it yourself. That's faster than trying to establish it
through a govt that has to represent 400 million people across 50 states with diverse beliefs
that don't agree on the same terms.

2. What the RIGHTWING has a problem with is depending on govt for handouts as a bandaid,
without making the necessary changes to STOP the poverty and problems. So this ends up
either feeding into a blackhole, like pouring money into keeping a car going without fixing
the problems that keep costing more and more to repair, or it ends up REWARDING RECKLESS
BEHAVIOR. Like paying people to having more babies, to fight for custody so they can get
the monthly support from the other partner, etc.

The RIGHTWING especially Christians who successfully counsel people recovering from
drugs, homelessness, personal abuse, mental or criminal illness BELIEVE in solving the
SPIRITUAL causes of problems so the people can prosper independently by restoring their ability to function
and become leaders instead of victims.

GOVERNMENT CANNOT TEACH THAT PROCESS.

It is individually unique and takes a different timeframe for each person.

That's why Conservatives especially Christians believe in helping people through SPIRITUAL
counseling AS PART OF THE CHARITABLE SUPPORT. they don't believe in just giving the
financial help without making sure the person is getting out of the abusive patterns or crisis.

Again that's like paying more and more to keep the car running, but without fixing the problems.
The CONSERVATIVES want to fix the car instead of keep wasting money on the symptoms.

it is about faithful execution of our own laws, not merely the hypocrisy of blaming less fortunate illegals.

 

[westwall]

Dear danielpalos
1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),

2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE. You can be rich and
miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.

danielpalos
I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
don't help people become independent.

Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.

The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org

It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.

danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.

it is about equality and equal protection of the law. we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.

only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.

And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE to not work.

Methinks you are projecting again.

it isn't stealing. it is providing for the general welfare.

next.

Oh? If I decide to not give it up what happens?

give what up? it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.

And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.

A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME. Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off. Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, none of your reasons are valid. Your claims of altruistic reasons are just you lying to try to cover for your own greed and laziness.

You want the tax payers to give you money while you live with your Mom. That will not happen.

You may as well get a job. You can develop your online business while you earn.

But I will tell you, I know quite a few people who started their own businesses, both online and offline. They worked harder than most people with a regular job. I don't think you will do that. You are looking for someone else to take care of you.

lol. anybody can make up stories. you need valid arguments. solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is what we are discussing.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about equality and equal protection of the law. we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.

only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.

And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE to not work.

Methinks you are projecting again.

it isn't stealing. it is providing for the general welfare.

next.

Oh? If I decide to not give it up what happens?

give what up? it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.

And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.

A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME. Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off. Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?

it is about providing for the general welfare. and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.

 

[westwall]

And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE to not work.

Methinks you are projecting again.

it isn't stealing. it is providing for the general welfare.

next.

Oh? If I decide to not give it up what happens?

give what up? it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.

And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.

A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME. Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off. Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?

it is about providing for the general welfare. and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.

I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve. That's how the real world works.

 

[danielpalos]

it isn't stealing. it is providing for the general welfare.

next.

Oh? If I decide to not give it up what happens?

give what up? it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.

And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.

A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME. Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off. Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?

it is about providing for the general welfare. and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.

I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve. That's how the real world works.

Nobody is forcing you to work. And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax. You have no moral basis for your argument.

 

[westwall]

Oh? If I decide to not give it up what happens?

give what up? it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.

And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.

A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME. Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off. Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?

it is about providing for the general welfare. and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.

I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve. That's how the real world works.

Nobody is forcing you to work. And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax. You have no moral basis for your argument.

Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end. Suppose we ALL choose to not work.

What then genius?

 

[danielpalos]

give what up? it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.

And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.

A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME. Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off. Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?

it is about providing for the general welfare. and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.

I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve. That's how the real world works.

Nobody is forcing you to work. And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax. You have no moral basis for your argument.

Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end. Suppose we ALL choose to not work.

What then genius?

That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism. Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.

 

[Oddball]

See what I mean?

I've encountered nobody anywhere, who knows less about a given topic, who insists about talking about at length despite that total ignorance.

I might as well be attempting to school westwall on the geography of the moon.

 

[Trinnity]

These mass shooters are losers who're ugly or weird and can't can't can't get a woman. It drives them mad.

 

[westwall]

A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME. Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off. Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?

it is about providing for the general welfare. and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.

I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve. That's how the real world works.

Nobody is forcing you to work. And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax. You have no moral basis for your argument.

Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end. Suppose we ALL choose to not work.

What then genius?

That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism. Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.

You didn't answer my question. If no one works how does your little fantasy work?

 

[westwall]

See what I mean?

I've encountered nobody anywhere, who knows less about a given topic, who insists about talking about at length despite that total ignorance.

I might as well be attempting to school westwall on the geography of the moon.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious he's a one dimensional 'tard.

 

[WinterBorn]

it is about providing for the general welfare. and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.

I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve. That's how the real world works.

Nobody is forcing you to work. And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax. You have no moral basis for your argument.

Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end. Suppose we ALL choose to not work.

What then genius?

That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism. Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.

You didn't answer my question. If no one works how does your little fantasy work?

Oh Daniel doesn't answer questions. He asks a lot of them, but doesn't answer them.

The response will probably be something about equal protection under the law, a comment about your morality, or an accusation of logical fallacies.

But he is entertaining when work is dull.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about providing for the general welfare. and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.

I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve. That's how the real world works.

Nobody is forcing you to work. And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax. You have no moral basis for your argument.

Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end. Suppose we ALL choose to not work.

What then genius?

That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism. Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.

You didn't answer my question. If no one works how does your little fantasy work?

lol. that is Your fantasy world. Capitalism works, that is why we use it.

 

[Dragonlady]

means testing would be available for someone for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money. It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.

In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis. EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.

No. Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working. It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.

If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice. If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.

Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner. All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue. A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.

Equal protection under the law is already present.

And no, it would not solve simple poverty. And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it. The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.

Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about. You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.

Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing. All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault. If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect. If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.

Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage. You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits. So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.

Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month? Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto. And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits. In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation. That's why!

Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program. Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.

This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing. Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy. Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead. Where the jobs are in the current economy.

Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work. Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada. Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada. That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.

My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county. That's per windmill. These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills. Some big farms have a couple of them. This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.

There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction. Corporate welfare has got to stop. The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working. CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.

Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.

 

[bodecea]

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?

You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.

I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.

Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.

 

[danielpalos]

Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money. It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.

In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis. EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.

No. Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working. It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.

If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice. If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.

Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner. All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue. A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.

Equal protection under the law is already present.

And no, it would not solve simple poverty. And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it. The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.

Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about. You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.

Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing. All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault. If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect. If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.

Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage. You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits. So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.

Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month? Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto. And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits. In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation. That's why!

Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program. Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.

This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing. Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy. Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead. Where the jobs are in the current economy.

Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work. Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada. Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada. That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.

My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county. That's per windmill. These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills. Some big farms have a couple of them. This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.

There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction. Corporate welfare has got to stop. The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working. CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.

Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.

You miss the point. The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will. If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?

 

[Meathead]

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?

You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.

I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.

Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.

American women are almost the fattest demographic in the world. You are not alone.

 

[Dragonlady]

In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis. EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.

No. Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working. It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.

If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice. If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.

Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner. All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue. A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.

Equal protection under the law is already present.

And no, it would not solve simple poverty. And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it. The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.

Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about. You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.

Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing. All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault. If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect. If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.

Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage. You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits. So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.

Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month? Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto. And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits. In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation. That's why!

Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program. Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.

This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing. Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy. Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead. Where the jobs are in the current economy.

Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work. Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada. Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada. That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.

My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county. That's per windmill. These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills. Some big farms have a couple of them. This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.

There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction. Corporate welfare has got to stop. The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working. CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.

Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.

You miss the point. The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will. If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?

There is no such thing as "at will" employment. I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute. "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value. For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers. Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong. And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.

I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value. He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys. He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days. The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized. They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time. When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job". When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't. If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve. That's how the real world works.

Nobody is forcing you to work. And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax. You have no moral basis for your argument.

Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end. Suppose we ALL choose to not work.

What then genius?

That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism. Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.

You didn't answer my question. If no one works how does your little fantasy work?

lol. that is Your fantasy world. Capitalism works, that is why we use it.

So answer his question.