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 🎁
Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.I have alleged no such thing.
I have simply reminded you of the definition of the natural rate of unemployment. And that is that the person is actively seeking work.
I never said there was. I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
It is about equal protection of the law.
There is already equal protection under the law. If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.you only make up stories, story teller. our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy. We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics. A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad. You have no valid argument that says otherwise.And the long term solution for simple poverty is the various welfare programs, not unemployment compensation. But you want to wreck both programs because of the means tests.
Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.
I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
Nonsense. Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make. And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.
I never said there was. I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
It is about equal protection of the law.
There is already equal protection under the law. If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
There is equal protection under the law. You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid. The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.you only make up stories, story teller. our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy. We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics. A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad. You have no valid argument that says otherwise.
Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.
I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
Nonsense. Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make. And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
Yes I do. Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression. And look at the number now.
Could it be better? Sure! So we expand it and make it better. We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.I never said there was. I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
It is about equal protection of the law.
There is already equal protection under the law. If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
There is equal protection under the law. You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid. The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.you only make up stories, story teller. our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy. We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
Nonsense. Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make. And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
Yes I do. Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression. And look at the number now.
Could it be better? Sure! So we expand it and make it better. We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
The law is, employment at the will of either party.just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.
anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
It is about equal protection of the law.
There is already equal protection under the law. If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
There is equal protection under the law. You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid. The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them? Equal protection, remember.
Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.you only make up stories, story teller. our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy. We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.
Nonsense. Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make. And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
Yes I do. Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression. And look at the number now.
Could it be better? Sure! So we expand it and make it better. We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
The law is, employment at the will of either party.just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.There is already equal protection under the law. If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
There is equal protection under the law. You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid. The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them? Equal protection, remember.
Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.Nonsense. Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make. And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
Yes I do. Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression. And look at the number now.
Could it be better? Sure! So we expand it and make it better. We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.Nonsense. Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make. And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
Yes I do. Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression. And look at the number now.
Could it be better? Sure! So we expand it and make it better. We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
nice story.The law is, employment at the will of either party.just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.
It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
There is equal protection under the law. You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid. The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them? Equal protection, remember.
Yes it is. But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit. In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor. Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
Welfare is means tested. That means it Must be less efficient than solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
Yes I do. Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression. And look at the number now.
Could it be better? Sure! So we expand it and make it better. We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
Welfare provides a better solution than perpetual unemployment compensation, regardless of the reason for being unemployed.
A simplification of the rules is what makes it cost effective, along with eliminating our current regime taxation in favor of a general tax.Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
Yes I do. Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression. And look at the number now.
Could it be better? Sure! So we expand it and make it better. We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
You keep pressing to have unemployment compensation drastically changed to provide for the 3% or 4% of the working population that is part of the natural rate of unemployment and still seeking a job.
Your plan requires the following:
1) Changing the rules for who is allowed to draw unemployment. In essence, to not hold anyone responsible for their choices to quit or break the rules/law.
2) Change the amount of time a person can draw unemployment from 6 months to forever.
3) Change the source of the unemployment compensation from a business tax to a general tax that everyone pays.
4) Since there is no need to contact the previous employers, you would want some other method to prevent fraud, but no means test allowed.
5) You want to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour.
6) You want the unemployment compensation amount to be set by the federal gov't instead of the states, and have it just $1 below the $15 minimum wage.
7) You want health insurance companies to lower their rates to allow people on long term unemployment to be able to afford insurance.
8) Have the welfare programs and the unemployment compensation program connected to make sure no one draws both, since they are now both long term.
A logical plan requires the following:
1) Expand the welfare programs to include more poor and homeless people.
Which do you think makes more sense?
"do Alpha Males not need friends"?Poor incels don't understand that being an asshole isn't a good way to make friends.
nice story.The law is, employment at the will of either party.just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
There is equal protection under the law. You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid. The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them? Equal protection, remember.
Yes it is. But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit. In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor. Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
A simplification of the rules is what makes it cost effective, along with eliminating our current regime taxation in favor of a general tax.Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.Yes I do. Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression. And look at the number now.
Could it be better? Sure! So we expand it and make it better. We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
You keep pressing to have unemployment compensation drastically changed to provide for the 3% or 4% of the working population that is part of the natural rate of unemployment and still seeking a job.
Your plan requires the following:
1) Changing the rules for who is allowed to draw unemployment. In essence, to not hold anyone responsible for their choices to quit or break the rules/law.
2) Change the amount of time a person can draw unemployment from 6 months to forever.
3) Change the source of the unemployment compensation from a business tax to a general tax that everyone pays.
4) Since there is no need to contact the previous employers, you would want some other method to prevent fraud, but no means test allowed.
5) You want to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour.
6) You want the unemployment compensation amount to be set by the federal gov't instead of the states, and have it just $1 below the $15 minimum wage.
7) You want health insurance companies to lower their rates to allow people on long term unemployment to be able to afford insurance.
8) Have the welfare programs and the unemployment compensation program connected to make sure no one draws both, since they are now both long term.
A logical plan requires the following:
1) Expand the welfare programs to include more poor and homeless people.
Which do you think makes more sense?
"do Alpha Males not need friends"?Poor incels don't understand that being an asshole isn't a good way to make friends.
Your story is your own.nice story.The law is, employment at the will of either party.just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.
So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them? Equal protection, remember.
Yes it is. But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit. In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor. Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection. You do not want that.
