Unemployment benefits aren't causing a labor shortage. Low wages are. What if, and this may sound wild, businesses paid low wage workers more

[initforme]

Most employers do not want their best employees to stay. This is a very short term employee market.

 

[danielpalos]

See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....

That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.

Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.

The law doesn't say what you want it to say. We've been over this.

Of course it does. You merely don't understand the concepts or the law.

As I said, we've been over this. You are the only one who thinks the way you do. Basically, you are saying that the entire legal profession doesn't understand the concepts of the law, but you do. That's not true at all.

I am not saying that at all. And, if it is that certain, why any delays in the administration of justice. It seems any right wing judge would love to inform me of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

Ridiculous. It's much more like saying you can buy a gun but can't carry it with you into a shopping mall while a policeman or security guard can. IOW, it's a privilege reserved for those who qualify for it and denied to those who don't. Quitting a job means you don't qualify for UC and never holding a job means you don't qualify for UC, while getting laid off from a job through no fault of your own means you do qualify. That is the plain meaning of the law, and the meaning that the entire legal profession adheres to. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Not at all since employment is at-will with no organizational qualifications required such as active service. And, according to you right wingers, the People may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.

He's still trying to claim that not getting paid imposes an unfair burden on those who don't want to work. He also claims to have a case open in Sacramento Superior Court on the subject.

Right-wingers keep alleging they believe in being legal to the law in border threads.

Have you gotten a summary judgement yet? BTW, this isn't a border thread, so that's a non-starter right there.

All it takes is Gold under Capitalism to purchase justice and make some rules.

Does that mean you got it or not?

I am working on it.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!

Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?

Because by law you cannot collect it. There's nothing stopping you from quitting. Getting paid to do so is a completely separate issue.

By State law gun control regulations may be required restricting access to Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.

Only right wingers are ignorant of the implications of their alleged subscription to Capitalism where Greed is Good. Why would anyone Want to stay Poor if they didn't have to?

 

[hadit]

See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....

That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.

Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.

The law doesn't say what you want it to say. We've been over this.

Of course it does. You merely don't understand the concepts or the law.

As I said, we've been over this. You are the only one who thinks the way you do. Basically, you are saying that the entire legal profession doesn't understand the concepts of the law, but you do. That's not true at all.

I am not saying that at all. And, if it is that certain why any delays in the administration of justice. It seems any right wing judge would love to inform me of the law.

Why would a judge have to tell you that until he renders his judgement against you? It doesn't matter if he's right or left, he judges on the law, and the law is clear. You can't collect UC.

 

[hadit]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

Ridiculous. It's much more like saying you can buy a gun but can't carry it with you into a shopping mall while a policeman or security guard can. IOW, it's a privilege reserved for those who qualify for it and denied to those who don't. Quitting a job means you don't qualify for UC and never holding a job means you don't qualify for UC, while getting laid off from a job through no fault of your own means you do qualify. That is the plain meaning of the law, and the meaning that the entire legal profession adheres to. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Not at all since employment is at-will with no organizational qualifications required such as active service. And, according to you right wingers, the People may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms.

Employment is at will, you can quit. What you can't do is collect UC. Since you seem to think you can, tell us how much you've collected since you quit.

 

[hadit]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!

Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?

Because by law you cannot collect it. There's nothing stopping you from quitting. Getting paid to do so is a completely separate issue.

By State law gun control regulations may be required restricting access to Arms.

And a state, should it wish to do so, can set up a welfare program that pays you to quit a job. Thus far, none have done so, which clearly means NONE of them think they are required to do so under the law. You are the only one.

 

[hadit]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.

Only right wingers are ignorant of the implications of their alleged subscription to Capitalism where Greed is Good. Why would anyone Want to stay Poor if they didn't have to?

Why would anyone take a job that pays the same as what he could get for not working at all? You seem to think that people will voluntarily give up free money to earn it. Not very many would have the character to do that.

 

[hadit]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.

He's still trying to claim that not getting paid imposes an unfair burden on those who don't want to work. He also claims to have a case open in Sacramento Superior Court on the subject.

Right-wingers keep alleging they believe in being legal to the law in border threads.

Have you gotten a summary judgement yet? BTW, this isn't a border thread, so that's a non-starter right there.

All it takes is Gold under Capitalism to purchase justice and make some rules.

Does that mean you got it or not?

I am working on it.

Be sure to let us know how loudly the judge laughed when he threw your case out.

 

[danielpalos]

See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....

That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.

Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.

The law doesn't say what you want it to say. We've been over this.

Of course it does. You merely don't understand the concepts or the law.

As I said, we've been over this. You are the only one who thinks the way you do. Basically, you are saying that the entire legal profession doesn't understand the concepts of the law, but you do. That's not true at all.

I am not saying that at all. And, if it is that certain why any delays in the administration of justice. It seems any right wing judge would love to inform me of the law.

Why would a judge have to tell you that until he renders his judgement against you? It doesn't matter if he's right or left, he judges on the law, and the law is clear. You can't collect UC.

I am still waiting on that simple summary judgment.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

Ridiculous. It's much more like saying you can buy a gun but can't carry it with you into a shopping mall while a policeman or security guard can. IOW, it's a privilege reserved for those who qualify for it and denied to those who don't. Quitting a job means you don't qualify for UC and never holding a job means you don't qualify for UC, while getting laid off from a job through no fault of your own means you do qualify. That is the plain meaning of the law, and the meaning that the entire legal profession adheres to. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Not at all since employment is at-will with no organizational qualifications required such as active service. And, according to you right wingers, the People may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms.

Employment is at will, you can quit. What you can't do is collect UC. Since you seem to think you can, tell us how much you've collected since you quit.

I can only tell you right-wingers are just plain hypocrites about illegals and illegalities.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!

Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?

Because by law you cannot collect it. There's nothing stopping you from quitting. Getting paid to do so is a completely separate issue.

By State law gun control regulations may be required restricting access to Arms.

And a state, should it wish to do so, can set up a welfare program that pays you to quit a job. Thus far, none have done so, which clearly means NONE of them think they are required to do so under the law. You are the only one.

Nope. You have it completely wrong on that issue. Equal protection of the laws is a Constitutional right.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Even worse than that, he wants to pay people who never work and never intend to work. Total welfare, but he refuses to call it that.

Only right wingers are ignorant of the implications of their alleged subscription to Capitalism where Greed is Good. Why would anyone Want to stay Poor if they didn't have to?

Why would anyone take a job that pays the same as what he could get for not working at all? You seem to think that people will voluntarily give up free money to earn it. Not very many would have the character to do that.

Capitalism, What is That, sayeth the Right-Wing. Greed is Good. Do you Want to be Poor?

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.

He's still trying to claim that not getting paid imposes an unfair burden on those who don't want to work. He also claims to have a case open in Sacramento Superior Court on the subject.

Right-wingers keep alleging they believe in being legal to the law in border threads.

Have you gotten a summary judgement yet? BTW, this isn't a border thread, so that's a non-starter right there.

All it takes is Gold under Capitalism to purchase justice and make some rules.

Does that mean you got it or not?

I am working on it.

Be sure to let us know how loudly the judge laughed when he threw your case out.

They are not laughing since they are running out of excuses.

 

[hadit]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!

Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?

Because by law you cannot collect it. There's nothing stopping you from quitting. Getting paid to do so is a completely separate issue.

By State law gun control regulations may be required restricting access to Arms.

And a state, should it wish to do so, can set up a welfare program that pays you to quit a job. Thus far, none have done so, which clearly means NONE of them think they are required to do so under the law. You are the only one.

Nope. You have it completely wrong on that issue. Equal protection of the laws is a Constitutional right.

No one else believes this fits that description. UC is means tested just like welfare is. You can't change that by imagining something no one else believes.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!

Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?

Because by law you cannot collect it. There's nothing stopping you from quitting. Getting paid to do so is a completely separate issue.

By State law gun control regulations may be required restricting access to Arms.

And a state, should it wish to do so, can set up a welfare program that pays you to quit a job. Thus far, none have done so, which clearly means NONE of them think they are required to do so under the law. You are the only one.

Nope. You have it completely wrong on that issue. Equal protection of the laws is a Constitutional right.

No one else believes this fits that description. UC is means tested just like welfare is. You can't change that by imagining something no one else believes.

The "test" is employment. Our State is an at-will employment State not a, for-Good-Cause State.

 

[hadit]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

For the gazillionth time! You cannot, by law, collect unemployment if you quit your frigging JOB!!!!

Why not, if by law, you can quit on an at-will basis with no legal or moral prejudice?

Because by law you cannot collect it. There's nothing stopping you from quitting. Getting paid to do so is a completely separate issue.

By State law gun control regulations may be required restricting access to Arms.

And a state, should it wish to do so, can set up a welfare program that pays you to quit a job. Thus far, none have done so, which clearly means NONE of them think they are required to do so under the law. You are the only one.

Nope. You have it completely wrong on that issue. Equal protection of the laws is a Constitutional right.

No one else believes this fits that description. UC is means tested just like welfare is. You can't change that by imagining something no one else believes.

The "test" is employment. Our State is an at-will employment State not a, for-Good-Cause State.

Exactly. There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Maybe you really do believe there are brilliant legal minds that agree with you, but you have never cited them or given any indication that they exist. Instead, you duck, dodge and dance when pressed to name one legal scholar who agrees with you. Do it now so we can examine their thoughts and compare them to what other legal minds have to say.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

That you can quit a job or get fired from a job for any reason at all. It emphatically does NOT mean you can subsequently collect UC.

Why not? It is like saying you can buy a gun but can't keep and bear it.

That is absolute nonsense. An employee works for pay. If you cease working, you cease getting paid. The idea that you should be able to work for a brief time, quit, and draw a check for the rest of your life is ludicris.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of economics and the law. Not everyone wants to be Poor when all they need do is find an employer who will pay more.

I applaud anyone who is willing to work for a living. And I think wages should be higher.

But what you want is money without having to work.

You want the requirements for Unemployment Compensation to be abandoned. You want the basic purpose for UC to be abandoned in favor of creating a new system of welfare. All without a means test. And you want UC to be open ended so you can draw it for as long as you want.

And you have said it should be based on $15 per hour for a 40 hour week. That would mean you would make $31,200 for doing absolutely nothing. And get that money without having to show you need it.

Your profile say you are 57 years old. I think everyone knows that is a lie. I put you somewhere under 25 years old. Let's settle on 23, for the sake of easier math.

If you get $31,200 per year until you qualify for Social Security at the age of 63, you will have been given $1,248,000 over that 40 year period. And for what? Not because you needed it. Otherwise a means test would be no problem. Just because you want more money and refuse to work.