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.
Unemployment compensation would still pay less than actually being employed via free market Capitalism. If anyone wanted to be rich they would need to get a job that pays more or learn how to invest, or start their own business.So you want to give those who refuse to work a LOT of money so you can take back a LITTLE money.
Nope, not the equivalent at all. The legal and physical infrastructure would not change. I am merely referring to economic efficiency of full employment of capital resources.The program itself would not change. We would be using the same legal and physical infrastructure, only the returns to scale would be improved. It would be analogous to improving the efficiency of a governor on an engine. The engine is not changed only the output is improved.You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.
You keep saying that the UC program would not change.
But you are changing how it is funded.
You are changing who is eligible.
You are changing the qualifications for receiving checks.
You are changing the length of time you can draw a check.
Those are all big changes. And welfare already exists.
To use your engine analogy, you want to change the fuel, change the output, change the use of the engine, change who uses the engine, and basically create an engine that duplicates what an existing engine does.
UC is not meant to be long term income. You will never change it into welfare.
That is just You claiming a complete revamping. Nothing much would change. Unemployed persons would still apply for UC like usual. And, any "revamping" would mean employers don't have to keep track of unemployment benefits issues and become simpler for employers. UC is a State issue not an employer issue. So, if by revamping, you mean simplification, then yes it would be a revamping.Why completely revamp a program that works, when there is already one that provides what you say will cure simple poverty? Welfare already provides money to live on and job training.
The point about welfare and our war on poverty is that it is less cost effective. Welfare spending only generates a multiplier of around point eight (.8). while UC has been measured with a multiplier of two. Considering that the cost of our war on poverty has already been around twenty-two trillion dollars it should be, a no brainer, to resort to a more cost effective method of solving simple poverty.
Consider that a multiplier of .8 times the cost of our war on poverty to date, around 22 trillion only generates around 17.6 trillion in economic activity while UC would have generated 44 trillion in economic activity with a multiplier of 2 with that same amount spent.
Only right wingers complain about a rising tide lifting all boats.
Yes, employment is at the will of either party, we should have no homeless problem in our first world economy. Unequal protection of the law due to a less effective public policy scheme is the problem.This is possibly the most famous danielpalos word redefinition. He literally thinks he's facing unequal protection under the law because he has to have been laid off from a job in order to collect UC. Literally.
All right wingers have shown is that they prefer to appeal to ignorance but still want to be Right simply because they are on the right wing.It has been shown to you, over & over, that recreating the UC will not solve homelessness. Why do you persist in your fantasy?
That is not how it works. Even the dollar menu won't double even if the minimum wage does.And increases the cost of what is produced. So fewer people can afford it.
It is your story that is the hogwash. I clearly stated that the Poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. It is that which contributes more to the multiplier effect. Like I have stated and cited previously, UC generates a multiplier of two. That means that for every dollar spent by the unemployed, two dollars of economic activity are generated.So it is a matter of how soon the money is spent? That is absolute hogwash.
For-cause criteria for UC in any at-will employment State. At-will means at the will of either party not just one.What law have the states enacted that have the effect of unequal portection?
I don't. Equal protection of the law is all the socialism we need.Be careful not to commit the equal and opposite problem of abusing labor of the poor or of the rich without their consent.
It doesn't matter. Statutory law makes the private sector a price taker not a price maker. All employers need to is re-evaluate their bottom line and decide how much of that price increase they can pass on to the consumer to remain competitive.Your example isn’t realistic
No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?
businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.
Not for very long.
Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs
Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?
The Point is that right wing canard would be mitigated by persons being able to obtain UC for simply being unemployed. It solves that problem.Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?
I never said hiking the minimum wage never causes layoffs
No shame to my game. I actually believe in market based Capitalism. I would still be paying general taxes if not income taxes on that money. The right wing simply prefers their socialism on a national basis and allege they are not really like that in socialism threads.The OP wants tax dollars to support him while he makes no effort to work. There should be shame in such an attitude.
Why not? Or, should I take your word for it simply because you are on the right wing.That meant nothing at all.The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?
I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
All you have shown is appeals to ignorance not any valid arguments. Simplification is not numerous fundamental changes.Your claims that "Nothing much would change" is utter bullshit. For UC to do what you want there would be numerous fundamental changes, as I have shown.
For-cause criteria for UC in any at-will employment State. At-will means at the will of either party not just one.What law have the states enacted that have the effect of unequal portection?
The Point is that right wing canard would be mitigated by persons being able to obtain UC for simply being unemployed. It solves that problem.Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?
I never said hiking the minimum wage never causes layoffs
All right wingers have shown is that they prefer to appeal to ignorance but still want to be Right simply because they are on the right wing.It has been shown to you, over & over, that recreating the UC will not solve homelessness. Why do you persist in your fantasy?
Why do y'all persist in your (right wing) fallacy?
Tell me, why would equal protection of the laws not be a solution to homelessness. Any homeless person could simply go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation to get off the street not jump through hoops for temporary assistance as they do now.
Homelessness is really bad in many blue cities. What have Red cities done?Why not? Or, should I take your word for it simply because you are on the right wing.That meant nothing at all.The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?
I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
What have the blue cities done to alleviate homelessness, we need to follow their success.
Homelessness is really bad in many blue cities. What have Red cities done?Why not? Or, should I take your word for it simply because you are on the right wing.That meant nothing at all.The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?
I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
What have the blue cities done to alleviate homelessness, we need to follow their success.
No shame to my game. I actually believe in market based Capitalism. I would still be paying general taxes if not income taxes on that money. The right wing simply prefers their socialism on a national basis and allege they are not really like that in socialism threads.The OP wants tax dollars to support him while he makes no effort to work. There should be shame in such an attitude.
