What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[hadit]

You still have to take a lot of money out of the economy, incurring the opportunity cost. Why won't you deal with that?

No money is being taken out of the economy because the Poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Local economies benefit and general taxes are still raised.

A middle class family budgets money to replace the windows in their house. Quid Pro Joe raises their taxes and they can't replace their windows. THAT is the opportunity cost that you are ignoring. IOW, they would spend the money too. Even if they don't spend it directly but invest it, the capital still circulates. All you've done for the economy at large is shift the spending from one person to another, and added layers of bureaucracy on top of everything.

Unfortunately, you have provided a false analogy. Unemployment compensation is equivalent to a stimulus payment. The taxes levied are spent nearly as soon as they are received. Budgeting for a window with no additional income does what you claim. However, if we use your scenario and assume that one of the adults in that middle class family is unemployed, then simply obtaining unemployment compensation would help with budgeting for that window.

You're missing the point, of course, which is that you have to confiscate someone's income in order to provide income for someone else.

 

[Papageorgio]

The OP wants tax dollars to support him while he makes no effort to work. There should be shame in such an attitude.

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.

You claim to believe in market based capitalism, and yet you do not work, do not want to work, and want to live off of other people.

Someone has to, take it for the team. Right wingers are just plain selfish. And, right wingers simply complaining about it any at-will employment State shows Your ethical and moral character more than mine. Just quit and go on unemployment compensation; don't whine about it.

No, they don't have to take it for the team. Unless you are elderly or disabled, you are expected to support yourself. You are welcome to just quit. But you do so without an income from working tax payers.

If you want to talk about ethical and moral character, what does demanding to be paid from other people's labor, while you do nothing, say about yours? If you will not lift a finger to support yourself, why should anyone else give you the fruits of their labor?

However did you get that understanding from the concept of employment at will. Where does it say that?

And, there is no unemployment under Capitalism only underpayment. You simply miss the point about having an Institutional upward pressure on wages.

Besides, with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, you could simply quit and collect unemployment if you don't have the moral fortitude to work for a decent wage and pay taxes on it. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

I know you believe that this is a great idea, you pitched it to some congressmen and he failed to to sponsor anything like it because he knows it won't work.

I'll go with it if you get it passed, so I'd get $14 an hour not to work? Why not $15 an hour like minimum wage? The extra money would help me in my quest of getting paid not to work. Now, if I was a gas station attendant, not working would I get paid the less than a doctor not getting paid to not work? If I could make more, I would want hourly money not salary, because I plan on not working a lot of overtime, if my wife and I don't work overtime will we make time and a half for not working? That way we would be able to enjoy our life with little to no decline in our style of living. I figure with my wife and I not working and not working overtime, we could make over $140,000 a year not working, then that would be a nice change of pace.

 

[WinterBorn]

And that's where you are completely wrong because you're tying together things that are not related that closely. Tell us this, which UC law has been found to be unconstitutional? You are no more credible in making that claim than you would be if you claimed laws forbidding you from parking in a handicapped space are unconstitutional.

Now, please explain why you believe the "controlling law is employment at the will of either party". Why does that principle control the principle that you can be compensated for being laid off but not for quitting a job?

Your whole premise revolves around the assumption that all laws enacted must be necessary and proper and good instead of just plain wrong. Black codes were wrong, and so was the Dred Scott decision.

Simply requiring for-cause criteria is repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the Will of Either party. It is a self-evident Truth.

Simply because States are forbidden to impair in the obligation of contracts. At-will employment is a contractual obligation between the parties involved. There is no requirement to work or hire. Unemployment compensation is simply compensation for being unemployed under a truer and more effective understanding of the law.

No, it is not repugnant. What is repugnant is you thinking that violating the agreement between you and your employer has no consequences.

I have known several people, over the years, who were fired for cause. They had repeatedly violated safety rules on the jobsites. There is nothing there that is prosecutable under criminal laws. But blatantly violating safety rules could mean the death of fellow employees. And you think these people, who risked the lives of other employees, should continue to be paid? No.

 

[danielpalos]

I pay a certain amount of taxes every year. My neighbor pays a different amount. Is that equal protection of the law?

No, that is just You begging the question. There is no equal payment of taxes laws on the books. We have a progressive tax system. Have anything more relevant and less of a non sequitur?

So, IOW, you admit that a law can be written that treats people differently because of criteria. The same is true of labor law.

Labor is not income. The difference under Capitalism is that not everything costs the same. Price differentials are legal.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no idea why you think that, or why you think being able to quit and still draw UC is equal protection of the law.

I actually understand what employment at the will of either party means.

They are different subjects. You can quit a job whenever you want. You don't get to collect UC if you do. Two different things and you trying to redefine words doesn't make the case.

I would have to be illegal in quitting in an at-will employment State. Being Faithful to our at-will employment laws cannot result in moral or legal prejudice by any State for any benefits administered by the State.

If you are fired for cause, you violated the contractual agreement between you and your employer. That stops any obligation for you to be paid.

 

[Papageorgio]

Equal protection of the law means employees should be able bear true witness to our own at-will employment laws and simply quit, and still receive unemployment compensation.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Technically. Again, in practice.. sorry, but I'm apparently appealing to my much greater depth of experience and understanding. Between the two of us, you are either the ignorant one or just deliberately kidding yourself.

Through unequal protection of the law, like I said. I am not the one appealing to ignorance of Constitutional law.

"Appeal to ignorance" is an informal logical fallacy. Like "UC" it means something quite specific. That something being decidedly not the way you've been abusing it.

You have to show how I have been using it wrong not just claiming it and expect to be Right simply because you are on the right wing. Only lazy slackers who blame the Poor, do that.

We have over and over and over again, the fact you can't mentally accept the correction is no reflection on anyone but you and your wanting to be ignorant forsake of a cause.

 

[danielpalos]

Okay, dude. Here's the bottom line. Are you going to claim that minor children are covered by UC laws and should be getting $15/hr for being unemployed? Because if you do, you're stupid. If you don't, you've applied means testing criteria and blown your whole argument, because if YOUR criteria can be applied so that a law does not apply to a subset of people, so can others.

I am claiming that a minor would have to apply for emancipation to help out his poor old mother. It is not stupid at all, you are merely resorting to fallacy with your bias and think you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

No. That is not what you are claiming. You are claiming that anyone who is unemployed should be collecting UC, and you are claiming that means testing criteria are unconstitutional. That means that you are claiming children should be collecting UC because they are unemployed. Now you are trying to duck and say that children should NOT be considered unemployed. That means you're introducing means testing, and if you can introduce it others can as well. UC law is written to apply only to those who are laid off from a job through no fault of their own, and it is constitutional. Therefore, you have no leg left to stand on.

That is not my claim but you begging the question. Typical of the right wing. Child labor was already abolished.

 

[danielpalos]

That means nothing.

You have nothing, for rebuttal.

 

[hadit]

And that's where you are completely wrong because you're tying together things that are not related that closely. Tell us this, which UC law has been found to be unconstitutional? You are no more credible in making that claim than you would be if you claimed laws forbidding you from parking in a handicapped space are unconstitutional.

Now, please explain why you believe the "controlling law is employment at the will of either party". Why does that principle control the principle that you can be compensated for being laid off but not for quitting a job?

Your whole premise revolves around the assumption that all laws enacted must be necessary and proper and good instead of just plain wrong. Black codes were wrong, and so was the Dred Scott decision.

Simply requiring for-cause criteria is repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the Will of Either party. It is a self-evident Truth.

Simply because States are forbidden to impair in the obligation of contracts. At-will employment is a contractual obligation between the parties involved. There is no requirement to work or hire. Unemployment compensation is simply compensation for being unemployed under a truer and more effective understanding of the law.

IOW, the written text of the law doesn't matter when you decide for yourself what the law ought to actually mean. Can you cite a single legal decision that supports your assertion?

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the law means employees should be able bear true witness to our own at-will employment laws and simply quit, and still receive unemployment compensation.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Technically. Again, in practice.. sorry, but I'm apparently appealing to my much greater depth of experience and understanding. Between the two of us, you are either the ignorant one or just deliberately kidding yourself.

Through unequal protection of the law, like I said. I am not the one appealing to ignorance of Constitutional law.

Okay, as written your claim means that children should be getting UC payments. Is that what you intend? If so, quit and go home right now. If not, admit that you've applied means testing criteria and your whole argument is gone.

Children would have to qualify for emancipation to be treated as adults. Is there a cost savings to the taxpayer for that course of action over regular means tested welfare?

Whoops, you're talking about means testing criteria. Now you are saying that the law does NOT apply to everyone, but only to adults. If you can use criteria to exclude people from protection of the law, so can others. You have no leg left to stand on and UC law as written is constitutional.

Child labor laws are already on the books. Employment usually involves competent adults. And, the remedy is already available, all a minor would need do is petition for emancipation to be treated as an adult.

 

[hadit]

Okay, dude. Here's the bottom line. Are you going to claim that minor children are covered by UC laws and should be getting $15/hr for being unemployed? Because if you do, you're stupid. If you don't, you've applied means testing criteria and blown your whole argument, because if YOUR criteria can be applied so that a law does not apply to a subset of people, so can others.

I am claiming that a minor would have to apply for emancipation to help out his poor old mother. It is not stupid at all, you are merely resorting to fallacy with your bias and think you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

No. That is not what you are claiming. You are claiming that anyone who is unemployed should be collecting UC, and you are claiming that means testing criteria are unconstitutional. That means that you are claiming children should be collecting UC because they are unemployed. Now you are trying to duck and say that children should NOT be considered unemployed. That means you're introducing means testing, and if you can introduce it others can as well. UC law is written to apply only to those who are laid off from a job through no fault of their own, and it is constitutional. Therefore, you have no leg left to stand on.

That is not my claim but you begging the question. Typical of the right wing. Child labor was already abolished.

No, you are well and truly caught, because you want to apply means testing criteria, but deny that any other than what you apply are valid. You insisted that there be no means testing whatsoever, and now you want means testing. If children can be excluded, so can adults who quit a job or never held one.

 

[Orangecat]

I'm just gonna go through and thumbs down all your posts, daniel. You clearly have no understanding of economics.

Have a good morning.

I'm just putting laughing emojis on all his word-salad posts.

 

[danielpalos]

So if your employer catches you sleeping on the job, stealing from the company, or sexually harassing other employees, you should still get paid??

Nope. Not going to happen.

It depends on whether or not criminal charges are filed and the person spends time in custody. That is not being unemployed but paying for that crime. Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party and the employer can discharge someone for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all.

No. When you are hired you agree to abide by the policies and rules of the employer. If you violate those rules, you have violated the contract between employee and employer. You do not get paid for that.

Where does it say that in the labor code? Employers can fire someone for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. It is like impeachment in that it only results in removal from employment. For-cause criteria in an at-will employment State is unConstitutional for equal protection of the law purposes.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Equal protection of the law means employees should be able bear true witness to our own at-will employment laws and simply quit, and still receive unemployment compensation.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Technically. Again, in practice.. sorry, but I'm apparently appealing to my much greater depth of experience and understanding. Between the two of us, you are either the ignorant one or just deliberately kidding yourself.

Through unequal protection of the law, like I said. I am not the one appealing to ignorance of Constitutional law.

"Appeal to ignorance" is an informal logical fallacy. Like "UC" it means something quite specific. That something being decidedly not the way you've been abusing it.

You have to show how I have been using it wrong not just claiming it and expect to be Right simply because you are on the right wing. Only lazy slackers who blame the Poor, do that.

No, it ain't rocket science and I've patiently done more than enough in that regard. Good luck with your one man island crusade here.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you don't get to quit work because you don't have the moral fortitude to work for a living. If you are not elderly or disabled, society expects you to provide for yourself.

Employment is at the will of either party. There is no for-cause criteria attached to it. And, under Capitalism if you want someone to work you need to pay an attractive wage. Your alleged morals mean nothing under Capitalism where Greed is Good.

My morals are not the issue. Violating your agreement with your employer is the issue.

There may be no "for cause criteria" attached to the at will employment. But there is a "for cause" criteria attached to UC. If you are fired for violating your contract (verbal or written) with your employer, you do not get to collect UC. That is the way it is, and the way it will likely stay.

And, that for-cause criteria is a violation of due process since States may not impair in the obligation of at-will employment Contracts by attaching for-cause criteria.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

[Papageorgio]

You still have to take a lot of money out of the economy, incurring the opportunity cost. Why won't you deal with that?

No money is being taken out of the economy because the Poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Local economies benefit and general taxes are still raised.

A middle class family budgets money to replace the windows in their house. Quid Pro Joe raises their taxes and they can't replace their windows. THAT is the opportunity cost that you are ignoring. IOW, they would spend the money too. Even if they don't spend it directly but invest it, the capital still circulates. All you've done for the economy at large is shift the spending from one person to another, and added layers of bureaucracy on top of everything.

Unfortunately, you have provided a false analogy. Unemployment compensation is equivalent to a stimulus payment. The taxes levied are spent nearly as soon as they are received. Budgeting for a window with no additional income does what you claim. However, if we use your scenario and assume that one of the adults in that middle class family is unemployed, then simply obtaining unemployment compensation would help with budgeting for that window.

Why do we need a window?

 

[danielpalos]

LOL. No one's presumed any strike taking place after discharge but you. To the contrary, I picture someone trying to exercising this "right" you've granted all by starting a strike at work, getting fired for it, beaten, and hauled off the premises. History should provide a clue here.. ya think? The point, exactly as posited, goes to equality of treatment before the law. If one party is allowed to hire and fire then so must the all be granted the exact same privilege. That alone constitutes equal treatment. Like most legal abstractions in this country, "At will" is happy sounding bullshit that exists for the haves alone. But it's a "free" country. Go on thinking you know so much better.

It is You projecting and begging the question. I am claiming someone could merely quit and collect unemployment if they don't like their job instead of striking. The economic effect would be, an institutional upward pressure on wages regardless of any union collective bargaining.

 

[Papageorgio]

And that's where you are completely wrong because you're tying together things that are not related that closely. Tell us this, which UC law has been found to be unconstitutional? You are no more credible in making that claim than you would be if you claimed laws forbidding you from parking in a handicapped space are unconstitutional.

Now, please explain why you believe the "controlling law is employment at the will of either party". Why does that principle control the principle that you can be compensated for being laid off but not for quitting a job?

Your whole premise revolves around the assumption that all laws enacted must be necessary and proper and good instead of just plain wrong. Black codes were wrong, and so was the Dred Scott decision.

Simply requiring for-cause criteria is repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the Will of Either party. It is a self-evident Truth.

Simply because States are forbidden to impair in the obligation of contracts. At-will employment is a contractual obligation between the parties involved. There is no requirement to work or hire. Unemployment compensation is simply compensation for being unemployed under a truer and more effective understanding of the law.

I see why you believe it works, but the fact is the current laws are constitutional and therefore they provide equal protection for both the employer and the employee, if not you could take your idea to courts and see how it plays out. You won't get far but if you believe in it, then you need to get out there and make it happen instead of typing on a keyboard in your bunker basement.

 

[hadit]

Equal protection of the law means employees should be able bear true witness to our own at-will employment laws and simply quit, and still receive unemployment compensation.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Technically. Again, in practice.. sorry, but I'm apparently appealing to my much greater depth of experience and understanding. Between the two of us, you are either the ignorant one or just deliberately kidding yourself.

Through unequal protection of the law, like I said. I am not the one appealing to ignorance of Constitutional law.

Okay, as written your claim means that children should be getting UC payments. Is that what you intend? If so, quit and go home right now. If not, admit that you've applied means testing criteria and your whole argument is gone.

Children would have to qualify for emancipation to be treated as adults. Is there a cost savings to the taxpayer for that course of action over regular means tested welfare?

Whoops, you're talking about means testing criteria. Now you are saying that the law does NOT apply to everyone, but only to adults. If you can use criteria to exclude people from protection of the law, so can others. You have no leg left to stand on and UC law as written is constitutional.

Child labor laws are already on the books. Employment usually involves competent adults. And, the remedy is already available, all a minor would need do is petition for emancipation to be treated as an adult.

Sorry, but now you're ASSUMING (by saying "usually") that criteria can exclude people but that's not the way the law works. The law goes by the actual written text. Why do you think you argue about the 2nd Amendment all the time? It's because it's not written out exhaustively to explain every single contingency, but laws written regarding it cannot violate it. And that's why defense lawyers study laws so carefully, to see if their client can claim the law doesn't cover his circumstance. No, you claimed for a very long time that there can be no means testing of UC, and now you're admitting that there can. Means testing is part of virtually every law written, because most laws don't apply to every person. Your entire argument hinges on your personal interpretation of the word "unemployment", beyond which you refuse to venture, even though the laws are written to define what "unemployment" means in the context of the law and who qualifies for it. Sorry, but until you can present a legal decision to the contrary, UC law is constitutional.

 

[danielpalos]

You're missing the point, of course, which is that you have to confiscate someone's income in order to provide income for someone else.

I am not missing the point about that. You are missing the point that even confiscating someone's money via taxes to provide an income for someone else has the net effect of a stimulus to an economy not a deterrent. The proof is that unemployment compensation has already been measured to have multiplier of two. A stimulus to an economy not a deterrent to an economy.