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

[danielpalos]

Did you bother to check out the link I posted that defined the multiplier effect and the damage done to the economy when private sector spending drops off?

It was irrelevant since more people will be circulating more money if they can obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

 

[danielpalos]

Show me the legal opinion that creates that linkage, because thus far all you have is you insisting it's there when it's not. You argue as if this is settled law when the opposite is true.

I am not claiming it is settled law. I am claiming it is an impairment to equal protection of the law (regarding employment at the will of either party) which is unConstitutional.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're claiming a lot of things. That's a new one. A new variation on the theme anyway. Like it or not, your sales technique really sucks. You need to sell far more specifically how society as a whole would still function and benefit. Saying, in effect, Gee whiz fellas, I really, really believe that just doing this will solve all that! appeals only to gullible fools.

Capitalism, what is That sayeth the right wing. Right wingers keep proving they don't really believe in voluntary social transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade.

We would not need statutory minimum wage laws.

We would have no homeless problem.

There would be an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

Our economy would be better stabilized automatically.

The multiplier is 2 for unemployment compensation versus .8 for general government spending including defense spending.

It would be more cost effective than what we have now and labor including unemployed potential labor would be much more efficiently allocated.

Costs to the employer would be reduced and employers would have more motivated labor instead of labor who is required to work.

Litigation costs would also be reduced since labor could simply quit and collect unemployment compenstead of becoming disgruntled by being required to work.

More people would be able to go to school to improve their skills and command a better wage.

Less people causing traffic delays by not having to commute.

Local area business would have more customer traffic since more people such as the homeless would have an income.

That is all I could think of for starters.

Thanks, but seems more like you've just repeated yourself. (cut & paste). So now provide evidence (research results) supporting what you see as your key points from the above, Then play devil's advocate and skewer yourself until your devil self is dead. Or don't. Your prerogative.



Yep, I went there.

 

[danielpalos]

correct but if an employee is fired for cause or quits he most likely won't be able to collect unemployment.

Why not? How is that not a violation of due process in an at-will employment State.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

The law is the law, unless it is about the Poor (for labor as the least wealthy in our republic)?

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Typically, it just seems right wingers are just plain political liars when their lips are moving or they are typing on the internet. Should I believe your "gospel Truth" more than mine?

I have no "gospel truth", just my own opinions. The funny thing to me is that you don't even realize what a silly, garbled broken record your posts are.

Really? I only notice right wingers are lying when their lips are moving or they type on the Internet.

 

[Orangecat]

Really? I only notice right wingers are lying when their lips are moving or they type on the Internet.

Such an original thinker... Lol.

 

[danielpalos]

The law is employment at the will of either party.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

The process is clear.

Uh huh. Here sparky.. not that you really care..

II. Common Law Exceptions to the At-Will Presumption

Over the years, courts have carved out exceptions to the at-will presumption to mitigate its sometimes harsh consequences. The three major common law exceptions are public policy, implied contract, and implied covenant of good faith.

- More -

And there's much more.. Shall we now begin pretending this is Harvard vs Yale online?

Equal protection of this understanding is all I am concerned with:

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you lying again?

Post the statutory law that makes the private sector a price taker, liar.

Any minimum wage law does that. I don't need to lie, I am not on the right wing.

You're lying.

And you wan't post the law because that will prove you're lying.

Liar.

 

[danielpalos]

You're claiming a lot of things. That's a new one. A new variation on the theme anyway. Like it or not, your sales technique really sucks. You need to sell far more specifically how society as a whole would still function and benefit. Saying, in effect, Gee whiz fellas, I really, really believe that just doing this will solve all that! appeals only to gullible fools.

Capitalism, what is That sayeth the right wing. Right wingers keep proving they don't really believe in voluntary social transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade.

We would not need statutory minimum wage laws.

We would have no homeless problem.

There would be an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

Our economy would be better stabilized automatically.

The multiplier is 2 for unemployment compensation versus .8 for general government spending including defense spending.

It would be more cost effective than what we have now and labor including unemployed potential labor would be much more efficiently allocated.

Costs to the employer would be reduced and employers would have more motivated labor instead of labor who is required to work.

Litigation costs would also be reduced since labor could simply quit and collect unemployment compenstead of becoming disgruntled by being required to work.

More people would be able to go to school to improve their skills and command a better wage.

Less people causing traffic delays by not having to commute.

Local area business would have more customer traffic since more people such as the homeless would have an income.

That is all I could think of for starters.

Thanks, but seems more like you've just repeated yourself. (cut & paste). So now provide evidence (research results) supporting what you see as your key points from the above, Then play devil's advocate and skewer yourself until your devil self is dead. Or don't. Your prerogative.



Yep, I went there.

Those were the positive results. Unemployment compensation has a multiplier of 2 compared to general welfare spending and common defense spending of .8.

And, that form of full employment of capital resources means a more efficient economy.

 

[hadit]

So are truck and bus driving laws, but the principle is the same in that the laws are not written to apply to everyone. You don't get to pick and choose, either laws can be written to apply to specific people in specific circumstances or they cannot. If you claim they cannot, then you must complain that truck drivers are being unfairly oppressed by the law because they can't drive 18 hours straight while you can in your car. And if the laws can be so written, UC laws that restrict collection to only those laid off from jobs are constitutional. You have yet to provide a legal opinion that supports your assertion.

The law is employment at the will of either party, regardless. A lack of equal protection of the law is unConstitutional since no State nor any Agency of any State has any authority to deny or disparage equal protection of the law for any benefits administered by the State.

Dude, you just keep senselessly repeating that as if it means something. It does not. There has been no constitutional challenge of UC law because no legal mind in the country believes it to be unconstitutional. You are the only one and you are wrong. Whether you can be fired from a job has no bearing on whether you can collect UC.

 

[hadit]

What is the process? What you quoted says nothing about process, it merely establishes that employment may be terminated by either party and defines employment for a specified term. State the process that you think is so clear, and then explain why it has anything to do with the state deciding whether you qualify for UC or not.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

So freaking what? That has nothing to do with whether you can collect UC. You haven't demonstrated how they are connected beyond robotically repeating that they are despite having mountains of evidence they are not.

 

[Orangecat]

Equal protection of this understanding is all I am concerned with:

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

Why are you so concerned over that?

 

[danielpalos]

And you wan't post the law because that will prove you're lying.

Only right wingers are that frivolous.
Isn't is a self-evident truth that statutory laws must be complied with or a penalty could ensue? Is it legal to pay less than the minimum wage, ceteris paribus?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you bother to check out the link I posted that defined the multiplier effect and the damage done to the economy when private sector spending drops off?

It was irrelevant since more people will be circulating more money if they can obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

more people will be circulating more money if they can obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Fewer people will be circulating less money if we pay unlimited unemployment compensation to bums for never working.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, you just keep senselessly repeating that as if it means something. It does not. There has been no constitutional challenge of UC law because no legal mind in the country believes it to be unconstitutional. You are the only one and you are wrong. Whether you can be fired from a job has no bearing on whether you can collect UC.

It will be overturned eventually. Will that mean right wingers were just plain wrong and full of fallacy the whole time?

 

[hadit]

Collecting UC is a completely different matter.

Not without impairing due process in any at-will employment State. There is no other controlling law in an at-will employment States.

Show how the principle of at will employment "control" UC law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you wan't post the law because that will prove you're lying.

Only right wingers are that frivolous.
Isn't is a self-evident truth that statutory laws must be complied with or a penalty could ensue? Is it legal to pay less than the minimum wage, ceteris paribus?

You don't even understand the definition of price taker, do you? LOL!

Are you off your meds? Or is your gibberish something else?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Equal protection of this understanding is all I am concerned with:

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

Why are you so concerned over that?

I think he once quit a job and couldn't collect unemployment.

He's been angry about it for decades now.

 

[hadit]

Equal protection of this understanding is all I am concerned with:

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

Why are you so concerned over that?

He's trying to set up a false dynamic where he can claim that being fired from a job or quitting qualifies him to collect UC. There's no legal linkage, but he keeps insisting there is and that at will employment somehow overrides UC law. It's one of his hardest held doctrines and he's not deviated from it at all.

 

[hadit]

Dude, you just keep senselessly repeating that as if it means something. It does not. There has been no constitutional challenge of UC law because no legal mind in the country believes it to be unconstitutional. You are the only one and you are wrong. Whether you can be fired from a job has no bearing on whether you can collect UC.

It will be overturned eventually. Will that mean right wingers were just plain wrong and full of fallacy the whole time?

No, it will mean that legal opinion has reversed itself. Now, from where do you see this overturning coming from? Are you going to launch the lawsuit and get laughed out of court?