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

[Orangecat]

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.

He's a mindlessly repetitive one-trick-pony. Good for target practice when I've got time to kill, though.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

You are assuming the precedent which is usually considered a fallacy.

No it’s not otherwise you would be able to address in court, which it hasn’t, it is the law of the land, so far you have been inept at best in getting the law change, your congressman felt it was a waste of time.

 

[hadit]

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.

He's a mindlessly repetitive one-trick-pony. Good for target practice when I've got time to kill, though.

True. He allows you to set him up and springs the trap, then resets himself as if it never happened.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Right, and "no adverse legal consequences" actually means what these days within this context? Are you suggesting that a lack of income due to self-imposed unemployment is considered a "legal" consequence of something somewhere? If so, perhaps the legal remedy should be to slap oneself silly?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Simply because right wingers say so? You need valid arguments not merely your unsubstantiated opinions. It really is that simple.

Valid already given, you have no clue what a valid argument is as you have none for your idea.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Again, you have absolutely no proof that you idea will solve the homeless problem. Your multiplier for unemployment is off, the multiplier effect is 1.7, however that would lower when those that do not want to work and join the welfare rolls. It doesn't matter where the money comes from it is going to be used for welfare which would drop the multiplier down to .8, not seeing the advantage.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

And yet you haven't proved it to be unconstitutional, when you get it to court and spout your case, then we shall see if it has any basis, my guess is the courts will throw it out and yo will have nothing. Just like the congressman didn't want to touch it, the courts will be the same. You have a nothing burger until you prove to the courts or congress otherwise.

 

[hadit]

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.

Again, you have absolutely no proof that you idea will solve the homeless problem. Your multiplier for unemployment is off, the multiplier effect is 1.7, however that would lower when those that do not want to work and join the welfare rolls. It doesn't matter where the money comes from it is going to be used for welfare which would drop the multiplier down to .8, not seeing the advantage.

That is the correct motorcycle, you cannot fundamentally change UC and expect it to function just like it always has. He does, though.

 

[hadit]

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.

And you have not supported that statement with anything. Not at all, whereas you've been shown over and over how that doesn't influence UC AT ALL. It doesn't even impair at will employment. That just means you can quit your job and they can fire you, end of story. Has nothing to do with collecting UC.

 

[hadit]

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.

And that has nothing to do with collecting UC. They are separate issues.

 

[Blues Man]

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)?

That law only concerns the employment of a person ans not the eligibility to collect unemployment.

 

[Rocko]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The ironic thing is you’re railing against the system that has taken more people out of poverty than any other on record. Don’t believe me? Look at the Chinese over the last 20 years.

 

[harmonica]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

.....hahahahh--as in so many issues, you people do not think realistically ==like armchair generals playing a map game =
....you don't realize we are talking about HUMANS!!! you can give some humans a million $$$ and they will still blow it = poor...they are ''stupid''/etc

 

[Rocko]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

.....hahahahh--as in so many issues, you people do not think realistically ==like armchair generals playing a map game =
....you don't realize we are talking about HUMANS!!! you can give some humans a million $$$ and they will still blow it = poor...they are ''stupid''/etc

Economy’s are living breathing things. It’s best to go with what has worked throughout the course of time rather than make the same mistakes that have been tested and already failed.

 

[harmonica]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

.....another thing, you can create jobs, but that doesn't mean the stupid LAZY humans will be good doing them/etc.....some people don't have the discipline/industriousness/etc to be good workers .......

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Economy’s are living breathing things. It’s best to go with what has worked throughout the course of time rather than make the same mistakes that have been tested and already failed

Because economies are “living breathing things” — they change over time, develop, age and can even die. Over generations large economic institutions and even the capitalist system itself needs to be reborn, and new laws must be developed to deal with new contradictions. Just like every farm and business dies or otherwise becomes interconnected to the larger whole, national economies are integrated with others. This creates whole new physical realities and money circulatory systems.

I don’t want to simplify matters. You probably agree our present “crony capitalist” system is utterly corrupt at many levels. It’s historic nature has changed profoundly. In my opinion classes and individuals without capital today, especially if they lack other supportive social or institutional structures, are lost in modern society. They are like babes alone in the woods, essentially doomed.

There is no built-in guarantee that “modern capitalism” under a national state umbrella of law can work in the future for the great majority of mankind. Stronger international structures of law and trade and a much more powerful social democratic safety net must be extended to the whole human community.

The solutions can’t just be “Unemployment Insurance” and “a high minimum wage” .... of course. But traditional opportunities are disappearing for too many in our high-tech, automated, globalized economy. Demands for “Jobs or basic income,” higher wages, universal medical care, free (equal opportunity) education — these are reasonable and inevitable demands for those left at the bottom of society. The elites who run our corporations and states ought to pay more attention to the welfare of those at the bottom, just as they must pay attention to those in the middle ... being driven to the bottom.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Because right wingers only complain when the less fortunate are "illegal" to the law.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Can you explain how that would happen? Why do you believe fewer people would be circulating less money. We can assume for the sake of simplicity that anyone who is currently homeless and not paying any taxes not even general taxes would be able to obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. Once they have that income, they would be able to participate normally in our market based economy.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.

No State or agency of a State can Constitutionally criminalize (or deny or disparage) something that is legal for all intents and purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

Dude, you are on the right wing and your lips are moving or you are typing on the Internet.

You have to Explain why I am wrong not merely proclaim it because you are on the right wing.