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

[hadit]

There is your fallacy. The two are linked only in your mind, not by law. Therefore, it is a fallacy for you to continue screeching about unequal protection of the law. UC law is clear on who qualifies to collect benefits and has not been found to be unconstitutional. You would be a lot more convincing if you simply stated that you would like to collect UC if you are fired from a job for cause. That would be honest and a lot more respectable than this endless nattering about the law not being applied equally, because it IS applied exactly as it is written. If you get laid off, you can collect. Otherwise, no, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the state having at will employment, nothing. You're constructing the linkage because it's the only way you can justify your stance, but it doesn't exist.

The point is, there is no basis to create extra-legal laws, rules, regulations, etc. that have the effect of denying and disparaging equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

There is no such effect in UC law. Show me where it is, and don't bother just repeating your nonsense phrases, they mean nothing.

 

[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?

The legal point is equal protection of the laws. The economic point is that unemployment compensation generates a multiplier of 2 versus a multiplier of .8 for general welfare spending including common defense spending.

Only the right wing doesn't get it.

I've reposted the context you stripped to help you better focus. I repeat:

"no adverse legal consequences" actually means what these days within this context?​

You've yet to answer. I ask because I don't believe that legalese indicates anything like what you appear to imagine. By the way, the 2.0 vs 0.8 "multiplier" findings you cite are from a study of something very different from your proposal here. Apples vs Oranges. The application was clearly limited to emergency response. Never studied, applied to, nor intended to bear upon any capitalist "market" in general. FAICT, you're shooting blindly from the hip here. And I find that sad because I do think there's merit to introducing welfare reform legislation, especially to address the kind of poverty currently being created by hard core union (working people) haters like Amazon, Uber, WalMart, etc.. I recall someone (probably Blues Man) recently daring anyone to list big corporations that pay only "$7" per hour. Look hard at the chicken and insurance industries which have also long enjoyed packing people into deadly boring, unhealthy warehouses.. not to mention migrant farm work, waiting tables for tips, cleaning hotels..

 

[Grumblenuts]

It wasn't all that long along ago.. You could work at one job, put ten percent in the bank, "earn" an additional five or six percent interest, spend some having fun, and pay your dad back for the car loan with the rest. Now you need half a $million per month just to rent an apartment in Manhattan.

 

[harmonica]

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

Right wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

Left wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

 

[danielpalos]

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

Right wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

What does that have to do with anything you just posted? Are you claiming your congressman is a liar?

I should have doubled checked what a right winger typed on the Internet, to begin with.

California Senate

Senate Rule 22.5

Not more than 40 bills in the [two-year] regular session

California Assembly

Assembly Rule 49

Not more than 50 bills in the [two-year] regular session

So you are talking state or US? I’m talking federal. I don’t care what California does, I don’t nor will I ever live there.

EDD is an Agency of the State not the federal government.

 

[danielpalos]

No it indicates that during a recession or economic downturn such as the coronavirus era, the unemployment compensation has a positive effect, it says nothing about how it would work in a good economy, which would be less.

Only because less people would be on it during a period of low unemployment. We still had homeless even with the lowest unemployment in recent history.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course I can. UC is very clear, you can collect if you are laid off from your job.

First things first. Where does it say that in the labor code?

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.

Only one law has precedence in Any conflict of laws.

There is no conflict. Literally, there is none. You haven't shown where there is any, you just keep repeating it. Look at my scenarios and give me yours. Show me where there is conflict.

The law is employment at the will of either party, not employment for good cause.

 

[danielpalos]

There is your fallacy. The two are linked only in your mind, not by law. Therefore, it is a fallacy for you to continue screeching about unequal protection of the law. UC law is clear on who qualifies to collect benefits and has not been found to be unconstitutional. You would be a lot more convincing if you simply stated that you would like to collect UC if you are fired from a job for cause. That would be honest and a lot more respectable than this endless nattering about the law not being applied equally, because it IS applied exactly as it is written. If you get laid off, you can collect. Otherwise, no, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the state having at will employment, nothing. You're constructing the linkage because it's the only way you can justify your stance, but it doesn't exist.

The point is, there is no basis to create extra-legal laws, rules, regulations, etc. that have the effect of denying and disparaging equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

There is no such effect in UC law. Show me where it is, and don't bother just repeating your nonsense phrases, they mean nothing.

I have a difficult taking you seriously because you are so frivolous in your arguments.

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

 

[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.

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?

The legal point is equal protection of the laws. The economic point is that unemployment compensation generates a multiplier of 2 versus a multiplier of .8 for general welfare spending including common defense spending.

Only the right wing doesn't get it.

I've reposted the context you stripped to help you better focus. I repeat:

"no adverse legal consequences" actually means what these days within this context?​

You've yet to answer. I ask because I don't believe that legalese indicates anything like what you appear to imagine. By the way, the 2.0 vs 0.8 "multiplier" findings you cite are from a study of something very different from your proposal here. Apples vs Oranges. The application was clearly limited to emergency response. Never studied, applied to, nor intended to bear upon any capitalist "market" in general. FAICT, you're shooting blindly from the hip here. And I find that sad because I do think there's merit to introducing welfare reform legislation, especially to address the kind of poverty currently being created by hard core union (working people) haters like Amazon, Uber, WalMart, etc.. I recall someone (probably Blues Man) recently daring anyone to list big corporations that pay only "$7" per hour. Look hard at the chicken and insurance industries which have also long enjoyed packing people into deadly boring, unhealthy warehouses.. not to mention migrant farm work, waiting tables for tips, cleaning hotels..

It means what it has always meant. No moral or legal prejudice regarding faithful execution of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

The economic point is about solving simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare in that market friendly manner instead of waging an endless, war on poverty no emergency required. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and full employment of capital resources in any economy is a desirable thing because it promotes and provides for the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

Right wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

Left wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

Says a Right Winger typing on the Internet.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"no adverse legal consequences" actually means what these days within this context?

It means what it has always meant. No moral or legal prejudice regarding faithful execution of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

So that's what you think "no adverse legal consequences" means, despite there being no mention of "at will" in my question, nor morality for that matter. I can easily grant you "legal prejudice" because "legal" was an explicit given. What I don't notice is any connection or mention of "money" and / or "compensation." I submit there's clearly a reason for that.

 

[danielpalos]

So that's what you think "no adverse legal consequences" means, despite there being no mention of "at will" in my question, nor morality for that matter. I

Are you trying to be frivolous? We are discussing employment at the will of either party.

 

[danielpalos]

What I don't notice is any connection or mention of "money" and / or "compensation." I submit there's clearly a reason for that.

It is about unemployment compensation that is administered by an Agency of a State.

 

[WinterBorn]

What I don't notice is any connection or mention of "money" and / or "compensation." I submit there's clearly a reason for that.

It is about unemployment compensation that is administered by an Agency of a State.

You are still arguing this crap?

You want a check for doing nothing. Good for you. But it won't happen by changing the entire unemployment compensation to fit what you need.

You would be better off trying to remove the means test from welfare. It won't happen, but it would make more sense.

 

[danielpalos]

What I don't notice is any connection or mention of "money" and / or "compensation." I submit there's clearly a reason for that.

It is about unemployment compensation that is administered by an Agency of a State.

You are still arguing this crap?

You want a check for doing nothing. Good for you. But it won't happen by changing the entire unemployment compensation to fit what you need.

You would be better off trying to remove the means test from welfare. It won't happen, but it would make more sense.

It isn't crap simply because you say so. I believe in bearing true witness to our own laws or in removing the laws that are repugnant to promoting and providing for the general welfare.

Means tested welfare and unemployment compensation are two different programs meant for two different things. Stop appealing to ignorance and wanting to be taken seriously.

 

[WinterBorn]

What I don't notice is any connection or mention of "money" and / or "compensation." I submit there's clearly a reason for that.

It is about unemployment compensation that is administered by an Agency of a State.

You are still arguing this crap?

You want a check for doing nothing. Good for you. But it won't happen by changing the entire unemployment compensation to fit what you need.

You would be better off trying to remove the means test from welfare. It won't happen, but it would make more sense.

It isn't crap simply because you say so. I believe in bearing true witness to our own laws or in removing the laws that are repugnant to promoting and providing for the general welfare.

Means tested welfare and unemployment compensation are two different programs meant for two different things. Stop appealing to ignorance and wanting to be taken seriously.

You are correct about welfare and UC being two different programs for two different things.

UC is temporary assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Welfare is longer term assistance for people who need it. Hence the means test.

There is no program to support people who do not want to work and will not look for a job. You continually talk about the natural rate of unemployment for capitalism. And there is a low rate of unemployment even in the best of times. But in order for that to have any bearing on this topic, you will have to show that the same people remain unemployed despite their best efforts to get jobs. And you can't.

 

[danielpalos]

UC is temporary assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Only because of legacy issues and less effective management of our economy. Unemployment compensation should be compensation for being unemployed. And it could be with equal protection of our own employment at the will of either party laws.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no program to support people who do not want to work and will not look for a job. You continually talk about the natural rate of unemployment for capitalism. And there is a low rate of unemployment even in the best of times. But in order for that to have any bearing on this topic, you will have to show that the same people remain unemployed despite their best efforts to get jobs. And you can't.

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We have no State laws regarding employment as wage-slaves. The bearing on this topic is equal protection of our own laws. It really is that simple. There is no other issue to consider regarding this topic.

And, you need a valid argument to show how equal protection of the laws doesn't promote or provide for the general welfare not simply false, right wing alleged morality.

 

[Papageorgio]

What does a political label have to do with the conversation?

Right wingers seem to be liars every time their lips move or they type on the Internet.

What does that have to do with anything you just posted? Are you claiming your congressman is a liar?

I should have doubled checked what a right winger typed on the Internet, to begin with.

California Senate

Senate Rule 22.5

Not more than 40 bills in the [two-year] regular session

California Assembly

Assembly Rule 49

Not more than 50 bills in the [two-year] regular session

So you are talking state or US? I’m talking federal. I don’t care what California does, I don’t nor will I ever live there.

EDD is an Agency of the State not the federal government.

What is EDD? I thought you were talking about a federal plan, not a state plan. The federal unemployment would not contribute to a state for this. You mean you took this to a California state representative and he said he couldn’t get this through?

 

[Papageorgio]

No it indicates that during a recession or economic downturn such as the coronavirus era, the unemployment compensation has a positive effect, it says nothing about how it would work in a good economy, which would be less.

Only because less people would be on it during a period of low unemployment. We still had homeless even with the lowest unemployment in recent history.

So then it is obvious the multiplier would reduce as the articles stated.