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

[danielpalos]

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?

Unemployment compensation is typically administered by the several States. Employment at will laws are also enacted by the States. At the federal level it is a doctrine.

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.

The primary reason for federal involvement and coordination is that States cannot print their own money.

And, I believe my State representative believed it would be too much work politically to get it passed in the legislature. Right wingers on this very board are an example of the difficulty, and imagine that all the right wingers participating in this thread could simply vote yea or nay regardless of whether or not they have any valid arguments.

 

[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.

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

Only because there would be fewer unemployed persons and more employed persons. We still had a homeless problem even with the lowest unemployment in recent history.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

"We"? Everyone else seems to understand that "employment" is a contractual arrangement where only one party pays, hires, lays off, and fires. The other party ("employee") performs some task or other at the discretion of the hirer ("employer"). If no such task gets performed then no "compensation" is legally called for. Period. To put it even more plainly, the legally due compensation for doing nothing is nothing.

If things were as you imagine the employee could fire the employer who could then turn around and demand "Unemployment Compensation" from the employee. "At Will, baby!" That's you. Beyond frivolous. Ridiculous. Forget that crap and start fresh. There is no such thing as a "Free Market." Never has been. Get that sorted and maybe we can talk..

 

[Grumblenuts]

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We have no State laws regarding employment as wage-slaves.

There's no requirement to work in a non at-will employment State either. That should give you pause.. as in.. Gee, maybe I really don't know WTF I'm talking about?

At-will is not about slavery in any sense, you idiot.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Lol! I have never taken you seriously because

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.

Only because there would be fewer unemployed persons and more employed persons. We still had a homeless problem even with the lowest unemployment in recent history.

Your idea won’t begin to solve the homeless problems in this country. So are you talking nationally or just California?

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Notice how the employer is protected financially {"legal liability"}. Whereas, the employee gets stuck with a useless rock {"no adverse legal consequences"}.

You only imagine these laws being fair to all parties. That was never the intention. There's never been a level playing field. The fix has always been in. The Haves play while the Have Nots work. That's not going to magically change by tweaking a law here and there.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

Unemployment compensation is typically administered by the several States. Employment at will laws are also enacted by the States. At the federal level it is a doctrine.

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.

The primary reason for federal involvement and coordination is that States cannot print their own money.

And, I believe my State representative believed it would be too much work politically to get it passed in the legislature. Right wingers on this very board are an example of the difficulty, and imagine that all the right wingers participating in this thread could simply vote yea or nay regardless of whether or not they have any valid arguments.

BS! A California state legislator didn’t put the bill up in a state where the state legislature is heavily democratic and he is worried about right wingers? Lol! You are either being dishonest or you are incredibly dumb. Let me know when you get a valid argument because so far you have nothing and with each post, you have even less.

 

[danielpalos]

"We"? Everyone else seems to understand that "employment" is a contractual arrangement where only one party pays, hires, lays off, and fires. The other party ("employee") performs some task or other at the discretion of the hirer ("employer"). If no such task gets performed then no "compensation" is legally called for. Period. To put it even more plainly, the legally due compensation for doing nothing is nothing.

If things were as you imagine the employee could fire the employer who could then turn around and demand "Unemployment Compensation" from the employee. "At Will, baby!" That's you. Beyond frivolous. Ridiculous. Forget that crap and start fresh. There is no such thing as a "Free Market." Never has been. Get that sorted and maybe we can talk..

Not my fault all you are doing is appealing to ignorance of the 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.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We have no State laws regarding employment as wage-slaves.

There's no requirement to work in a non at-will employment State either. That should give you pause.. as in.. Gee, maybe I really don't know WTF I'm talking about?

At-will is not about slavery in any sense, you idiot.

Only Montana is not considered an at-will employment State in our Republic.

How rude and full of fallacy. And, simply requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State is reminiscent of black codes.

 

[danielpalos]

Your idea won’t begin to solve the homeless problems in this country. So are you talking nationally or just California?

Of course it will. Why do you believe it won't?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Notice how the employer is protected financially {"legal liability"}. Whereas, the employee gets stuck with a useless rock {"no adverse legal consequences"}.

You only imagine these laws being fair to all parties. That was never the intention. There's never been a level playing field. The fix has always been in. The Haves play while the Have Nots work. That's not going to magically change by tweaking a law here and there.

The problem is unequal protection of the laws. Labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation. It really is that simple to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

 

[Orangecat]

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one,

You contradicted yourself there, kiddo.

 

[danielpalos]

BS! A California state legislator didn’t put the bill up in a state where the state legislature is heavily democratic and he is worried about right wingers? Lol! You are either being dishonest or you are incredibly dumb. Let me know when you get a valid argument because so far you have nothing and with each post, you have even less.

Like I said, he happens to be a republican. We know right wingers don't really care about the law or the Poor.

 

[Orangecat]

Labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

Why? If you're being paid to do a task and you stop doing said task, why would you continue to be paid? You have voided the contract.
Using your dubious logic, if an employee quits a job, the employee should pay the wages of his replacement.

 

[danielpalos]

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one,

You contradicted yourself there, kiddo.

No one is advocating being illegal to the laws except for right wingers who then complain about less fortunate "illegals". Isn't there a Religious technical term for that?

 

[Orangecat]

No one is advocating being illegal to the laws except for right wingers who then complain about less fortunate "illegals". Isn't there a Religious technical term for that?

The term for what you've posted is "word salad".

 

[danielpalos]

Labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

Why? If you're being paid to do a task and you stop doing said task, why would you continue to be paid? You have voided the contract.
Using your dubious logic, if an employee quits a job, the employee should pay the wages of his replacement.

Because the End of solving simple poverty must justify the Means of equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

No one is advocating being illegal to the laws except for right wingers who then complain about less fortunate "illegals". Isn't there a Religious technical term for that?

The term for what you've posted is "word salad".

Simply because you say so? I could say your comprehension is word salad if I don't need a valid argument. See how that works.

 

[Orangecat]

Because the End of solving simple poverty must justify the Means of equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State.

More word salad doesn't justify anything.

 

[Orangecat]

Simply because you say so? I could say your comprehension is word salad if I don't need a valid argument. See how that works.

My posts can be understood. Yours are gobbledygook nonsense. Sorry, but that's a verifiable fact.