Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You need valid arguments not just fallacy (of argument ad hominem). You need to explain why you believe my line of reasoning is invalid. Otherwise, you are worse than the MSM y'all like to criticize for being fake news.More word salad doesn't justify anything.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.
It is an even more verifiable fact that it can be a challenge to dumb it down enough for the right wing to whom, anything even slightly complicated seems like gobbledygook.My posts can be understood. Yours are gobbledygook nonsense. Sorry, but that's a verifiable fact.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.
You don't have a line of reasoning. You have meaningless word salad re-combinations that you post day after day.You need valid arguments not just fallacy (of argument ad hominem). You need to explain why you believe my line of reasoning is invalid. Otherwise, you are worse than the MSM y'all like to criticize for being fake news.
This is the epitome of gobbledygook:It is an even more verifiable fact that it can be a challenge to dumb it down enough for the right wing to whom, anything even slightly complicated seems like gobbledygook.
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.
Simply because You say so? I believe MSM more than right wingers typing on the Internet.This is the epitome of gobbledygook:It is an even more verifiable fact that it can be a challenge to dumb it down enough for the right wing to whom, anything even slightly complicated seems like gobbledygook.
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.
What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.Paying people to do nothing is being "market friendly" now don't cha know?
No, because it's obvious to everyone reading your gibberish. Read the responses to your posts, from both the left and the right.Simply because You say so?
You should try thinking for yourself. None of the MSM outlets spew the inane garbage that you do.I believe MSM more than right wingers typing on the Internet.
My beliefs are unknown to you. Again, you just toss out your word salads and then create straw men to argue against.Why do you believe unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed won't solve simple poverty if all a person in poverty need do is apply for unemployment compensation?
More, actually.Would we still have as much homelessness?
Irrelevant speculation.Would landlords not benefit?
No, there would be more crime and less "market friendly participation" (whatever the fuck that means).Would local businesses not have less crime and more market friendly participation?
Paying people to help stimulate the economy? What a bunch of entitlement claptrap. Lol.What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.
Rude doesn't begin to describe the disgusting arrogance required to equate slavery with not getting paid to do nothing. Most States have exceptions to at-will which render it moot anyway, such as having a contract or collective bargaining.Only Montana is not considered an at-will employment State in our Republic.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?There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We have no State laws regarding employment as wage-slaves.
At-will is not about slavery in any sense, you idiot.
How rude and full of fallacy. And, simply requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State is reminiscent of black codes.
That, no doubt, is your own source telling you you're full of shit. Cut the crap and move on.Can at-will employees collect unemployment?
Depending on the circumstances and the state, at-will employees may be able to collect unemployment benefits if they are fired. They are eligible for unemployment benefits if they become unemployed through no fault of their own.
If employees decide to quit their jobs, they are unlikely to be eligible for unemployment benefits, although there are some exceptions that may apply.
Simply because you say so? You have nothing but fallacy and a Congressmen that believe you have nothing but fallacy.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.The term for what you've posted is "word salad".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?
Where is the conflict?The law is employment at the will of either party, not employment for good cause.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.First things first. Where does it say that in the labor code?Of course I can. UC is very clear, you can collect if you are laid off from your job.
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.
You need valid arguments not just fallacy (of argument ad hominem). You need to explain why you believe my line of reasoning is invalid. Otherwise, you are worse than the MSM y'all like to criticize for being fake news.More word salad doesn't justify anything.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.
This is good, because you're proving my point. Thus far you've established two things, that at will employment means you can legally quit be let go from a job, and that UC has qualifications that you need to meet in order to collect benefits. What you have NOT established is that the latter violates the former. If you see a conflict, it is on you to explain what the heck you think that conflict is and how it relates in a legal sense, because you've been spouting off on it for years without the slightest clue.I have a difficult taking you seriously because you are so frivolous in your arguments.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.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 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.
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.
Yup, and you could graduate from high school, work at the assembly line for 40 years, your wife stay home to keep the house and raise five kids that could go to college, retire at 65 and live out your golden years. It's a different world now.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.
That is possibly the worst pile of meaningless blargle I have seen on the internet, surpassed only by other things you've written. It literally means nothing. You've strung together a bunch of vague words that give absolutely no idea of how anything would work.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.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?Equal protection of this understanding is all I am concerned with:Uh huh. Here sparky.. not that you really care..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.
And there's much more.. Shall we now begin pretending this is Harvard vs Yale online?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 -
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.I've reposted the context you stripped to help you better focus. I repeat: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.
"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..
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.
"Labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation". That's all that needs to be noted to explain your idiocy. You cloak your desire in word blargle, but the heart of what you are saying is that. You think you should keep getting paid even though you walked off the job. There is no justification for that stance, which is why you have to hide it behind a solid wall of blargle. Whenever you mention your mantra again, and you will, I will have to remind you this is what you really mean.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.Notice how the employer is protected financially {"legal liability"}. Whereas, the employee gets stuck with a useless rock {"no adverse legal consequences"}.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.
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.
Everyone would pay much, much more in taxes, there would be fewer jobs available, people would have less money to spend, and homelessness would still exist. You could provide every single person in the country an apartment, and in short order a significant number of those apartments would be unlivable and people would still be living in boxes under the bridge.Simply because You say so? I believe MSM more than right wingers typing on the Internet.This is the epitome of gobbledygook:It is an even more verifiable fact that it can be a challenge to dumb it down enough for the right wing to whom, anything even slightly complicated seems like gobbledygook.
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.
Why do you believe unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed won't solve simple poverty if all a person in poverty need do is apply for unemployment compensation? Would we still have as much homelessness? Would landlords not benefit? Would local businesses not have less crime and more market friendly participation?
He does, however, have a completely unshakable faith that he's on to something significant and that he can create whole new areas of legal argument simply by redefining words to mean something completely different and creating legal dependencies where none exist. Easy prediction. After a short amount of time, he'll go silent for a few weeks only to pop up making the exact same arguments using the exact same words as if none of this happened, and he'll claim that he won every argument about it. A bot would be more flexible.You need valid arguments not just fallacy (of argument ad hominem). You need to explain why you believe my line of reasoning is invalid. Otherwise, you are worse than the MSM y'all like to criticize for being fake news.More word salad doesn't justify anything.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.
You have been told over and over and over, reasoned with over and over and over, and you don’t want to accept whatever anyone else says, you don’t want a discussion, you want agreement with your idea, even the congressman knew it wouldn’t fly and he told you you’d have to pay him to present the bill. You have nothing, no bill, court case, nothing but fallacy.
