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

[WinterBorn]

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.

No, there is no requirement to work. There is also no requirement for state support for able bodied people who simply choose not to work

If there is no requirement to work then there is no basis to deny or disparage equal protection of the law in an at-will employment State.

And there is equality under the law. But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

 

[hadit]

IOW, you're claiming that, if the state allows you to quit your job, it is obligated to pay you.

I am saying there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State.

There is no legal barrier to doing so. There is only your imagination. Remember, you are the only one saying that.

 

[danielpalos]

Twenty years managing low-income rental units ... I've heard all the excuses ... all the lies ... seen the choices ...

Mainly mental health issues and drug addiction ... you'll never get a junkie to buy their kids food first, before the fix, just not going to happen ...

You make the same mistake the Soviets did ... you're not including the beggars, whores and thieves in your utopia ... sorry, there will always be bottom feeders in any society ...

Are you saying Capitalism simply doesn't work? We know criminalizing poverty or disenfranchising the Poor is even worse.

And, I think you are simply assuming or affirming the consequent which is usually considered a fallacy. Means tested welfare can do what you suggest simply due to the inefficiency involved. It can be more difficult for someone on means tested welfare to transition to gainful employment than it would be for the ready reserve labor force to transition from unemployment compensation to gainful employment at any given (market based) opportunity.

And, solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis is conducive to a more efficient outcome in our market based economy since we know unemployment compensation is a more efficient automatic stabilizer than means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equality under the law means no for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State for State benefits administered for the general welfare without EDD proving a for-cause employment relationship was established.

 

[Orangecat]

You offer no valid rebuttal.

You offer no coherent point to rebut. Never have, probably never will.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no legal barrier to doing so. There is only your imagination. Remember, you are the only one saying that.

Yes, there is a quasi-legal barrier to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It is not my imagination at all. Remember, it is right wingers typing on the Internet.

 

[WinterBorn]

But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equality under the law means no for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State for State benefits administered for the general welfare without EDD proving a for-cause employment relationship was established.

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

UC is a replacement of wages lost through no fault of their own. It is also for a specified length of time or until the employee finds work. And it requires that the employee search for work. None of those things is dependent on the at-will employment laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no legal barrier to doing so. There is only your imagination. Remember, you are the only one saying that.

Yes, there is a quasi-legal barrier to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It is not my imagination at all. Remember, it is right wingers typing on the Internet.

No, there is not. There is a barrier to unemployment compensation if you chose to quit your job or are fired for cause. Because the mission of unemployment compensation is not the ending of poverty, but the temporary financial assistance of those who lost their job through no fault of their own and who are actively searching for a job.

You quit your job and you are not actively looking for a job.

 

[hadit]

There is no legal barrier to doing so. There is only your imagination. Remember, you are the only one saying that.

Yes, there is a quasi-legal barrier to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It is not my imagination at all. Remember, it is right wingers typing on the Internet.

It IS your imagination. No one other than you is saying otherwise. There is no more legal barrier to quitting your job than there is a barrier to taking a MW job if you are already collecting welfare. There may be incentive to go one way or the other, but there is no barrier. Is there a barrier to paying full price for something at one store if there is a sale on the same item at another store, or are you free to choose to purchase where you like? Is there a barrier to choosing a doctor because the one you really want is out of your insurance network, or are you free to choose to pay more for the one you really want? No, there is NO "quasi-legal barrier to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States". It's all in your imagination because no one other than you is saying that.

 

[hadit]

But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equality under the law means no for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State for State benefits administered for the general welfare without EDD proving a for-cause employment relationship was established.

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

UC is a replacement of wages lost through no fault of their own. It is also for a specified length of time or until the employee finds work. And it requires that the employee search for work. None of those things is dependent on the at-will employment laws.

This is one fantasy he has never, ever, let go of, no matter what. If you can even loosen his grip on it a little, you've accomplished a lot.

 

[hadit]

But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equality under the law means no for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State for State benefits administered for the general welfare without EDD proving a for-cause employment relationship was established.

No, because there is no legal barrier to quitting your job if you want. No one will come to your Mom's basement and drag you back to work, no one will attack you when you leave your job, nothing. At will means you can quit, period. There is no legal barrier to quitting. UC does not impact that at all.

 

[WinterBorn]

But equality under the law does not mean you qualify for a program specifically for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Equality under the law means no for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State for State benefits administered for the general welfare without EDD proving a for-cause employment relationship was established.

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

UC is a replacement of wages lost through no fault of their own. It is also for a specified length of time or until the employee finds work. And it requires that the employee search for work. None of those things is dependent on the at-will employment laws.

This is one fantasy he has never, ever, let go of, no matter what. If you can even loosen his grip on it a little, you've accomplished a lot.

Daniel used to, regularly, talk about how only suckers worked for a living. At least he has stopped that nonsense. But he won't give up on this fantasy about unemployment compensation being for anyone who doesn't have a job. He isn't looking for a job. He doesn't want a job. But he wants a check.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

All you needed the whole time was valid arguments for rebuttal.

I have valid arguments, just because you don’t accept them, doesn’t make them less valid. If you arguments are valid, take them to court or to a congressman and then have them pass the law. That your California assemblyman won’t sponsor it in the state of California, where nonsense thrives, it seems your arguments have failed.

 

[Papageorgio]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

All your arguments have been shot down, even your assemblyman in liberal California didn’t like your arguments and dismissed it as fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

The at-will employment laws and unemployment compensation are different completely separate things.

There is only one law that governs employment relationships.

 

[danielpalos]

No, there is not. There is a barrier to unemployment compensation if you chose to quit your job or are fired for cause.

This is the law regarding employment at-will. Show us where Cause is required:

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 legal barrier to doing so. There is only your imagination. Remember, you are the only one saying that.

Yes, there is a quasi-legal barrier to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It is not my imagination at all. Remember, it is right wingers typing on the Internet.

It IS your imagination. No one other than you is saying otherwise. There is no more legal barrier to quitting your job than there is a barrier to taking a MW job if you are already collecting welfare. There may be incentive to go one way or the other, but there is no barrier. Is there a barrier to paying full price for something at one store if there is a sale on the same item at another store, or are you free to choose to purchase where you like? Is there a barrier to choosing a doctor because the one you really want is out of your insurance network, or are you free to choose to pay more for the one you really want? No, there is NO "quasi-legal barrier to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States". It's all in your imagination because no one other than you is saying that.

This is the law regarding employment at-will. Show where cause is a requirement in an-will employment State for any benefits administered by a 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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

All you needed the whole time was valid arguments for rebuttal.

I have valid arguments, just because you don’t accept them, doesn’t make them less valid. If you arguments are valid, take them to court or to a congressman and then have them pass the law. That your California assemblyman won’t sponsor it in the state of California, where nonsense thrives, it seems your arguments have failed.

My arguments are more valid than Yours, why don't You accept my arguments which resort to fewer fallacies than those presented by the right wing?

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

All your arguments have been shot down, even your assemblyman in liberal California didn’t like your arguments and dismissed it as fallacy.

Not by anyone on this board. You need valid rebuttals not merely fallacy and insisting you are Right merely because you are on the right wing. Present valid arguments with no provable fallacies right wingers. You can't.

 

[danielpalos]

No, because there is no legal barrier to quitting your job if you want.

Since you acknowledge that there is no legal barrier to being faithful to our at-will employment laws; how can there be a legal barrier to collecting benefits for being faithful the actual law that establishes employment relationships in our at-will employment States?