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

[WinterBorn]

[Depends on the purpose would it not? Promoting people to not work is not healthy for people. One the largest causes of depression in the US is not working, it damages self worth and self confidence, it can lead to isolation. Also, people not employed lack routine and struggle more from social and mental issues. Suicides are a lot higher if unemployed.

Why do you believe it would be promoting people to not work instead of a market based metric for employers to raise wages on an Institutional basis to retain qualified labor?

Because large number of people, especially entry level workers, had rather do nothing and get paid than get up early, go to work, work hard, and have a boss, just to earn the same amount.

 

[WinterBorn]

What right do you have to take what a person earns and give it to a person that has not worked?

A disingenuous argument in any at-will employment State. Just quit if you don't have what it takes and go on unemployment. No one is requiring you to work on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State. I am sure somebody else with a greater work ethic would love to work and make more money that unemployment compensation.

Not disingenuous at all. It would quickly become a problem. Allowing people to draw a decent check simply because they choose not to work would attract far to many people to be sustainable.

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually, it IS a special program. Employers pay into it through special taxes. That's one reason why it works so well. To do what you want, you once again have to turn it into welfare with a general tax on the whole country, because it would not be right or sustainable to force employers to cover ever increasing numbers of people who refuse to work available jobs.

Edit to add: The bottom line here is you are trying to force employers to pay for what the whole country should pay for, namely a massive new welfare program that would require trillions in new taxes. Unsustainable.

Sounds more like an unnecessary burden on employers. Better administration of that program would not have employers pay for unemployment compensation directly. The revenue for that program should be through general taxes since anyone earning an income could be paying general taxes for it.

Why should people who do not have employees foot the bill? General taxes pay for welfare. Use that if you choose not to work. Oh yeah, that pesky means test. Sorry, but if you want long term payments, you have to show you need them.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it very much is a special project. And for a very specific need.

Unlike our alleged endless war on poverty? Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner promotes and provides for the general welfare. No special need only a simple, market friendly solution.

If you plan would end poverty, then the welfare/food stamp/Section 8 housing systems would have solved it. Changing the source of the money does nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes they are two different things. One is a set of laws describing employment relationships. The other is financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own, which is funded (mostly) by the businesses.

Based on a previous employment relationship in an at-will employment State.

And there is no legal requirement to proved the same financial assistance to those who decided they did not need a job or those who refused to abide by the contract they had with their employer, as there to temporarily help displaced workers while they actively seek another job.

 

[WinterBorn]

YOu have still shown nothing that requires you be paid for doing nothing.

Only because equal protection of the laws means nothing to right wingers.

Equal protection of the law means plenty to me. It does NOT mean that any program for displaced workers in at-will states must include workers who do not work or who violated the contract with their employer.

 

[WinterBorn]

I guess right wingers can't come up with any reasons as to why this simple solution to poverty won't work. Thanks for ceding the point and the argument.

There have been plenty of reasons given. The fact that you refuse to accept any of them does not change that.

You still have not shown or stated why you think you are so special that you deserve part of the check of a hard working person.

 

[danielpalos]

Now as for bad, it's been explained to you that would merely result in a bunch of people taking a job just long enough to qualify as being employed, then quitting to continue getting paid. The fact that you don't see anything amiss with that is the problem.

It is not a problem under Capitalism merely a market based metric for an employer to raise wages. Free market capitalism. Only right wingers have a problem with it.

People with common sense realize that when you start rewarding people for doing nothing, you will get more nothing. When you reward them for hard work, you get more hard work. You, OTOH, not having any common sense, believe that rewarding people for doing nothing results in positive things. That is ridiculous.

In other words, right wingers don't really believe in Capitalism or market based metrics. Why do you believe employers would not raise their wages to attract labor if they need that labor to make a profit?

 

[danielpalos]

And that's when it becomes another massive welfare program.

Market friendly public policy is not a massive welfare program but a solution to simple poverty that is more economical than an endless war on poverty.

The difference is in the multiplier effect. General welfare spending including common defense spending generates a multiplier of around .8. Unemployment compensation is easier to administer ceteris paribus and more market friendly by generating an average multiplier of 2.

Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States is analogous to full employment of capital resources in that market sector.

Promoting and providing for the general is in our federal Constitution while promoting the common defense to the common offense or general warfare is and is more of a non-enumerated welfare program.

 

[danielpalos]

That's what we'd get in your scenario, because you're not going to solve poverty, you're only going to increase it.

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it with valid arguments?

 

[hadit]

Now as for bad, it's been explained to you that would merely result in a bunch of people taking a job just long enough to qualify as being employed, then quitting to continue getting paid. The fact that you don't see anything amiss with that is the problem.

It is not a problem under Capitalism merely a market based metric for an employer to raise wages. Free market capitalism. Only right wingers have a problem with it.

People with common sense realize that when you start rewarding people for doing nothing, you will get more nothing. When you reward them for hard work, you get more hard work. You, OTOH, not having any common sense, believe that rewarding people for doing nothing results in positive things. That is ridiculous.

In other words, right wingers don't really believe in Capitalism or market based metrics. Why do you believe employers would not raise their wages to attract labor if they need that labor to make a profit?

Because they can't arbitrarily raise wages without a corresponding increase in either volume sold or higher prices, and can someone in the class tell us what higher prices without higher value means?

I do find it interesting that you seem to think the government competing with employers for workers is "free market capitalism".

 

[danielpalos]

If given a choice between getting paid to work or paid not to work, people will take pay for not working.

That does not seem rational under rational choice theory. Why would anyone choose to not work for the equivalent to the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that merely compensates people for being unemployed instead of potentially making a far greater wage in a market based economy where there is no theoretical upward limit?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Doesn't it make more sense that anyone who can command a higher wage will want and desire to work in a market economy while those who cannot are better off not "being drafted to work" in an at-will employment State?

Capitalists still have a profit motive and may merely need Labor to achieve their profit goals.

How would your point of view work, for example, with Gravity Payments where the starting wage is around thirty-five dollars an hour?

The company received media attention in 2015 when CEO Dan Price announced that all employees would receive a minimum salary of $70,000.[2] In September 2019, Price issued an additional increase of $10,000 to all employees in the Boise office, with salaries increasing every year until 2023, when it would reach $70,000.[3--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments

 

[danielpalos]

They will even take less to not work if the differential for working is not great enough.

A market based metric for Capitalists in a market economy even without a statutory minimum wage. The equivalent to an Institutional upward pressure on wages. In contrast, the minimum wage was not increased for around a decade and the "free market" entry level wage did not meet or beat inflation in a market frienldy manner.

 

[danielpalos]

Also, UC benefits people most of whom we KNOW will be back at work as soon as possible because they've already been working. He wants to pay people who have no intention of working and who would see a job as a means to get on the welfare bandwagon.

That would happen if there is no market based incentive for them to work for cheap wages.

Simply having recourse to an income means expanding rational choices not limiting rational choices. People on unemployment could go to school for as long as they want or pursue technical training or the arts in a market friendly manner. Some may even learn to invest and eventually beat that form of minimum wage on their own initiative. More potential for innovation could also be a result.

 

[danielpalos]

Funding is still a concern. If we abolish our wasteful spending, then the people who earned the money keep more of it.

Thanks for your support for abolishing our wasteful and endless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and teror.

 

[hadit]

And that's when it becomes another massive welfare program.

Market friendly public policy is not a massive welfare program but a solution to simple poverty that is more economical than an endless war on poverty.

The difference is in the multiplier effect. General welfare spending including common defense spending generates a multiplier of around .8. Unemployment compensation is easier to administer ceteris paribus and more market friendly by generating an average multiplier of 2.

Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States is analogous to full employment of capital resources in that market sector.

Promoting and providing for the general is in our federal Constitution while promoting the common defense to the common offense or general warfare is and is more of a non-enumerated welfare program.

Okay, you're determined to remain dense. Here's your problem. Applying UC to everyone who refuses to work changes its fundamental nature. One of the reasons it works as well as it does is the large number of workers generating enough income to the employer so he can pay taxes to cover the relatively small number of temporary recipients. Also, there is little resistance to it because its funding comes from the employer. Basically, it's just part of the cost of employment (You didn't think that a $15/hr job just costs the employer $15/hr, did you?). What you want to do would vastly increase the number of recipients (and most would be permanent) to the point that employers could no longer cover the recipients, and indeed, why should they because now it's no longer an unemployment program and they are not covering employees that they had to lay off. That means the taxes have to come from the general public and you have a massive new bureaucracy to administer the program. It has now become just another welfare program with all the problems and overhead associated with welfare programs, and there goes your cherished multiplier effect right out the window. You can't soup up a Honda engine to get the same horsepower as a Ferrari engine and expect to get the same gas mileage as the original Honda engine.

You have a pretty little fantasy world going right now that just isn't reality:

1. There's no legal requirement that you get paid UC if you quit your job. It just isn't there no matter how much you want there to be or how many times you post quotes about at will employment.
2. You can't change UC into a massive new welfare program and expect it to work like it always has no matter how much you want it to, because you're going to blow it up. You cannot ignore human nature.

 

[danielpalos]

Because large number of people, especially entry level workers, had rather do nothing and get paid than get up early, go to work, work hard, and have a boss, just to earn the same amount.

Why should anyone believe that assertion under our form of Capitalism? Doesn't it depend on the entry level wage and the education or skills required? And, why would Capitalists not adjust their wages to attract labor if they have a profit objective to meet or beat?

 

[hadit]

That's what we'd get in your scenario, because you're not going to solve poverty, you're only going to increase it.

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it with valid arguments?

Already have. I've shown you the opportunity cost of taking money out of the economy (which you promptly ignored), and you want to take MORE out of the economy so that MORE people can avoid work. That recipe heads straight into poverty for more people. Naturally, you'll ignore any and all evidence that points away from your cherished fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

Not disingenuous at all. It would quickly become a problem. Allowing people to draw a decent check simply because they choose not to work would attract far to many people to be sustainable.

Still not rational under rational choice theory since employers could simply raise wages to attract labor. And, choosing not to work as a rational choice could mean learning new skills that someone may have an affinity for and either start their own business or provide complementary products and services to others who are working; and, eventually meet or beat the unemployment compensation wage. Full employment of resources is more achievable which creates a more dynamic economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Funding is still a concern. If we abolish our wasteful spending, then the people who earned the money keep more of it.

Thanks for your support for abolishing our wasteful and endless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and teror.

You're welcome. I have consistently voted for people who promise conservative fiscal policies. Most don't deliver.

And while you claim there is a greater economic value from UC, you have yet to show changing the source of the money does anything to improve the plight of the poo.