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.
Because it could be funded through indirect taxation which is always preferable to direct taxation, and funding could also be raised through bonds or other forms of investment so people can still make money in our market based economy.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.
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?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.
Because it could be funded through indirect taxation which is always preferable to direct taxation, and funding could also be raised through bonds or other forms of investment so people can still make money in our market based economy.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.
You're describing inflation. Now, here's something interesting that I'm sure you weren't aware you were doing. On the one hand, you keep complaining about MW jobs, that they just don't pay enough. Got that? At the same time, when we point out to you that people would rather take welfare that almost matches the MW than work a MW job, you piously start spouting that no one would do that when they could take a job instead with no practical upward limit.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.They will even take less to not work if the differential for working is not great enough.
That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.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.
You only create more inefficiencies with your perspective. At-will employment only results in leaving or removal from a job; the person is still liable to legal consequences for due process purposes at law such as a date with Ms. Justice. Impeachment is somewhat analogous but on an at-will basis.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.
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?If given a choice between getting paid to work or paid not to work, people will take pay for not working.
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
A relative few would do that. We understand human nature and realize that many, many more would simply take the free money and live without working at all. Why go to school? That's hard. Why take a job? That's hard. Much easier to just take the free money. The reality is, you get MORE of the behavior you reward.That would happen if there is no market based incentive for them to work for cheap wages.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.
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.
Why should it matter if people will have more money to spend. Passing on costs to the consumer is a rational business choice.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".
That is your misunderstand. Employers would not longer be "on the hook" for unemployment compensation through direct forms of taxation. It would result in less burden and less direct costs for employers.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.
That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.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.
And, means testing is being misused in our alleged war on poverty. Means testing should be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of capital under our form of Capitalism may not be enough. Means testing should be used to generate metadata in order to concentrate wealth to solve more complicated issues that prevent persons from leading more productive lives in our market based economy.
Because you are appealing to ignorance of economics and the multiplier. A multiplier of two means what you claim cannot be true since one dollar spent on unemployment compensation generates two dollars of economic activity. There is no money being taken out of the economy; economic activity is being increased and that means more profit potential for any capitalist.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.
Why do you assume employers won't raise wages to attract labor?You are demanding the UC be set at the equivalent of $15 an hour. Unskilled labor will be paid the same if the minimum wage is raised. I assert that because I have experience in the job market and have seen the work ethic of our society.
Why don't you get a job instead of trying this fantasy? I really want to know why you do not seek work.
Because Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment and potential labor does not have a right to work even in Right to Work States.People can make money by working. Why is that wrong?
You only create more inefficiencies with your perspective. At-will employment only results in leaving or removal from a job; the person is still liable to legal consequences for due process purposes at law such as a date with Ms. Justice. Impeachment is somewhat analogous but on an at-will basis.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.
That's a fine string of words you copied from a web page somewhere, but you haven't applied them correctly. Society simply can't afford to give everyone everything and there will always be those at the low end of the rainbow. That's just human nature. Give a population of people a $1000 each. Within a short period of time, the bell curve will be established, with a few having multiple thousands of dollars, a few having no dollars and most somewhere in the middle. Just paying people for existing ultimately doesn't help them or society but supporting them in the short term while requiring either concrete efforts to regain self-sufficiency or some kind of labor to benefit society at large does. Society has agreed that those who literally cannot provide for themselves should be helped. We are a wealthy society and we are wealthy in large part because our people are industrious and free to earn as much as they can. We can afford to care for those who truly need it but that will collapse if we insist on supporting those who do not need the support.That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.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.
And, means testing is being misused in our alleged war on poverty. Means testing should be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of capital under our form of Capitalism may not be enough. Means testing should be used to generate metadata in order to concentrate wealth to solve more complicated issues that prevent persons from leading more productive lives in our market based economy.
That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.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.
And, means testing is being misused in our alleged war on poverty. Means testing should be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of capital under our form of Capitalism may not be enough. Means testing should be used to generate metadata in order to concentrate wealth to solve more complicated issues that prevent persons from leading more productive lives in our market based economy.
Means testing is an attempt to stop people from drawing a check if they do not need it to get by. That is all. Without means testing, someone with $100k in the bank could draw welfare. Or someone who has a spouse with a good job, owns their home ect, could draw a check from the tax payers. If UC is ever changed into what you want, there will be a means test. I assure you of that.
If the only qualification for UC is that the person does not have a job, every retiree in the US would be applying for it, despite having a pension or 401k.
So what? Inflation happens anyway. The minimum wage was not adjusted for around a decade and inflation still happened even though Labor was working (hard) for less money on an institutional basis simply so capitalists could make more profit.You're describing inflation. Now, here's something interesting that I'm sure you weren't aware you were doing. On the one hand, you keep complaining about MW jobs, that they just don't pay enough. Got that? At the same time, when we point out to you that people would rather take welfare that almost matches the MW than work a MW job, you piously start spouting that no one would do that when they could take a job instead with no practical upward limit.
Put those two together and think. You apparently believe that people are stuck in poor paying jobs and we have no choice but to pay them more because they can't get raises and can't get better paying jobs, AND you apparently believe that if we just double the MW and create a new welfare program that pays the same as the MW, people will take those MW jobs because they'll get raises and better paying jobs. Do you not see the problem here?
Why do you assume employers won't raise wages to attract labor?You are demanding the UC be set at the equivalent of $15 an hour. Unskilled labor will be paid the same if the minimum wage is raised. I assert that because I have experience in the job market and have seen the work ethic of our society.
Why don't you get a job instead of trying this fantasy? I really want to know why you do not seek work.
That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.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.
And, means testing is being misused in our alleged war on poverty. Means testing should be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of capital under our form of Capitalism may not be enough. Means testing should be used to generate metadata in order to concentrate wealth to solve more complicated issues that prevent persons from leading more productive lives in our market based economy.
Means testing is an attempt to stop people from drawing a check if they do not need it to get by. That is all. Without means testing, someone with $100k in the bank could draw welfare. Or someone who has a spouse with a good job, owns their home ect, could draw a check from the tax payers. If UC is ever changed into what you want, there will be a means test. I assure you of that.
If the only qualification for UC is that the person does not have a job, every retiree in the US would be applying for it, despite having a pension or 401k.
That would be my plan if that went through. I could get SS, pension, 401K and $15 bucks an hour and I would work overtime to get more than 40 hours at $15 an hour. How tough would it be to get overtime for not working!
