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 don't know that. And, all that needs to happen is more people circulating more capital under our form of capitalism. Some may want to go to school for awhile or learn how to weave baskets or improve their current skills in order to command a better wage. You are claiming more people would rather be poor under our form of Capitalism where Greed is Good.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.
Simple experiment, stand on a street corner and ask random women that go by to flash you. Tell us how many did. The next day, stand on a street corner and offer to give $100 to random women if they will flash you. Tell us how many did.
Another experiment. Go to where some migrant workers hang out and offer them a choice. Take a job at your construction site working for MW with raises after a year's employment and advancement opportunities or take MW for doing nothing. Tell us how many come to work for you.
It is free market capitalism because it allows the employee to sell his labor for an agreed upon price to an employer. It also allows him to quit his job and start his own company if he so desires. I don't think you understand what free market capitalism actually is. Here's a hint, it allows you to fail. It allows you to not get paid if you don't want to expend the effort to earn payment. Free market capitalism requires minimal government intrusion.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".
I find it more interesting that you seem to think that limiting rational choices for persons in the market for labor by Requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State is "free market Capitalism".
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?
And don't forget holiday pay and sick time. You should be able to get double time for not working holidays.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!
And if you want to increase MW you have to do it carefully so as to not destroy the labor market.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?
In other words, that employer would have been better off hiring motivated employees not "conscripted" labor who have to work because of unequal protection of the law. Employers would also benefit due to equal protection of the laws and lower their costs.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.
Often times the employer does not prosecute for violations of the law. This benefits the employee. Take that as your bonus and go.
Also, many of the reasons people are fired for cause are not prosecutable. If you are late every day, or miss days without calling in, the employer cannot prosecute you. But you have still violated the contract you have with your employer. Or a service industry employee who is repeatedly rude to customers. Being rude is not against the law. But it is certainly against company policy in a service industry job.
You don't know that. And, all that needs to happen is more people circulating more capital under our form of capitalism. Some may want to go to school for awhile or learn how to weave baskets or improve their current skills in order to command a better wage. You are claiming more people would rather be poor under our form of Capitalism where Greed is Good.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.
Simple experiment, stand on a street corner and ask random women that go by to flash you. Tell us how many did. The next day, stand on a street corner and offer to give $100 to random women if they will flash you. Tell us how many did.
Another experiment. Go to where some migrant workers hang out and offer them a choice. Take a job at your construction site working for MW with raises after a year's employment and advancement opportunities or take MW for doing nothing. Tell us how many come to work for you.
It is being misused and does not actually help solve as many underlying issues as it could by concentrating wealth to solve them.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.
In other words, that employer would have been better off hiring motivated employees not "conscripted" labor who have to work because of unequal protection of the law. Employers would also benefit due to equal protection of the laws and lower their costs.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.
Often times the employer does not prosecute for violations of the law. This benefits the employee. Take that as your bonus and go.
Also, many of the reasons people are fired for cause are not prosecutable. If you are late every day, or miss days without calling in, the employer cannot prosecute you. But you have still violated the contract you have with your employer. Or a service industry employee who is repeatedly rude to customers. Being rude is not against the law. But it is certainly against company policy in a service industry job.
I'm giving you an experiment that should prove your hypothesis. You think people would rather work to get paid the same amount they would if they didn't work, prove it. Remember the Soviet Union where unemployment was very low? Everyone had a job and everyone got paid. They just couldn't buy anything because no one actually worked to produce anything. Why work when you get paid the same whether you worked or not? Also, remember the Pilgrims that landed in the Americas? They started with a socialist compact and quickly learned that it didn't work because few people bothered to work at all. And why should they when they got the same as those who did?You don't know that. And, all that needs to happen is more people circulating more capital under our form of capitalism. Some may want to go to school for awhile or learn how to weave baskets or improve their current skills in order to command a better wage. You are claiming more people would rather be poor under our form of Capitalism where Greed is Good.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.
Simple experiment, stand on a street corner and ask random women that go by to flash you. Tell us how many did. The next day, stand on a street corner and offer to give $100 to random women if they will flash you. Tell us how many did.
Another experiment. Go to where some migrant workers hang out and offer them a choice. Take a job at your construction site working for MW with raises after a year's employment and advancement opportunities or take MW for doing nothing. Tell us how many come to work for you.
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.
Why won't you answer my question? Why do you not seek work for yourself?
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.
It is being misused and does not actually help solve as many underlying issues as it could by concentrating wealth to solve them.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.
You are truly lost, little one. You say employers will lower their costs by being forced to increase their labor costs because we've doubled the MW. Think about that.In other words, that employer would have been better off hiring motivated employees not "conscripted" labor who have to work because of unequal protection of the law. Employers would also benefit due to equal protection of the laws and lower their costs.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.
Often times the employer does not prosecute for violations of the law. This benefits the employee. Take that as your bonus and go.
Also, many of the reasons people are fired for cause are not prosecutable. If you are late every day, or miss days without calling in, the employer cannot prosecute you. But you have still violated the contract you have with your employer. Or a service industry employee who is repeatedly rude to customers. Being rude is not against the law. But it is certainly against company policy in a service industry job.
You would not qualify for unemployment compensation if you are employed. You could still work if you wanted to while on social security but unemployment compensation would not be available since you are technically retired and receiving an income for being retired from the market for labor.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!
That would still happen with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.It is free market capitalism because it allows the employee to sell his labor for an agreed upon price to an employer.
You would not qualify for unemployment compensation if you are employed. You could still work if you wanted to while on social security but unemployment compensation would not be available since you are technically retired and receiving an income for being retired from the market for labor.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!
The point is, there is no requirement for any employer to hire me on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Even Right to Work States don't require employers to hire anyone who wants to work.Why won't you answer my question? Why do you not seek work for yourself?
You could also save some money and invest in the markets to receive more than you could from unemployment compensation.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!
Exactly. I am just a few years away from retirement. If Daniel's fantasy plan came to fruition, I could stop working and still draw a check. My 401k is enough for me to retire now. Add in a check for $2,800 a month and I would be in great shape.
It doesn't matter since they would be spending that money and contributing to the multiplier effect so anyone who wants to work and make more money can more easily do so.Yes, there is a natural rate of unemployment. And those people who work and were laid off will get UC. But that small percentage of the work force is not the same people for years.
