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

[hadit]

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.

Simply because you say so? Besides, Andrew Yang stated we can afford to give everyone one thousand dollars and He did the math.

All I am claiming is that we can solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner using existing legal and physical infrastructure in our at-will employment States.

And I'm telling you that you can't solve poverty because there will never be true economic equality unless it's at gun point, and that's just equalizing misery. Expand on what Andrew Yang said and think about what happens after you give everyone $1,000. How long do you think most people would have $1,000? Remember, nothing exists in a vacuum and human nature takes over.

 

[hadit]

It is free market capitalism because it allows the employee to sell his labor for an agreed upon price to an employer.

That would still happen with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Which doesn't address what I said.

 

[hadit]

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.

That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.

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!

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.

But that is means testing. I thought you said there would be no means testing?

He wants means testing, he just wants to be the one choosing the tests. Naturally, he'd pass all of them.

 

[hadit]

Why won't you answer my question? Why do you not seek work for yourself?

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.

If an employer has an open job that he needs to fill and you have the skills and experience to do that job, and you are not a troll, you will likely get that job. That's not the question. The question is, did you apply for the job? Did you write up your resume showing that you are a good match for the job? Did you try to get an interview? And etc. etc. etc.

 

[hadit]

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.

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.

When there are too many takers and not enough producers, that whole fantasy falls apart, and we have seen that happen far too often to pretend it wouldn't.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why won't you answer my question? Why do you not seek work for yourself?

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.

No, that is not the point. The point is, you have been unemployed for quite some time. And you have made to effort to get a job. No, employers are not required to hire you. But businesses hire people every day. That is how they grow.

So why is it you do not actively seek work?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.

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.

You could also save some money and invest in the markets to receive more than you could from unemployment compensation.

I have money in a 401k account. I am earning from that. But, according to your plan I should be able to draw UC simply for being unemployed. And that would be in addition to what my investments pay me.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

And those who do not want to work? You expect them to be paid, from the taxes of those who DO work?

 

[danielpalos]

And I'm telling you that you can't solve poverty because there will never be true economic equality unless it's at gun point, and that's just equalizing misery. Expand on what Andrew Yang said and think about what happens after you give everyone $1,000. How long do you think most people would have $1,000? Remember, nothing exists in a vacuum and human nature takes over.

He said one thousand per month.

And, yes we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States in a market friendly manner by faithfully executing or own laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.

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!

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.

But that is means testing. I thought you said there would be no means testing?

He wants means testing, he just wants to be the one choosing the tests. Naturally, he'd pass all of them.

It is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, nothing more. It should be a very simple concept even right wingers can understand.

 

[danielpalos]

If an employer has an open job that he needs to fill and you have the skills and experience to do that job, and you are not a troll, you will likely get that job.

Why do you assume I am the only one applying for that job?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

When there are too many takers and not enough producers, that whole fantasy falls apart, and we have seen that happen far too often to pretend it wouldn't.

That is just your assumption. I can state the opposite and be just as right as You even though I am on the left if I don't need any valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

No, that is not the point.

Yes, that is the point.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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.

GG, the unemployment would not return a multiplier of two if people are using it permanently as income, it would become like welfare and the multiplier would diminish because you are fundamentally changing the program into something it wasn't meant to be.

 

[danielpalos]

I have money in a 401k account. I am earning from that. But, according to your plan I should be able to draw UC simply for being unemployed. And that would be in addition to what my investments pay me.

Any income you earn should be reported to the unemployment office which could lower the amount of unemployment compensation you receive.

And, you could also get an easy job which pays more than unemployment compensation; "hard work advocator".

 

[danielpalos]

And those who do not want to work? You expect them to be paid, from the taxes of those who DO work?

Those receiving unemployment compensation would still be paying general taxes and some of those tax monies could be going to help fund unemployment compensation. You would have no basis to complain since compensation as wages would be higher on an institutional basis. In other words, you would be making to more to make up for it.

 

[hadit]

And I'm telling you that you can't solve poverty because there will never be true economic equality unless it's at gun point, and that's just equalizing misery. Expand on what Andrew Yang said and think about what happens after you give everyone $1,000. How long do you think most people would have $1,000? Remember, nothing exists in a vacuum and human nature takes over.

He said one thousand per month.

And, yes we can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States in a market friendly manner by faithfully executing or own laws.

You cannot fight human nature. As you give people more for doing nothing, more of them will do nothing and the imbalance grows. When there are too many taking and not enough producing, the whole thing falls apart. There will always be relative poverty. I say relative, because poverty in the US means something very different from poverty in India, for one example.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, that is not the point.

Yes, that is the point.

No, it is not the point. The natural rate of unemployment is around 4%. So 96% of the working population has a job, despite there being no requirement for an employer to hire them.

You have to make yourself attractive to the employer.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have money in a 401k account. I am earning from that. But, according to your plan I should be able to draw UC simply for being unemployed. And that would be in addition to what my investments pay me.

Any income you earn should be reported to the unemployment office which could lower the amount of unemployment compensation you receive.

And, you could also get an easy job which pays more than unemployment compensation; "hard work advocator".

Oh, so I would have to report my income, but no means testing? lol

 

[hadit]

If an employer has an open job that he needs to fill and you have the skills and experience to do that job, and you are not a troll, you will likely get that job.

Why do you assume I am the only one applying for that job?

When you apply for multiple jobs you will ultimately get one. Then, as your experience and skills grow, you will be competing at a much higher level. That doesn't address my questions though. Did you actually apply for any jobs? If you did and got turned down, did you ask why you were rejected and make adjustments to get the next one?