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

[Papageorgio]

Where did I say greed is good? Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?

Under Capitalism? Why complain about taxes if greed is not Good and only a social and moral Bad.

I didn't complain about taxes, that is you trying to change the subject because you have gotten to a point where you can't answer a simple question. Again, Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?

Unemployment only requires that you be unemployed.

And, Greed is Good under Capitalism if are gainfully employed.

Your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, it seems you are again trying to change a subject. Why are you now making requirements of income for unemployment, you claim that one should receive unemployment for being unemployed.

Existing rules that don't need to change for the greedy, since it is more socially responsible.

Social responsibility is called working and not asking others to support you because you are to lazy to work. That is what is socially responsibility is. Why do you want to change the rules on unemployment? Why do you now need a qualifier?

 

[Papageorgio]

Page iv:
Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

And that was because UC was used only for legit unemployment claims and the people went right back to work.

It applied to extended unemployment benefits.
[/QUOTE]

The extended unemployment is an added 13 weeks,

 

[hadit]

Taking water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end hoping to fill up the pool makes as much sense.

That is not an accurate equivalent since your analogy is zero sum and generates no multiplier.

So is yours. You take $100 million out of the economy, costing the multiplier effect it would have generated had you left it there, then you pump back in $100 million after taking a bunch off the top for wastage.

That is not how it works in economics, only special right wing pleading; other people are involved who may want to or be required to seek to maximize profits.

Are you actually pretending that the opportunity cost is not real?

 

[hadit]

He keeps getting himself caught on that one. Bottom line, he doesn't want anyone else applying means testing, just him.

Earned income from gainful employment usually has to be reported for unemployment compensation purposes and is current practice now.

Which does not impair at will employment at all.

It could simply reduce the benefit amount to where is not really worth the time and effort to apply for unemployment compensation.

Which still does NOT impair your freedom to quit your job.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Taking water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end hoping to fill up the pool makes as much sense.

That is not an accurate equivalent since your analogy is zero sum and generates no multiplier.

So is yours. You take $100 million out of the economy, costing the multiplier effect it would have generated had you left it there, then you pump back in $100 million after taking a bunch off the top for wastage.

That is not how it works in economics, only special right wing pleading; other people are involved who may want to or be required to seek to maximize profits.

Are you actually pretending that the opportunity cost is not real?

Not much opportunity cost for a dude who sits on his mom's couch and smokes weed all day.

 

[hadit]

IOW, inflation. Do it too fast and you cost a lot of jobs in a short period of time that the market cannot absorb.

Why would it matter if Labor could simply quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State?

Because you need a lot of tax revenue coming in to pay for the ones who refuse to work, and the more that quit, the fewer there are generating that revenue. Besides, inflation would eat up the boost from the higher payouts. In short order we would be right back where we started with you guys complaining that $15/hr isn't enough to buy weed any more.

 

[hadit]

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.

It would average a multiplier of 2; and, those individuals would not be "doing nothing" as alleged by the right wing but doing something with those funds in a market friendly manner. Some of the socioeconomic effects would be less crime since some people would not want to work hard to be criminals if they could be moral and faithful to our own laws regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What source do you cite that claims you will get a multiplier of 2? And don't just recite what it does now, because you're changing it.

Page iv:
Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

You cited what it does now. I told you not to do that, because you're changing it fundamentally. Again, you can't soup up a Honda engine to Ferrari horsepower and expect to get the same gas mileage. You failed again.

The point is, the multiplier would higher not lower since more people would be circulating more capital in our economy and in a more market friendly manner. All of the homeless, for example would be able to contribute to the multiplier in that case where they cannot contribute as much now.

The cost of taking the money out of the economy would outweigh any benefits. And once again, you won't get the same multiplier because the program would change. It would become another massive welfare program.

 

[danielpalos]

Part of your "Great Plan" is to pay unemployment compensation equal to at least $14 an hour. You have said this clearly.

So what? You make it seem like right wingers don't really understand how free market Capitalism works and merely parrot right wing dogma.
Capitalism, What is That sayeth the right wing.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour means what to a Capitalist who needs to attract Labor to achieve their profit goals?

 

[danielpalos]

And then the employers will fire the liars and hypocrites. Then you can get hired, unless you are a liar or a hypocrite. Should state pay for liars lying or for hypocrites?

Maybe in right wing fantasy. In reality, cronies curry favor.

 

[danielpalos]

The two programs ARE completely different. That people will not report other income does not change that. In fact, it proves that people will cheat to get more money.

Yes, they are two completely different programs for two completely different purposes. Thanks for admitting it and ceding that point.

Most people will report income. Some don't report income now due to the limited nature of the current regime for unemployment compensation since it usually ends regardless of whether or not the unemployed person has a job or not. The have to repay the State if and when that form of fraud gets discovered. We could be reducing fraud by being more realistic regarding simple poverty. And, only illegals don't care about the law. Why complain about less fortunate illegals.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, they would be paid by lowering my net income, which I earned. You keep bouncing back and forth between what helps the poor and what helps the economy.

You miss the point that your net income would be higher even with any potential taxes taken out. And, even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes which reduces their net income.

My net income would not be higher by taking taxes out to give to someone else who refuses to work.

Yes, it would be higher than it is now since unemployment compensation could be providing an upward pressure wages. Simply doubling the minimum wage is sufficient proof. An employee making fifteen dollars an hour simply makes more money that at the current minimum wage and need not complain about taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

He keeps getting himself caught on that one. Bottom line, he doesn't want anyone else applying means testing, just him.

Earned income from gainful employment usually has to be reported for unemployment compensation purposes and is current practice now.

And if people do not report their income from gainful employment, such as those who are paid cash? What happens to them in the new plan of yours?

Why would they bother working if they could be lazy, and do nothing? And, it would depend on whether or not they get caught eventually. Fraud is still illegal and only hypocritical illegals whine about less fortunate illegals.

 

[danielpalos]

Many will still want to work

Many less than previously.

So what. Many less will feel the need to bear false witness or practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God according to Scripture) if they can bear True Witness instead.

 

[danielpalos]

For some. For far too many, though, free money leads to indolence. In your case, did you have incentive to find work or did you just give up?

I started getting into the stock market. Unfortunately, I had practiced with fifty thousand dollar practice accounts and it makes a huge capital difference for margin purposes. I found myself getting toe emotional and maybe even too greedy for my own good even under our form of Capitalism due to my low numbers and lack of constant practice. On the flip side, I probably would have only bragged if I had gotten it right the first time and maybe even just blown the (easy) money anyway instead of practice better money management.

That is a nice answer. Pity it isn't an answer to the actual question he asked. Playing the stock market with practice accounts is not finding work.

It depends. If I had gotten it right the first time, I would have ended up making more than unemployment compensation and would have become self-employed and no longer needed unemployment benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We are still talking about millions of persons. We would not need an endless war on poverty if what you claim is true. Why do we have any homeless problems or right wingers complaining about taxes if it is so easy to lift yourselves up from low wage jobs that make you complain about taxes?

Why can't the left wingers solve homelessness in their own states? Why is homelessness more prominent in left winger states?

That topic was actually covered in this thread in prior pages. First, States can't print their own money and second, red States simply change the way poverty and homelessness are counted to make it seem like they have lower numbers of homeless.

You are incorrect on how the count, the homeless issue is greater in California, Oregon and Washington. Please keep up, you just like to avoid the hard cold facts because they hurt you ideology.

Not at all. Right wingers have no facts and merely believe they are Right, because in right wing fantasy y'all can Always be Right. You need a link. I provided a link that claims what I stated.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no rules that say you can't have other income coming in if you become unemployed. So you are wanting to add rules.

Earned income reduces the benefit amount.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't complain about taxes, that is you trying to change the subject because you have gotten to a point where you can't answer a simple question.

Why do I need to qualify for UC and another person does not? Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment States. Any amount you earn would reduce the unemployment compensation benefit. So, why do that instead of simply get an easy job that pays at least fifteen dollars an hour if you need more money. Or, learn how to invest in markets until you can generate enough income to meet your current lifestyle goals?

 

[danielpalos]

Social responsibility is called working and not asking others to support you because you are to lazy to work. That is what is socially responsibility is. Why do you want to change the rules on unemployment? Why do you now need a qualifier?

Bearing true witness to our own laws is also being socially responsible; and multiplier of two is being fiscally responsible in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

The extended unemployment is an added 13 weeks,

The extended benefits are what helped those participants be more rational and helped engender the more favorable multiplier.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you actually pretending that the opportunity cost is not real?

I am saying that your view of a zero sum effect is not real. There is a difference.