What would a socialist America look like?

[WinterBorn]

Is being "looked after" what we really want from government?

Providing for the General welfare is not the major, specific, or common welfare.

Official poVERty. AT wiLL>

yes, words have meaning.

I haven't noticed that so much in your posts. Your fixation on odd, home-spun terminology just makes your attempts at communication pointless.

spammer. you need a valid argument, not just right wing gossip and propaganda.

I provided a perfectly valid argument. And you chose to ignore the actual facts and math in favor of your typical “storyteller” replies and talking about who you take seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the General welfare is not the major, specific, or common welfare.

Official poVERty. AT wiLL>

yes, words have meaning.

I haven't noticed that so much in your posts. Your fixation on odd, home-spun terminology just makes your attempts at communication pointless.

spammer. you need a valid argument, not just right wing gossip and propaganda.

I provided a perfectly valid argument. And you chose to ignore the actual facts and math in favor of your typical “storyteller” replies and talking about who you take seriously.

We want to Lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs. Fourteen dollars an hour, in our case.

That will reduce our tax burden Because, more People will be paying Taxes. We can resort to the law of large numbers for taxation option purposes.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is using Socialism to pick up Capitalism's natural rate of Slack, like usual.

 

[WinterBorn]

Official poVERty. AT wiLL>

yes, words have meaning.

I haven't noticed that so much in your posts. Your fixation on odd, home-spun terminology just makes your attempts at communication pointless.

spammer. you need a valid argument, not just right wing gossip and propaganda.

I provided a perfectly valid argument. And you chose to ignore the actual facts and math in favor of your typical “storyteller” replies and talking about who you take seriously.

We want to Lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs. Fourteen dollars an hour, in our case.

That will reduce our tax burden Because, more People will be paying Taxes. We can resort to the law of large numbers for taxation option purposes.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is using Socialism to pick up Capitalism's natural rate of Slack, like usual.

And the cost of things goes up because of the steep increase in payroll costs.

 

[sealybobo]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

When obama left office unemployment was already low and going lower.

Household income near all time high

Uninsured all time low

Wages rising

Poverty rates falling

No one wants all socialism. But like public school we should have public healthcare

You would of course be allowed to pay more for premium healthcare that the masses can’t afford.

Remember, we pay way more than we should now. Our way is more expensive and I don’t hear Canadians or Australians complaining

 

[danielpalos]

yes, words have meaning.

I haven't noticed that so much in your posts. Your fixation on odd, home-spun terminology just makes your attempts at communication pointless.

spammer. you need a valid argument, not just right wing gossip and propaganda.

I provided a perfectly valid argument. And you chose to ignore the actual facts and math in favor of your typical “storyteller” replies and talking about who you take seriously.

We want to Lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs. Fourteen dollars an hour, in our case.

That will reduce our tax burden Because, more People will be paying Taxes. We can resort to the law of large numbers for taxation option purposes.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is using Socialism to pick up Capitalism's natural rate of Slack, like usual.

And the cost of things goes up because of the steep increase in payroll costs.

even the dollar menu won't double.

 

[WinterBorn]

I haven't noticed that so much in your posts. Your fixation on odd, home-spun terminology just makes your attempts at communication pointless.

spammer. you need a valid argument, not just right wing gossip and propaganda.

I provided a perfectly valid argument. And you chose to ignore the actual facts and math in favor of your typical “storyteller” replies and talking about who you take seriously.

We want to Lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs. Fourteen dollars an hour, in our case.

That will reduce our tax burden Because, more People will be paying Taxes. We can resort to the law of large numbers for taxation option purposes.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is using Socialism to pick up Capitalism's natural rate of Slack, like usual.

And the cost of things goes up because of the steep increase in payroll costs.

even the dollar menu won't double.

Is the dollar menu the extent of your knowledge of pricing? In a previous post I detailed the cost of giving hotel employees $15 an hour. And it is a clear indication that prices would go up significantly. And yet, you simply repeat your dollar menu nonsense.

The wage increase will cause a significant price increase across the board.

 

[danielpalos]

spammer. you need a valid argument, not just right wing gossip and propaganda.

I provided a perfectly valid argument. And you chose to ignore the actual facts and math in favor of your typical “storyteller” replies and talking about who you take seriously.

We want to Lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs. Fourteen dollars an hour, in our case.

That will reduce our tax burden Because, more People will be paying Taxes. We can resort to the law of large numbers for taxation option purposes.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is using Socialism to pick up Capitalism's natural rate of Slack, like usual.

And the cost of things goes up because of the steep increase in payroll costs.

even the dollar menu won't double.

Is the dollar menu the extent of your knowledge of pricing? In a previous post I detailed the cost of giving hotel employees $15 an hour. And it is a clear indication that prices would go up significantly. And yet, you simply repeat your dollar menu nonsense.

The wage increase will cause a significant price increase across the board.

How many people actually work for the minimum wage? What drastic price increases are you referrring to, with an increase in the minimum wage versus an increase in autoworker wages.

 

[WinterBorn]

I provided a perfectly valid argument. And you chose to ignore the actual facts and math in favor of your typical “storyteller” replies and talking about who you take seriously.

We want to Lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs. Fourteen dollars an hour, in our case.

That will reduce our tax burden Because, more People will be paying Taxes. We can resort to the law of large numbers for taxation option purposes.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is using Socialism to pick up Capitalism's natural rate of Slack, like usual.

And the cost of things goes up because of the steep increase in payroll costs.

even the dollar menu won't double.

Is the dollar menu the extent of your knowledge of pricing? In a previous post I detailed the cost of giving hotel employees $15 an hour. And it is a clear indication that prices would go up significantly. And yet, you simply repeat your dollar menu nonsense.

The wage increase will cause a significant price increase across the board.

How many people actually work for the minimum wage? What drastic price increases are you referrring to, with an increase in the minimum wage versus an increase in autoworker wages.

There is no one in the auto industry making minimum wage.

In some industries, food service, hospitality and others, many start at minimum wage. And raises are given frequently to get them up to $10 an hour or more. But those who have gotten raises deserve to stay that far above minimum wage. They earned it.

I gave clear examples in my experience as a hotel GM. But let's go with the idea that few make minimum wage. Most make $10 an hour. That is still a $5 an hour raise across the board. With even just 35 employees working full time, that is an additional $7k a week in payroll. And that is not $7k in payroll. It is an additional $7k. One of your big expenses just grew by $7k per week. That is an added expense of $364,000.00 per year. Do you REALLY think having a single expense go up $364,000.00 will not reult in higher prices?

 

[danielpalos]

We want to Lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs. Fourteen dollars an hour, in our case.

That will reduce our tax burden Because, more People will be paying Taxes. We can resort to the law of large numbers for taxation option purposes.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is using Socialism to pick up Capitalism's natural rate of Slack, like usual.

And the cost of things goes up because of the steep increase in payroll costs.

even the dollar menu won't double.

Is the dollar menu the extent of your knowledge of pricing? In a previous post I detailed the cost of giving hotel employees $15 an hour. And it is a clear indication that prices would go up significantly. And yet, you simply repeat your dollar menu nonsense.

The wage increase will cause a significant price increase across the board.

How many people actually work for the minimum wage? What drastic price increases are you referrring to, with an increase in the minimum wage versus an increase in autoworker wages.

There is no one in the auto industry making minimum wage.

In some industries, food service, hospitality and others, many start at minimum wage. And raises are given frequently to get them up to $10 an hour or more. But those who have gotten raises deserve to stay that far above minimum wage. They earned it.

I gave clear examples in my experience as a hotel GM. But let's go with the idea that few make minimum wage. Most make $10 an hour. That is still a $5 an hour raise across the board. With even just 35 employees working full time, that is an additional $7k a week in payroll. And that is not $7k in payroll. It is an additional $7k. One of your big expenses just grew by $7k per week. That is an added expense of $364,000.00 per year. Do you REALLY think having a single expense go up $364,000.00 will not reult in higher prices?

No one is claiming, Labor costs won't increase. What we are claiming is that inflation won't be as Bad, as the soothsay of the right wing.

Besides, anybody working for fifteen an hour minimum, will need less in social services, pay more in taxes, and create more in demand. It is why, unemployment compensation can simply pick up the slack.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the cost of things goes up because of the steep increase in payroll costs.

even the dollar menu won't double.

Is the dollar menu the extent of your knowledge of pricing? In a previous post I detailed the cost of giving hotel employees $15 an hour. And it is a clear indication that prices would go up significantly. And yet, you simply repeat your dollar menu nonsense.

The wage increase will cause a significant price increase across the board.

How many people actually work for the minimum wage? What drastic price increases are you referrring to, with an increase in the minimum wage versus an increase in autoworker wages.

There is no one in the auto industry making minimum wage.

In some industries, food service, hospitality and others, many start at minimum wage. And raises are given frequently to get them up to $10 an hour or more. But those who have gotten raises deserve to stay that far above minimum wage. They earned it.

I gave clear examples in my experience as a hotel GM. But let's go with the idea that few make minimum wage. Most make $10 an hour. That is still a $5 an hour raise across the board. With even just 35 employees working full time, that is an additional $7k a week in payroll. And that is not $7k in payroll. It is an additional $7k. One of your big expenses just grew by $7k per week. That is an added expense of $364,000.00 per year. Do you REALLY think having a single expense go up $364,000.00 will not reult in higher prices?

No one is claiming, Labor costs won't increase. What we are claiming is that inflation won't be as Bad, as the soothsay of the right wing.

Besides, anybody working for fifteen an hour minimum, will need less in social services, pay more in taxes, and create more in demand. It is why, unemployment compensation can simply pick up the slack.

Unemployment compensation is only temporary (26 weeks in most states) and dependent on having worked and been laid off through no fault of the employee. It also depends on contributions from the employers.

 

[danielpalos]

even the dollar menu won't double.

Is the dollar menu the extent of your knowledge of pricing? In a previous post I detailed the cost of giving hotel employees $15 an hour. And it is a clear indication that prices would go up significantly. And yet, you simply repeat your dollar menu nonsense.

The wage increase will cause a significant price increase across the board.

How many people actually work for the minimum wage? What drastic price increases are you referrring to, with an increase in the minimum wage versus an increase in autoworker wages.

There is no one in the auto industry making minimum wage.

In some industries, food service, hospitality and others, many start at minimum wage. And raises are given frequently to get them up to $10 an hour or more. But those who have gotten raises deserve to stay that far above minimum wage. They earned it.

I gave clear examples in my experience as a hotel GM. But let's go with the idea that few make minimum wage. Most make $10 an hour. That is still a $5 an hour raise across the board. With even just 35 employees working full time, that is an additional $7k a week in payroll. And that is not $7k in payroll. It is an additional $7k. One of your big expenses just grew by $7k per week. That is an added expense of $364,000.00 per year. Do you REALLY think having a single expense go up $364,000.00 will not reult in higher prices?

No one is claiming, Labor costs won't increase. What we are claiming is that inflation won't be as Bad, as the soothsay of the right wing.

Besides, anybody working for fifteen an hour minimum, will need less in social services, pay more in taxes, and create more in demand. It is why, unemployment compensation can simply pick up the slack.

Unemployment compensation is only temporary (2 to 3 years in most states) and dependent on having worked and been laid off through no fault of the employee.

That is the "point of failure". It should double as a social safety net for Labor.

 

[WinterBorn]

Is the dollar menu the extent of your knowledge of pricing? In a previous post I detailed the cost of giving hotel employees $15 an hour. And it is a clear indication that prices would go up significantly. And yet, you simply repeat your dollar menu nonsense.

The wage increase will cause a significant price increase across the board.

How many people actually work for the minimum wage? What drastic price increases are you referrring to, with an increase in the minimum wage versus an increase in autoworker wages.

There is no one in the auto industry making minimum wage.

In some industries, food service, hospitality and others, many start at minimum wage. And raises are given frequently to get them up to $10 an hour or more. But those who have gotten raises deserve to stay that far above minimum wage. They earned it.

I gave clear examples in my experience as a hotel GM. But let's go with the idea that few make minimum wage. Most make $10 an hour. That is still a $5 an hour raise across the board. With even just 35 employees working full time, that is an additional $7k a week in payroll. And that is not $7k in payroll. It is an additional $7k. One of your big expenses just grew by $7k per week. That is an added expense of $364,000.00 per year. Do you REALLY think having a single expense go up $364,000.00 will not reult in higher prices?

No one is claiming, Labor costs won't increase. What we are claiming is that inflation won't be as Bad, as the soothsay of the right wing.

Besides, anybody working for fifteen an hour minimum, will need less in social services, pay more in taxes, and create more in demand. It is why, unemployment compensation can simply pick up the slack.

Unemployment compensation is only temporary (2 to 3 years in most states) and dependent on having worked and been laid off through no fault of the employee.

That is the "point of failure". It should double as a social safety net for Labor.

In times of crisis the federal gov't will extend it. As it did after the 2008 crash when it went to 73 weeks. But it still depended on employer contributions and was only available if you were laid off through no fault of your own and were actively looking for work.

 

[danielpalos]

How many people actually work for the minimum wage? What drastic price increases are you referrring to, with an increase in the minimum wage versus an increase in autoworker wages.

There is no one in the auto industry making minimum wage.

In some industries, food service, hospitality and others, many start at minimum wage. And raises are given frequently to get them up to $10 an hour or more. But those who have gotten raises deserve to stay that far above minimum wage. They earned it.

I gave clear examples in my experience as a hotel GM. But let's go with the idea that few make minimum wage. Most make $10 an hour. That is still a $5 an hour raise across the board. With even just 35 employees working full time, that is an additional $7k a week in payroll. And that is not $7k in payroll. It is an additional $7k. One of your big expenses just grew by $7k per week. That is an added expense of $364,000.00 per year. Do you REALLY think having a single expense go up $364,000.00 will not reult in higher prices?

No one is claiming, Labor costs won't increase. What we are claiming is that inflation won't be as Bad, as the soothsay of the right wing.

Besides, anybody working for fifteen an hour minimum, will need less in social services, pay more in taxes, and create more in demand. It is why, unemployment compensation can simply pick up the slack.

Unemployment compensation is only temporary (2 to 3 years in most states) and dependent on having worked and been laid off through no fault of the employee.

That is the "point of failure". It should double as a social safety net for Labor.

In times of crisis the federal gov't will extend it. As it did after the 2008 crash when it went to 73 weeks. But it still depended on employer contributions and was only available if you were laid off through no fault of your own and were actively looking for work.

lousy management. unemployment compensation could come from the general fund; a general tax on firms would be enough, instead of our current regime.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no one in the auto industry making minimum wage.

In some industries, food service, hospitality and others, many start at minimum wage. And raises are given frequently to get them up to $10 an hour or more. But those who have gotten raises deserve to stay that far above minimum wage. They earned it.

I gave clear examples in my experience as a hotel GM. But let's go with the idea that few make minimum wage. Most make $10 an hour. That is still a $5 an hour raise across the board. With even just 35 employees working full time, that is an additional $7k a week in payroll. And that is not $7k in payroll. It is an additional $7k. One of your big expenses just grew by $7k per week. That is an added expense of $364,000.00 per year. Do you REALLY think having a single expense go up $364,000.00 will not reult in higher prices?

No one is claiming, Labor costs won't increase. What we are claiming is that inflation won't be as Bad, as the soothsay of the right wing.

Besides, anybody working for fifteen an hour minimum, will need less in social services, pay more in taxes, and create more in demand. It is why, unemployment compensation can simply pick up the slack.

Unemployment compensation is only temporary (2 to 3 years in most states) and dependent on having worked and been laid off through no fault of the employee.

That is the "point of failure". It should double as a social safety net for Labor.

In times of crisis the federal gov't will extend it. As it did after the 2008 crash when it went to 73 weeks. But it still depended on employer contributions and was only available if you were laid off through no fault of your own and were actively looking for work.

lousy management. unemployment compensation could come from the general fund; a general tax on firms would be enough, instead of our current regime.

The general fund can't fund what we have without going deeper and deeper into bigger deficits.

Unemployment compensation is meant to help people who lost their job through no fault of their own. If they quit or were fired for cause, they cannot draw unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

No one is claiming, Labor costs won't increase. What we are claiming is that inflation won't be as Bad, as the soothsay of the right wing.

Besides, anybody working for fifteen an hour minimum, will need less in social services, pay more in taxes, and create more in demand. It is why, unemployment compensation can simply pick up the slack.

Unemployment compensation is only temporary (2 to 3 years in most states) and dependent on having worked and been laid off through no fault of the employee.

That is the "point of failure". It should double as a social safety net for Labor.

In times of crisis the federal gov't will extend it. As it did after the 2008 crash when it went to 73 weeks. But it still depended on employer contributions and was only available if you were laid off through no fault of your own and were actively looking for work.

lousy management. unemployment compensation could come from the general fund; a general tax on firms would be enough, instead of our current regime.

The general fund can't fund what we have without going deeper and deeper into bigger deficits.

Unemployment compensation is meant to help people who lost their job through no fault of their own. If they quit or were fired for cause, they cannot draw unemployment.

Only for a while; unemployment compensation engenders a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor pays more in Taxes, and creates more in Demand.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause in Any at-will employment State. EDD must prove a for-cause employment relationship, to deny or disparage benefits.

 

[WinterBorn]

Unemployment compensation is only temporary (2 to 3 years in most states) and dependent on having worked and been laid off through no fault of the employee.

That is the "point of failure". It should double as a social safety net for Labor.

In times of crisis the federal gov't will extend it. As it did after the 2008 crash when it went to 73 weeks. But it still depended on employer contributions and was only available if you were laid off through no fault of your own and were actively looking for work.

lousy management. unemployment compensation could come from the general fund; a general tax on firms would be enough, instead of our current regime.

The general fund can't fund what we have without going deeper and deeper into bigger deficits.

Unemployment compensation is meant to help people who lost their job through no fault of their own. If they quit or were fired for cause, they cannot draw unemployment.

Only for a while; unemployment compensation engenders a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor pays more in Taxes, and creates more in Demand.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause in Any at-will employment State. EDD must prove a for-cause employment relationship, to deny or disparage benefits.

The simple fact is, if you quit your job they will not pay you unemployment compensation. And that is how it should be. If you need a paycheck, keep working. And if you are fired for a good reason, you cannot collect either. That is as it should be. The employer sets basic rules and you follow them to get paid. If you need a paycheck, don't willfully sabotage your job.

 

[danielpalos]

That is the "point of failure". It should double as a social safety net for Labor.

In times of crisis the federal gov't will extend it. As it did after the 2008 crash when it went to 73 weeks. But it still depended on employer contributions and was only available if you were laid off through no fault of your own and were actively looking for work.

lousy management. unemployment compensation could come from the general fund; a general tax on firms would be enough, instead of our current regime.

The general fund can't fund what we have without going deeper and deeper into bigger deficits.

Unemployment compensation is meant to help people who lost their job through no fault of their own. If they quit or were fired for cause, they cannot draw unemployment.

Only for a while; unemployment compensation engenders a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor pays more in Taxes, and creates more in Demand.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause in Any at-will employment State. EDD must prove a for-cause employment relationship, to deny or disparage benefits.

The simple fact is, if you quit your job they will not pay you unemployment compensation. And that is how it should be. If you need a paycheck, keep working. And if you are fired for a good reason, you cannot collect either. That is as it should be. The employer sets basic rules and you follow them to get paid. If you need a paycheck, don't willfully sabotage your job.

Why do you believe that? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer.

 

[WinterBorn]

In times of crisis the federal gov't will extend it. As it did after the 2008 crash when it went to 73 weeks. But it still depended on employer contributions and was only available if you were laid off through no fault of your own and were actively looking for work.

lousy management. unemployment compensation could come from the general fund; a general tax on firms would be enough, instead of our current regime.

The general fund can't fund what we have without going deeper and deeper into bigger deficits.

Unemployment compensation is meant to help people who lost their job through no fault of their own. If they quit or were fired for cause, they cannot draw unemployment.

Only for a while; unemployment compensation engenders a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor pays more in Taxes, and creates more in Demand.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause in Any at-will employment State. EDD must prove a for-cause employment relationship, to deny or disparage benefits.

The simple fact is, if you quit your job they will not pay you unemployment compensation. And that is how it should be. If you need a paycheck, keep working. And if you are fired for a good reason, you cannot collect either. That is as it should be. The employer sets basic rules and you follow them to get paid. If you need a paycheck, don't willfully sabotage your job.

Why do you believe that? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer.

True. But if you choose to be unemployed, it is not my responsibility to pay you.

 

[danielpalos]

lousy management. unemployment compensation could come from the general fund; a general tax on firms would be enough, instead of our current regime.

The general fund can't fund what we have without going deeper and deeper into bigger deficits.

Unemployment compensation is meant to help people who lost their job through no fault of their own. If they quit or were fired for cause, they cannot draw unemployment.

Only for a while; unemployment compensation engenders a positive multiplier effect; and, higher paid labor pays more in Taxes, and creates more in Demand.

Employment is at-will, not for-cause in Any at-will employment State. EDD must prove a for-cause employment relationship, to deny or disparage benefits.

The simple fact is, if you quit your job they will not pay you unemployment compensation. And that is how it should be. If you need a paycheck, keep working. And if you are fired for a good reason, you cannot collect either. That is as it should be. The employer sets basic rules and you follow them to get paid. If you need a paycheck, don't willfully sabotage your job.

Why do you believe that? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer.

True. But if you choose to be unemployed, it is not my responsibility to pay you.

But welfare is?

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective at providing for the general welfare.

 

[Likkmee]

2 blocks west of the Exxon at MLK and N 14 th in Gary Indiana.STUNNING AREA !