Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

[danielpalos]

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

That model would create a strong disincentive to work and would provide a drain on the economy. Currently, let's say a family of 4 has one earner, who earns $60,000/year and can reasonably support his/her family on that. His/her spouse would be able, under your rules, to just collect between $11,770 and $20,090 just because s/he chooses not to work. With around 40 million non-working spouses, that's a lot of money.

Did you miss the memo regarding capitalism's laziness regarding full employment of resources; we call it a natural rate of inefficiency just to "harass the right".

Yes, I did miss that. Please post a copy.

I just gave you the summary.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is about unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines and that is available on an at-will basis.

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

No, it's really not.

Yes, it really really what the law states. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws regardless of capital under our form of capitalism, due to the socialism of the rule of law over the rule of Men with Capital.

What a delicious word salad.

I have to keep up my literary subscription for my literary license.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And how many of those 93M are 16+?

 

[pinqy]

Ok, my understanding of that is that you are in favor of people choosing to receive compensation equal to the current poverty level in lieu of working regardless of whether they lost their jobs or voluntarily quit. Is that correct? If not, rephrase please.

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

No, it's really not.

Yes, it really really is what the law states. .

No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.

dude; why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will?

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

California State Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

I'm aware of the law. Where in that law are you seeing anything about being entitled to payment by the government at the poverty line rate for voluntarily (or involuntarily) not working?

 

[pinqy]

And how many of those 93M are 16+?

All of them.

 

[AceRothstein]

And how many of those 93M are 16+?

All of them.

 

[danielpalos]

And how many of those 93M are 16+?

It only matters for statistical purposes not employment rate purposes for public sector policy.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, that is what the laws and the concept of employment at the will of either party, means.

No, it's really not.

Yes, it really really is what the law states. .

No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.

dude; why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will?

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

California State Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

I'm aware of the law. Where in that law are you seeing anything about being entitled to payment by the government at the poverty line rate for voluntarily (or involuntarily) not working?

equality before the law?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

 

[pinqy]

No, it's really not.

Yes, it really really is what the law states. .

No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.

dude; why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will?

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

California State Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

I'm aware of the law. Where in that law are you seeing anything about being entitled to payment by the government at the poverty line rate for voluntarily (or involuntarily) not working?

equality before the law?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

ummmmmm what? What does equality before the law have to do with anything?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it really really is what the law states. .

No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.

dude; why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will?

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

California State Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

I'm aware of the law. Where in that law are you seeing anything about being entitled to payment by the government at the poverty line rate for voluntarily (or involuntarily) not working?

equality before the law?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

ummmmmm what? What does equality before the law have to do with anything?

Our republican form of Government?

 

[pinqy]

No, there is no law that states that. But go ahead and cite and link the law you think does.

dude; why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will?

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

California State Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

I'm aware of the law. Where in that law are you seeing anything about being entitled to payment by the government at the poverty line rate for voluntarily (or involuntarily) not working?

equality before the law?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

ummmmmm what? What does equality before the law have to do with anything?

Our republican form of Government?

And why do you think equality under the law means at-will employment requires payment to voluntarily non-working people?

 

[danielpalos]

dude; why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will?

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

California State Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

I'm aware of the law. Where in that law are you seeing anything about being entitled to payment by the government at the poverty line rate for voluntarily (or involuntarily) not working?

equality before the law?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

ummmmmm what? What does equality before the law have to do with anything?

Our republican form of Government?

And why do you think equality under the law means at-will employment requires payment to voluntarily non-working people?

Why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will or a form of "wage slavery" by a lack of recourse to capital.

 

[pinqy]

I'm aware of the law. Where in that law are you seeing anything about being entitled to payment by the government at the poverty line rate for voluntarily (or involuntarily) not working?

equality before the law?

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

ummmmmm what? What does equality before the law have to do with anything?

Our republican form of Government?

And why do you think equality under the law means at-will employment requires payment to voluntarily non-working people?

Why claim you have any understanding of the concept of employment at will or a form of "wage slavery" by a lack of recourse to capital.

Ok, I can read about a dozen different languages, but I have no clue what you mean.

DEFINE YOUR TERMS AND CONCEPTS IF THEY ARE NOT IN GENERAL USE.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

 

[pinqy]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

Why do you keep repeating something I am not arguing against? You are refusing to answer my question. You seem to be inferring some meaning out of the law that has never been made by anyone else.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

Why do you keep repeating something I am not arguing against? You are refusing to answer my question. You seem to be inferring some meaning out of the law that has never been made by anyone else.

Equal application of the law?

 

[pinqy]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

Why do you keep repeating something I am not arguing against? You are refusing to answer my question. You seem to be inferring some meaning out of the law that has never been made by anyone else.

Equal application of the law?

No, the idea of paying people who don't want to work.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

Why do you keep repeating something I am not arguing against? You are refusing to answer my question. You seem to be inferring some meaning out of the law that has never been made by anyone else.

Equal application of the law?

No, the idea of paying people who don't want to work.

Is that your Only excuse for the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws?

 

[pinqy]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.

Why do you keep repeating something I am not arguing against? You are refusing to answer my question. You seem to be inferring some meaning out of the law that has never been made by anyone else.

Equal application of the law?

No, the idea of paying people who don't want to work.

Is that your Only excuse for the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws?

In what way do you think I'm bearing false witness?

 

[PratchettFan]

A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June
Read more at Record 93 626 000 Americans not in labor force

what the hell is this ? i thought the liberliars said the labor force was at an all time high ???

color me puzzled

Of course, you do have to break it down. That number includes everyone over the age of 15. Kids between 16 and 18 are going to have pretty high unemployment, since they are mostly in school. That's about 8.3 million. Then you have people over 65, the retirees. That about 45 million. So the total number comes down to around 40.3 million, which includes people under 25 (another high unemployment areas), the disabled, stay at home moms, etc. A single number really doesn't mean a hell of a lot.