Does anyone other than you EVER say that UC law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.read page 3, table 1,Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.
We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
View attachment 463307
Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.
In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.
View attachment 463309
Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.
That doesn't sound helpful, does it?