$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[dblack]

No one would be banning low-wage jobs.

That's exactly what minimum wage laws do.

 

[danielpalos]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

No one would be banning low-wage jobs. Unemployment compensation at the hypothetical hourly rate of fourteen dollars an hour would be a market-friendly solution. Why would anyone want to work for less if they are not required to have a work ethic in an at-will employment State?

You keep forgetting to include the $14/hr in benefits they already get, so the real cost is $28/hr. Be honest.

Means tested welfare would be more difficult to qualify for if they are not below the official poverty range.

Be honest, you never said you wanted to get rid of the $14/hr in benefits the poor already receive. Paying them $14/hr for not ever holding a job DOUBLES the cost. Admit it or state that you would want to do away with the benefits. And, of course, the official poverty level would be adjusted upward as well. You know that.

I am saying only unemployment compensation is not means-tested only employment tested in our at-will employment States. A person on unemployment compensation may not qualify for welfare with means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law

Yes, it does. That is the whole and entire point regarding that entitlement.

Show me the court decision that states it has to. Don't just post another meaningless quote from a law that you pretend makes the case, cite the actual court decision. And naturally, you'll have to then strike down all means testing everywhere in all entitlements to be valid. That means Social Security can no longer be restricted to seniors, Medicare to seniors and the disabled, Medicaid, food stamps and section 8 housing to low-income earners. Disability has to be paid to the non-disabled, and so on.

You dug the hole, now you need to admit it because it's too deep to get out of.

The law needs to be challenged on those grounds.

But it won't be because means tested is accepted in all government benefits. It just is, no matter how many times you insist there's a link between at-will employment and UC that should pay you for not working.

Equal protection of the law is an entitlement.

 

[danielpalos]

No one would be banning low-wage jobs.

That's exactly what minimum wage laws do.

Not at all; it would merely enable truer Capitalism where there is no unemployment only underpayment.

 

[hadit]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

No one would be banning low-wage jobs. Unemployment compensation at the hypothetical hourly rate of fourteen dollars an hour would be a market-friendly solution. Why would anyone want to work for less if they are not required to have a work ethic in an at-will employment State?

You keep forgetting to include the $14/hr in benefits they already get, so the real cost is $28/hr. Be honest.

Means tested welfare would be more difficult to qualify for if they are not below the official poverty range.

Be honest, you never said you wanted to get rid of the $14/hr in benefits the poor already receive. Paying them $14/hr for not ever holding a job DOUBLES the cost. Admit it or state that you would want to do away with the benefits. And, of course, the official poverty level would be adjusted upward as well. You know that.

I am saying only unemployment compensation is not means-tested only employment tested in our at-will employment States. A person on unemployment compensation may not qualify for welfare with means testing.

That's because he has income from UC. IOW, no double dipping. UC is means tested in that you can only collect it if you've been laid off from a job through no fault of your own. It was deliberately set up that way because it's funded by taxes on employers and it would be completely overrun if it tried to cover everyone who just quit because they didn't want to work the job any more. If we did that, we would need, you guessed it, a massive new welfare program.

 

[dblack]

No one would be banning low-wage jobs.

That's exactly what minimum wage laws do.

Not at all

Are you stoned again? That's exactly what minimum wage laws do. It's ALL they do.

it would merely enable truer Capitalism where there is no unemployment only underpayment.

WTF are you babbling about? Do you realize that idiotic, nonsense phrases like this mean nothing to anyone besides you?

 

[hadit]

Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law

Yes, it does. That is the whole and entire point regarding that entitlement.

Show me the court decision that states it has to. Don't just post another meaningless quote from a law that you pretend makes the case, cite the actual court decision. And naturally, you'll have to then strike down all means testing everywhere in all entitlements to be valid. That means Social Security can no longer be restricted to seniors, Medicare to seniors and the disabled, Medicaid, food stamps and section 8 housing to low-income earners. Disability has to be paid to the non-disabled, and so on.

You dug the hole, now you need to admit it because it's too deep to get out of.

The law needs to be challenged on those grounds.

But it won't be because means tested is accepted in all government benefits. It just is, no matter how many times you insist there's a link between at-will employment and UC that should pay you for not working.

Equal protection of the law is an entitlement.

That's right, and we've found that means testing does not violate that. What you want would invalidate all means testing and destroy the entire welfare facade you want to increase with this new welfare entitlement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with.

It applies to the law. The law is employment at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation promotes and provides for the general welfare.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

UC is means tested, bottom line, just as welfare is means tested, just as Medicare is means tested, just as virtually every benefit created by the government is means tested. You're just simply wrong and will never win this argument.

UC must follow at-will employment law; any denial or disparagement of equal protection of that specific law (for benefits) is repugnant to our Constitution and supreme law of the land. If I can quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State; no Agency of that State may nor the legislature of that State enact, any laws which may have the effect of unequal protection. Thus, the Agency involved must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to impose penalties based on common understanding of the law in an at-will employment State.

Oddly, unemployment law doesn't use the words "at-will".
And at-will law doesn't mention "unemployment compensation".
No denial or disparagement occurs.

 

[hadit]

No one would be banning low-wage jobs.

That's exactly what minimum wage laws do.

Not at all

Are you stoned again? That's exactly what minimum wage laws do. It's ALL they do.

it would merely enable truer Capitalism where there is no unemployment only underpayment.

WTF are babbling about?

I wonder if it actually means anything to him any more or if he just keeps repeating it because that's what he does.

 

[hadit]

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with.

It applies to the law. The law is employment at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation promotes and provides for the general welfare.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

UC is means tested, bottom line, just as welfare is means tested, just as Medicare is means tested, just as virtually every benefit created by the government is means tested. You're just simply wrong and will never win this argument.

UC must follow at-will employment law; any denial or disparagement of equal protection of that specific law (for benefits) is repugnant to our Constitution and supreme law of the land. If I can quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State; no Agency of that State may nor the legislature of that State enact, any laws which may have the effect of unequal protection. Thus, the Agency involved must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to impose penalties based on common understanding of the law in an at-will employment State.

Oddly, unemployment law doesn't use the words "at-will".
And at-will law doesn't mention "unemployment compensation".
No denial or disparagement occurs.

He keeps insisting there's a link where there is none, and ONLY in this one area. In every other area, means testing is completely fine.

 

[dblack]

No one would be banning low-wage jobs.

That's exactly what minimum wage laws do.

Not at all

Are you stoned again? That's exactly what minimum wage laws do. It's ALL they do.

it would merely enable truer Capitalism where there is no unemployment only underpayment.

WTF are babbling about?

I wonder if it actually means anything to him any more or if he just keeps repeating it because that's what he does.

I think he has this conception of himself as an "enigmatic genius" or something. Drugs will do that to a person.

 

[danielpalos]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

No one would be banning low-wage jobs. Unemployment compensation at the hypothetical hourly rate of fourteen dollars an hour would be a market-friendly solution. Why would anyone want to work for less if they are not required to have a work ethic in an at-will employment State?

You keep forgetting to include the $14/hr in benefits they already get, so the real cost is $28/hr. Be honest.

Means tested welfare would be more difficult to qualify for if they are not below the official poverty range.

Be honest, you never said you wanted to get rid of the $14/hr in benefits the poor already receive. Paying them $14/hr for not ever holding a job DOUBLES the cost. Admit it or state that you would want to do away with the benefits. And, of course, the official poverty level would be adjusted upward as well. You know that.

I am saying only unemployment compensation is not means-tested only employment tested in our at-will employment States. A person on unemployment compensation may not qualify for welfare with means testing.

That's because he has income from UC. IOW, no double dipping. UC is means tested in that you can only collect it if you've been laid off from a job through no fault of your own. It was deliberately set up that way because it's funded by taxes on employers and it would be completely overrun if it tried to cover everyone who just quit because they didn't want to work the job any more. If we did that, we would need, you guessed it, a massive new welfare program.

A partial solution is expensive if we are waging an alleged war on poverty instead of actually solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner. Right wingers only have fallacious appeals to false morality and emotions not any valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law

Yes, it does. That is the whole and entire point regarding that entitlement.

Show me the court decision that states it has to. Don't just post another meaningless quote from a law that you pretend makes the case, cite the actual court decision. And naturally, you'll have to then strike down all means testing everywhere in all entitlements to be valid. That means Social Security can no longer be restricted to seniors, Medicare to seniors and the disabled, Medicaid, food stamps and section 8 housing to low-income earners. Disability has to be paid to the non-disabled, and so on.

You dug the hole, now you need to admit it because it's too deep to get out of.

The law needs to be challenged on those grounds.

But it won't be because means tested is accepted in all government benefits. It just is, no matter how many times you insist there's a link between at-will employment and UC that should pay you for not working.

Equal protection of the law is an entitlement.

That's right, and we've found that means testing does not violate that. What you want would invalidate all means testing and destroy the entire welfare facade you want to increase with this new welfare entitlement.

All you have appeal to ignorance of the specific laws involved. At-will employment only means one thing. Requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of the law through non-uniform operation of that general law.

 

[danielpalos]

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with.

It applies to the law. The law is employment at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation promotes and provides for the general welfare.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

UC is means tested, bottom line, just as welfare is means tested, just as Medicare is means tested, just as virtually every benefit created by the government is means tested. You're just simply wrong and will never win this argument.

UC must follow at-will employment law; any denial or disparagement of equal protection of that specific law (for benefits) is repugnant to our Constitution and supreme law of the land. If I can quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State; no Agency of that State may nor the legislature of that State enact, any laws which may have the effect of unequal protection. Thus, the Agency involved must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to impose penalties based on common understanding of the law in an at-will employment State.

Oddly, unemployment law doesn't use the words "at-will".
And at-will law doesn't mention "unemployment compensation".
No denial or disparagement occurs.

Only one law defines an at-will employment relationship. For-cause employment must be proved by the Agency of the State responsible for administering that program for the State.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one needs to prove anything to deny you a bum check.

 

[danielpalos]

No one needs to prove anything to deny you a bum check.

Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies. Have any valid lines of reasoning you want to argue or do you prefer to simply be full of fallacy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one needs to prove anything to deny you a bum check.

Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies. Have any valid lines of reasoning you want to argue or do you prefer to simply be full of fallacy?

The valid line of reasoning is: bums who never worked or who quit work are not eligible
for ue compensation. You'll get no bum check for smoking weed in your mom's basement.
Prove you qualify or admit your fallacy.

 

[hadit]

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is market friendly.

Jabberwocky. Nice.

How exactly will banning low wage jobs help the poor?

No one would be banning low-wage jobs. Unemployment compensation at the hypothetical hourly rate of fourteen dollars an hour would be a market-friendly solution. Why would anyone want to work for less if they are not required to have a work ethic in an at-will employment State?

You keep forgetting to include the $14/hr in benefits they already get, so the real cost is $28/hr. Be honest.

Means tested welfare would be more difficult to qualify for if they are not below the official poverty range.

Be honest, you never said you wanted to get rid of the $14/hr in benefits the poor already receive. Paying them $14/hr for not ever holding a job DOUBLES the cost. Admit it or state that you would want to do away with the benefits. And, of course, the official poverty level would be adjusted upward as well. You know that.

I am saying only unemployment compensation is not means-tested only employment tested in our at-will employment States. A person on unemployment compensation may not qualify for welfare with means testing.

That's because he has income from UC. IOW, no double dipping. UC is means tested in that you can only collect it if you've been laid off from a job through no fault of your own. It was deliberately set up that way because it's funded by taxes on employers and it would be completely overrun if it tried to cover everyone who just quit because they didn't want to work the job any more. If we did that, we would need, you guessed it, a massive new welfare program.

A partial solution is expensive if we are waging an alleged war on poverty instead of actually solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner. Right wingers only have fallacious appeals to false morality and emotions not any valid arguments.

Your solution is a massive new welfare program and wouldn't work any better than the existing welfare programs.

 

[hadit]

Here's the reality. UC doesn't have to follow at-will law

Yes, it does. That is the whole and entire point regarding that entitlement.

Show me the court decision that states it has to. Don't just post another meaningless quote from a law that you pretend makes the case, cite the actual court decision. And naturally, you'll have to then strike down all means testing everywhere in all entitlements to be valid. That means Social Security can no longer be restricted to seniors, Medicare to seniors and the disabled, Medicaid, food stamps and section 8 housing to low-income earners. Disability has to be paid to the non-disabled, and so on.

You dug the hole, now you need to admit it because it's too deep to get out of.

The law needs to be challenged on those grounds.

But it won't be because means tested is accepted in all government benefits. It just is, no matter how many times you insist there's a link between at-will employment and UC that should pay you for not working.

Equal protection of the law is an entitlement.

That's right, and we've found that means testing does not violate that. What you want would invalidate all means testing and destroy the entire welfare facade you want to increase with this new welfare entitlement.

All you have appeal to ignorance of the specific laws involved. At-will employment only means one thing. Requiring good cause in an at-will employment State is unequal protection of the law through non-uniform operation of that general law.

You keep saying that without acknowledging that you are claiming the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law, because no one else is saying what you're saying. Means testing has been valid for a long, long time.

 

[hadit]

Which applies to welfare in general, ala food stamps, something you don't have a problem with.

It applies to the law. The law is employment at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation promotes and provides for the general welfare.

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

UC is means tested, bottom line, just as welfare is means tested, just as Medicare is means tested, just as virtually every benefit created by the government is means tested. You're just simply wrong and will never win this argument.

UC must follow at-will employment law; any denial or disparagement of equal protection of that specific law (for benefits) is repugnant to our Constitution and supreme law of the land. If I can quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State; no Agency of that State may nor the legislature of that State enact, any laws which may have the effect of unequal protection. Thus, the Agency involved must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to impose penalties based on common understanding of the law in an at-will employment State.

Oddly, unemployment law doesn't use the words "at-will".
And at-will law doesn't mention "unemployment compensation".
No denial or disparagement occurs.

Only one law defines an at-will employment relationship. For-cause employment must be proved by the Agency of the State responsible for administering that program for the State.

It does not have to be proven, in fact it doesn't even enter into the equation.