So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

[danielpalos]

stop whining about illegals, then.

Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals. Not once.

the right wing whines about it all the time.

I don't. So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.

the law is employment at the will of either party. there is no other requirement.

Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted. Are you on the autism spectrum?

lol. you only have stories not arguments.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, your argument is prefaced by the fact that you think you deserve to have other people work to provide you with income.

Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??

What makes you so special.

employment is at the will of either party. anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.

Nice words. But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.

Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.

Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??

What makes you so special?

you miss the point. i thought my one liners were simple enough. i may need two or three liners.

Employment is at the will of either party. You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.

Moral character has nothing to do with it. But you are correct. You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs. But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.

Want money? Get a job and earn it.

Yes, it does. Stop whining about taxes. Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.

Moral fortitude? Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?

I don't whine about taxes. I complain about our taxes being wasted.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes it is. The employee gets paid and the employer gets labor. The employment can be ended by either party. That does not mean one party continues to get paid and the other no longer gets use of their labor.

yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.

And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going. If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.

As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.

The employer is free to fire anyone he wants. The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.

No, he does not.

yes, he does.

No he does not. If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production. If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job). All of those costs cut into the profit margin. So no, the employer does not make the same.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals. Not once.

the right wing whines about it all the time.

I don't. So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.

the law is employment at the will of either party. there is no other requirement.

Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted. Are you on the autism spectrum?

lol. you only have stories not arguments.

Not stories. Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.

Nice words. But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.

Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.

Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??

What makes you so special?

you miss the point. i thought my one liners were simple enough. i may need two or three liners.

Employment is at the will of either party. You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.

Moral character has nothing to do with it. But you are correct. You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs. But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.

Want money? Get a job and earn it.

Yes, it does. Stop whining about taxes. Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.

Moral fortitude? Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?

I don't whine about taxes. I complain about our taxes being wasted.

You simply complain. We need better solutions at lower cost. One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.

And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going. If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.

As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.

The employer is free to fire anyone he wants. The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.

No, he does not.

yes, he does.

No he does not. If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production. If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job). All of those costs cut into the profit margin. So no, the employer does not make the same.

Yes, he does. His income is not affected only his profits. And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing whines about it all the time.

I don't. So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.

the law is employment at the will of either party. there is no other requirement.

Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted. Are you on the autism spectrum?

lol. you only have stories not arguments.

Not stories. Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.

You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nice words. But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.

Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.

Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??

What makes you so special?

you miss the point. i thought my one liners were simple enough. i may need two or three liners.

Employment is at the will of either party. You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.

Moral character has nothing to do with it. But you are correct. You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs. But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.

Want money? Get a job and earn it.

Yes, it does. Stop whining about taxes. Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.

Moral fortitude? Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?

I don't whine about taxes. I complain about our taxes being wasted.

You simply complain. We need better solutions at lower cost. One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars. I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor. I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.

Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.

And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going. If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.

As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.

The employer is free to fire anyone he wants. The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.

No, he does not.

yes, he does.

No he does not. If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production. If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job). All of those costs cut into the profit margin. So no, the employer does not make the same.

Yes, he does. His income is not affected only his profits. And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."

YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist. And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders. And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.

 

[danielpalos]

you miss the point. i thought my one liners were simple enough. i may need two or three liners.

Employment is at the will of either party. You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.

Moral character has nothing to do with it. But you are correct. You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs. But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.

Want money? Get a job and earn it.

Yes, it does. Stop whining about taxes. Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.

Moral fortitude? Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?

I don't whine about taxes. I complain about our taxes being wasted.

You simply complain. We need better solutions at lower cost. One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars. I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor. I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.

Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.

And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.

You simply make up stories, story teller. Solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner is much more efficient than any solution based on politics instead of economics.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't. So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.

the law is employment at the will of either party. there is no other requirement.

Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted. Are you on the autism spectrum?

lol. you only have stories not arguments.

Not stories. Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.

You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.

I have not made up a single story. Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.

And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money? Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?

 

[WinterBorn]

Moral character has nothing to do with it. But you are correct. You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs. But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.

Want money? Get a job and earn it.

Yes, it does. Stop whining about taxes. Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.

Moral fortitude? Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?

I don't whine about taxes. I complain about our taxes being wasted.

You simply complain. We need better solutions at lower cost. One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars. I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor. I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.

Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.

And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.

You simply make up stories, story teller. Solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner is much more efficient than any solution based on politics instead of economics.

Welfare provides money, food and medical insurance for those who need it, in an efficient manner. And it also works to make sure the tax dollars go to those who need it, not just want it.

 

[danielpalos]

The employer is free to fire anyone he wants. The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.

No, he does not.

yes, he does.

No he does not. If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production. If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job). All of those costs cut into the profit margin. So no, the employer does not make the same.

Yes, he does. His income is not affected only his profits. And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."

YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist. And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders. And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.

the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.

 

[danielpalos]

the law is employment at the will of either party. there is no other requirement.

Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted. Are you on the autism spectrum?

lol. you only have stories not arguments.

Not stories. Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.

You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.

I have not made up a single story. Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.

And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money? Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?

The Law, is employment at the will of either party. Enforce the law, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does. Stop whining about taxes. Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.

Moral fortitude? Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?

I don't whine about taxes. I complain about our taxes being wasted.

You simply complain. We need better solutions at lower cost. One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars. I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor. I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.

Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.

And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.

You simply make up stories, story teller. Solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner is much more efficient than any solution based on politics instead of economics.

Welfare provides money, food and medical insurance for those who need it, in an efficient manner. And it also works to make sure the tax dollars go to those who need it, not just want it.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, he does not.

yes, he does.

No he does not. If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production. If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job). All of those costs cut into the profit margin. So no, the employer does not make the same.

Yes, he does. His income is not affected only his profits. And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."

YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist. And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders. And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.

the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.

No, my comment was specifically pointing out your error (or lie) about the employer making the same after you quit your job.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted. Are you on the autism spectrum?

lol. you only have stories not arguments.

Not stories. Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.

You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.

I have not made up a single story. Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.

And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money? Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?

The Law, is employment at the will of either party. Enforce the law, right wingers.

The law is enforced. The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting. You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?

Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?

 

[danielpalos]

yes, he does.

No he does not. If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production. If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job). All of those costs cut into the profit margin. So no, the employer does not make the same.

Yes, he does. His income is not affected only his profits. And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."

YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist. And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders. And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.

the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.

No, my comment was specifically pointing out your error (or lie) about the employer making the same after you quit your job.

lol. you simply make up stories, story teller. too bad Your stories have no basis in economics.

cutting costs means higher profits.

 

[WinterBorn]

Moral fortitude? Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?

I don't whine about taxes. I complain about our taxes being wasted.

You simply complain. We need better solutions at lower cost. One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars. I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor. I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.

Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.

And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.

You simply make up stories, story teller. Solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner is much more efficient than any solution based on politics instead of economics.

Welfare provides money, food and medical insurance for those who need it, in an efficient manner. And it also works to make sure the tax dollars go to those who need it, not just want it.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly.

Welfare programs provide a more complete compensation for the natural unemployment. And, once again, the natural rate of unemployment only counts those seeking a job.

 

[WinterBorn]

No he does not. If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production. If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job). All of those costs cut into the profit margin. So no, the employer does not make the same.

Yes, he does. His income is not affected only his profits. And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."

YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist. And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders. And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.

the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.

No, my comment was specifically pointing out your error (or lie) about the employer making the same after you quit your job.

lol. you simply make up stories, story teller. too bad Your stories have no basis in economics.

cutting costs means higher profits.

Cutting costs do mean higher profits, provided production remains the same. As I showed earlier, your quitting causes a drop in production and an increase in spending on things that do not produce.