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

[danielpalos]

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?

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages. Only the right wing does that.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages. Only the right wing does that.

And his production increased, thereby increasing his profits. He did not do it out of charity.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.

Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work? Hell, that you even demean people who work?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.

Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work? Hell, that you even demean people who work?

It is about equality and equal protection of the law. Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms. Roughly 10% are check. That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added. No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.

Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work? Hell, that you even demean people who work?

It is about equality and equal protection of the law. Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.

NONSENSE

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms. Roughly 10% are check. That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added. No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.

Do you have any evidence? Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms. Roughly 10% are check. That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added. No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.

Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work? Hell, that you even demean people who work?

It is about equality and equal protection of the law. Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.

NONSENSE

You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.

Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the law is clear. Employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.

Do you have any evidence? Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?

It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms. Roughly 10% are check. That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added. No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.

Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work? Hell, that you even demean people who work?

It is about equality and equal protection of the law. Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.

NONSENSE

You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.

Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.

I need a valid argument? Why? You rarely have one.

First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program. So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.

I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law. In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.

I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation. And I have explained why in great detail several times.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes it is. YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you. If you quit, your paycheck stops. If he fires you, he loses your labor.

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.

Do you have any evidence? Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?

It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.

Frivolous? Not at all. I have been very serious about programs to help the poor. I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs. But then, that deserves frivolity.

 

[WinterBorn]

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms. Roughly 10% are check. That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added. No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?