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

[danielpalos]

you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.

i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.

Oh really? And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?

I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will. Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?

no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.

post a definition, so we can go over it.

A definition of what?

I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries. The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.

only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.

you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.

Bullshit.

Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?

And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?

your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh really? And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?

I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will. Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?

no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.

post a definition, so we can go over it.

A definition of what?

I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries. The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.

only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.

you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.

Bullshit.

Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?

And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?

your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.

Don't work that way? So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?

 

[danielpalos]

no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.

post a definition, so we can go over it.

A definition of what?

I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries. The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.

only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.

you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.

Bullshit.

Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?

And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?

your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.

Don't work that way? So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

 

[WinterBorn]

A definition of what?

I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries. The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.

only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.

you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.

Bullshit.

Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?

And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?

your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.

Don't work that way? So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.

you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.

Bullshit.

Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?

And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?

your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.

Don't work that way? So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

 

[WinterBorn]

Bullshit.

Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?

And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?

your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.

Don't work that way? So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

And, as we have discussed numerous times, the money to the homeless MUST come with other assistance for their mental health and substance abuse issues.

 

[danielpalos]

your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.

Don't work that way? So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

 

[WinterBorn]

Don't work that way? So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.

If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.

If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy. At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor. Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.

 

[WinterBorn]

Don't work that way? So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect? If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect. If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.

 

[danielpalos]

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.

If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.

If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy. At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor. Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.

lol. means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.

Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis.

 

[danielpalos]

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect? If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect. If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.

why do you say that?

Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.

If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.

If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy. At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor. Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.

lol. means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.

Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis.

Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud. In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help. If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it. Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't. Those things cost money. The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all. If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect? If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect. If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.

why do you say that?

Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.

I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange. People exchange goods and services for money. Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange. The money is taken, but nothing is given in return. It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect. First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.

If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.

If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy. At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor. Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.

lol. means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.

Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis.

Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud. In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help. If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it. Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.

Means testing is not efficient.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect? If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect. If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.

why do you say that?

Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.

I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange. People exchange goods and services for money. Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange. The money is taken, but nothing is given in return. It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect. First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.

That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.

And, we have fiat money not commodity money.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.

If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.

If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy. At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor. Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.

lol. means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.

Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis.

Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud. In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help. If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it. Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.

Means testing is not efficient.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.

Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed? Sure. No chance of fraud in a system like that.

No requirement to show need? No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?

Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it? Of course, some states don't pay much. Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week. But that is still $1191 a month. For doing nothing.

Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?

Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect? If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect. If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.

why do you say that?

Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.

I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange. People exchange goods and services for money. Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange. The money is taken, but nothing is given in return. It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect. First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.

That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.

And, we have fiat money not commodity money.

If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.

Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away. It circulates and multiplies just as well. Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.

 

[danielpalos]

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.

If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.

If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy. At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor. Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.

lol. means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.

Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis.

Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud. In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help. If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it. Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.

Means testing is not efficient.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.

Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed? Sure. No chance of fraud in a system like that.

No requirement to show need? No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?

Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it? Of course, some states don't pay much. Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week. But that is still $1191 a month. For doing nothing.

Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?

Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?

The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect? If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect. If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.

why do you say that?

Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.

I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange. People exchange goods and services for money. Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange. The money is taken, but nothing is given in return. It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect. First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.

That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.

And, we have fiat money not commodity money.

If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.

Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away. It circulates and multiplies just as well. Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.

lol. nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.

Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later. Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.

 

[WinterBorn]

Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.

If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.

If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy. At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor. Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.

lol. means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.

Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis.

Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud. In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help. If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it. Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.

Means testing is not efficient.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.

Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed? Sure. No chance of fraud in a system like that.

No requirement to show need? No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?

Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it? Of course, some states don't pay much. Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week. But that is still $1191 a month. For doing nothing.

Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?

Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?

The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.

There is no requirement for compensation either.