Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment anyway. Solving for that means full employment of resources and more efficient market based activity, which can mean more consistent revenue for any local economy.How did you reach that conclusion? I am advocating for a form of full employment of resources using existing legal and physical infrastructure to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.Welfare is already the biggest expenditure. Lowering that cost is what we are trying to accomplish, and solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in that market.So what. There is no requirement that employers pay all of it. More optimum funding can be easily accomplished.From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
The employer pays the overwhelming majority of the UC payments.
Like requiring the tax payers pick up the tab for someone simply deciding they don't want to work and thinking they should be free of the consequences?
That is a lovely sentiment. But it is bullshit.
Claiming that you want to lower welfare costs sounds great. But all you are really doing is creating another welfare system and claiming it will reduce the actual welfare, while it will increase the expenditures if you look at a combination of welfare and your altered version of UC.
How is offering UC for those who quit a job advocating for full employment? There is no incentive for work. Quite the opposite, it would provide incentive for people to quit their job.
You miss the point. Sweatshop capitalists would have to pay more or increase their operational efficiency through other means.Quite the opposite, it would provide incentive for people to quit their job.
Total bullshit.
Opinion | The "labor shortage" is actually a wage shortage
What if, and this may sound wild, businesses paid people more, especially "low wage" workers?www.msnbc.com
"The work Americans put in doesn't match the wages that come out, especially for lower earners, a gap that has become untenable for many."
Keeping wages depressed by flooding labor market is a reason Biden Admin won't secure border
You need "commodity arguments" not "fiat arguments" to prove your point.Anyone who is in poverty should be able to qualify for it. Why do we have any homeless at all?I read it a while ago but didn't save the link and now I having difficulty finding it again.Why do you believe that? Means testing is the most expensive option. One study I read says the hour equivalent cost of welfare is about fourteen dollars an hour. It is one reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
No, it is not. The person filing out the form is not a state employee. And whatever minor administrative cost there is would be quickly covered by any single refusal of welfare benefits due to having adequate means to support themselves.
Do you have a link for that?
And if means testing cuts out just a couple of people every year, it has more than paid for itself.
You seem to think we should pay people just because they want the money. Welfare is for those who need help to survive. Not for those who just want more money but can take care of themselves without help.
And, you misunderstand the whole point. It is about promoting and providing for the general welfare by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in our market based economy. Means tested welfare is truer Socialism.
And, of course, it does not take into account the money saved by refusing welfare for those who do not need it.
Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can solve simple poverty and our homeless problem.
This again? You have tried this before and I have explained how you are wrong. And spare me the "right winger fallacy" nonsense. It is not true.
Anyone who is in poverty should qualify for welfare. That is the purpose of that program. UC is something completely different.
That doesn't solve simple poverty. And, anyone who can't work should be able to qualify for welfare if they need it, otherwise unemployment compensation will do.The natural rate of unemployment includes people who are unable to work or unwilling to work. If you are unable to work, and need help to survive, there are programs such as welfare and SSI disability.
If you choose not to work, you are on your own. If you are unwilling to help yourself, demanding that the tax payers take care of you is ridiculous.
Yes, you do miss the point of employment at the Will of either party.You miss the point. Sweatshop capitalists would have to pay more or increase their operational efficiency through other means.Quite the opposite, it would provide incentive for people to quit their job.
I do not miss the point. And you are living proof of what I say.
You ridicule those who work, and yet you demand to be given money without showing you actually need it. You have not worked for several years. And have said you have no intention of doing so.
You need "commodity arguments" with sound reasoning not "fiat arguments" simply because you claim it.Total bullshit.Opinion | The "labor shortage" is actually a wage shortage
What if, and this may sound wild, businesses paid people more, especially "low wage" workers?
"The work Americans put in doesn't match the wages that come out, especially for lower earners, a gap that has become untenable for many."
Keeping wages depressed by flooding labor market is a reason Biden Admin won't secure border
You need "commodity arguments" not "fiat arguments" to prove your point.Anyone who is in poverty should be able to qualify for it. Why do we have any homeless at all?I read it a while ago but didn't save the link and now I having difficulty finding it again.Why do you believe that? Means testing is the most expensive option. One study I read says the hour equivalent cost of welfare is about fourteen dollars an hour. It is one reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
No, it is not. The person filing out the form is not a state employee. And whatever minor administrative cost there is would be quickly covered by any single refusal of welfare benefits due to having adequate means to support themselves.
Do you have a link for that?
And if means testing cuts out just a couple of people every year, it has more than paid for itself.
You seem to think we should pay people just because they want the money. Welfare is for those who need help to survive. Not for those who just want more money but can take care of themselves without help.
And, you misunderstand the whole point. It is about promoting and providing for the general welfare by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in our market based economy. Means tested welfare is truer Socialism.
And, of course, it does not take into account the money saved by refusing welfare for those who do not need it.
Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can solve simple poverty and our homeless problem.
This again? You have tried this before and I have explained how you are wrong. And spare me the "right winger fallacy" nonsense. It is not true.
Anyone who is in poverty should qualify for welfare. That is the purpose of that program. UC is something completely different.
And, why do we have any homeless problem at all, if what You claim is true?
That doesn't solve simple poverty. And, anyone who can't work should be able to qualify for welfare if they need it, otherwise unemployment compensation will do.The natural rate of unemployment includes people who are unable to work or unwilling to work. If you are unable to work, and need help to survive, there are programs such as welfare and SSI disability.
If you choose not to work, you are on your own. If you are unwilling to help yourself, demanding that the tax payers take care of you is ridiculous.
Yes, you do miss the point of employment at the Will of either party.You miss the point. Sweatshop capitalists would have to pay more or increase their operational efficiency through other means.Quite the opposite, it would provide incentive for people to quit their job.
I do not miss the point. And you are living proof of what I say.
You ridicule those who work, and yet you demand to be given money without showing you actually need it. You have not worked for several years. And have said you have no intention of doing so.
You make their case for means tested welfare that includes mental health.The majority of homeless people have substance abuse issues and mental health problems. Giving them a check they cannot cash (no address/no ID) is worthless. And if they do get the check cashed, they will have to keep the cash on their person will sleeping where ever they can, since they will not be able to pay all the deposits and rent out of one check.
Plus, handing money to people with substance abuse issues only compounds their problem.
We have been through this before.
Why do we have any homeless problems?Anyone who cannot work and needs help to make it should qualify for welfare. No problem.
At-will employment law doesn't say that in any at-will employment State. You need to have the laws changed to abolish employment at-will for employment for-cause.UC is for people who lost their job through no fault of their own and who need assistance until they find another job. It is not for people who choose not to work.
You make their case for means tested welfare that includes mental health.The majority of homeless people have substance abuse issues and mental health problems. Giving them a check they cannot cash (no address/no ID) is worthless. And if they do get the check cashed, they will have to keep the cash on their person will sleeping where ever they can, since they will not be able to pay all the deposits and rent out of one check.
Plus, handing money to people with substance abuse issues only compounds their problem.
We have been through this before.
Why do we have any homeless problems?Anyone who cannot work and needs help to make it should qualify for welfare. No problem.
It is called, being legal to the law. Don't be illegal to employment at-will laws right wingers.Yes, you do miss the point of employment at the Will of either party.You miss the point. Sweatshop capitalists would have to pay more or increase their operational efficiency through other means.Quite the opposite, it would provide incentive for people to quit their job.
I do not miss the point. And you are living proof of what I say.
You ridicule those who work, and yet you demand to be given money without showing you actually need it. You have not worked for several years. And have said you have no intention of doing so.
And if the employee willfully decides not to work, and does not qualify for welfare, they are on their own. Why should tax payers foot the bill for their choice to not work?
How would you get people off the street with means tested welfare?You make their case for means tested welfare that includes mental health.The majority of homeless people have substance abuse issues and mental health problems. Giving them a check they cannot cash (no address/no ID) is worthless. And if they do get the check cashed, they will have to keep the cash on their person will sleeping where ever they can, since they will not be able to pay all the deposits and rent out of one check.
Plus, handing money to people with substance abuse issues only compounds their problem.
We have been through this before.
Yes, I can make a case for that. But the priority must be treatment for the substance abuse and mental health problems before they are given money.
Welfare doesn't work for that and simply denying and disparaging equal protection of the laws is unConstitutional.Why do we have any homeless problems?Anyone who cannot work and needs help to make it should qualify for welfare. No problem.
I have already answered that. And UC is certainly not the answer, since it is only temporary assistance.
/---/ The sole purpose of business is to create profit for the owners at the lowest possible cost. It is not a social jobs program.Inflation happens anyway. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy, regardless therefore wages should outpace inflation.
Your point? That is why we have Government instead of true free market capitalism./---/ The sole purpose of business is to create profit for the owners at the lowest possible cost. It is not a social jobs program.Inflation happens anyway. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy, regardless therefore wages should outpace inflation.
