You don't seem to realize that "wages should outpace inflation" would CAUSE inflation, as arbitrarily raising a wage without a matching increase in value would lower the value of the money being paid for it. 7 dollars that can buy an hour of labor are worth more than 15 dollars that can buy the same hour of labor. That's 100% inflation and you're just causing the problem you're trying to outrun. You might as well try to outrun a carrot dangling in front of you that's strapped to your forehead. Think for a moment instead of feeling.What doesn't cause inflation? Simply blaming the Poor and claiming wages will be inflationary is meaningless since wages should outpace inflation on an Institutional basis even if socialism is required to accomplish itSo you promote inflationary printing of fiat currency of no real value. That's why your incessant cries for a higher MW will never, ever be satisfied, because inflation will always destroy any increase in value. At this point, you're basically advocating that someone go into all the databases of all the banks and just multiply every account balance by 10. That would fix everything, wouldn't it? Kind of like setting the MW to $100/hr, another thing you won't touch.We have a Commerce clause and a central bank. Any subscription to capitalism will do.You seem to believe the money will just materialize. Why is that?It does not take money out of the economy; such a policy has the effect ensuring full employment of capital resources. It is that increase in efficiency that causes the multiplier.And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.
Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.