What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,805
Reaction score
9,742
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
I am pretty sure that the solution that is being put forth for the homeless and mentally ill is way off base.
Which state? Could we get a link?
It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
You claimed you quoted a state law, which state? Every state has a different view, I'd like to see which state you are quoting from.
Not at all. At-will employment means the same in all States but Montana. What I cited is federal doctrine regarding employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.
No problem, just show the link.
look up any at-will employment State you want. it really is that simple. My argument still holds because I am not a special pleading right winger. And, yes, you really do seem that annoying as is usual and customary for the Right Wing.
You are the one that cited the law, either back it up or don't, pretty easy, why do you make it so difficult?
I cited California labor code. Only the hard work advocating right wing is too lazy to look it up.
First you said federal, then you said state, then you said federal, except Montana and now you claim state again. Which is it? Only the dishonest can't back their words by posting a simple link.
I cited a State labor code first and then the federal doctrine. Right wingers are simply too busy with right wing fantasy to come up with valid arguments for rebuttal.
So you have no actual knowledge or link, since you have failed to back up you claim, I will treat it as a lie. Thanks for conceding the point that you have actually nothing.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
2,154
Points
1,918
There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:
All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.
I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:


The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
you think the mentally ill homeless have incomes?
Why are they mentally ill and homeless? Isn't our social safety net supposed to make sure that doesn't happen.
Only for people who seek help.

People with no address , no income, no valid ID, are outliers. They don't want to be part of the system.
HomelessCamp.png
All those people are outliers? How many would be on the street if they could simply,easily, and conveniently obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, so landlords could love them instead of complain about them.
 
Last edited:
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
So you have no actual knowledge or link, since you have failed to back up you claim, I will treat it as a lie. Thanks for conceding the point that you have actually nothing.
I cited a State labor code, which is something not nothing as you claim and then I cited the general understanding of the federal doctrine which is also something, not nothing as you claim. In right wing fantasy you can be Right for simply being on the right wing.
 
Last edited:

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,761
Reaction score
2,993
Points
1,918
The permanent solution to poverty is self-motivation, not the fool's gold of wealth redistribution. The government can't solve poverty. The best it can do is incentivize wealth accumulation via low taxation and deregulation.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:
All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.
I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:


The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.
It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.

Government programs are more expensive than simply paying more in minimum wages. The multiplier for those government programs has been estimated at around .8. In contrast even unemployment compensation has been measured with a multiplier of 2. In other words, simply raising the minimum wage and providing better access to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can reduce the Cost of Government while increasing economic activity as a result.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The permanent solution to poverty is self-motivation, not the fool's gold of wealth redistribution. The government can't solve poverty. The best it can do is incentivize wealth accumulation via low taxation and deregulation.
Our endless and alleged wars are even more foolish and with less gold for the people or our economy.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,505
Reaction score
3,421
Points
195
you think the mentally ill homeless have incomes?
Why are they mentally ill and homeless? Isn't our social safety net supposed to make sure that doesn't happen.
Only for people who seek help.

People with no address , no income, no valid ID, are outliers. They don't want to be part of the system.
View attachment 448793
All those people are outliers? How many would be on the street if they could simply,easily, and conveniently obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, so landlords could love them instead of complain about them.
The mentally ill would not care.

Is it that hard for you to grasp the concept of mental illness?
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,805
Reaction score
9,742
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
So you have no actual knowledge or link, since you have failed to back up you claim, I will treat it as a lie. Thanks for conceding the point that you have actually nothing.
I cited a State labor code, which is something not nothing as you claim and then I cited the general understanding of the federal doctrine which is also something, not nothing as you claim. In right wing fantasy you can be Right for simply being on the right wing.
You have provided no proof, so no link means you are lying. Thanks for proving again you have nothing.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,625
Reaction score
5,915
Points
280
And as I've explained, those jobs are not generating more revenue than a higher MW. Now, if everyone is willing to pay higher prices and see jobs disappear, we can increase the MW. You simply cannot expect to drastically increase the MW with no impact to prices and jobs. If you could, we could go to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Obviously, we don't.
That has always been a disingenuous argument since wages are subject to market based arbitraje not just value of alleged productivity. Inflation still happens and costs are still passed on to consumers regardless. The point I am making is that right wingers only complain when the Poor make more money.
If it was a disingenuous argument, we would have already set the MW to $100/hr and eliminated poverty.
It would be better than the cost of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; go figure.
It sounds like you seriously believe we could jack the MW like that with no consequences.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
5,522
Reaction score
1,179
Points
140
I would rather we live in a free country absent fascist authoritarians supported by frightened sheep ... :thup:

.
Translation: Pandemic? What pandemic?
It's okay ... You'll make or you won't ... The government is doing the best it can to save you from yourself.
Screw the social distancing ... You just need a hug ... :smiliehug:

.
:sleeping-smiley-015: ... Terrified of government? It's okay ... You'll make or you won't ... Try keeping your head firmly planted in that sand ... :twirl:
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,625
Reaction score
5,915
Points
280
Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job.
Yes, employment is at the will of either party not work or die as right wingers prefer as their "moral" solution in our first world economy. It would help low skilled persons who have never worked go to (trade) school to find out what they are best and become more productive, happier individuals in our economy.
And I was right, you didn't learn. You ignored everything else I wrote, didn't you? Go back over it, read it, and try to react to it.
Equal protection of at-will employment laws makes everything else you wrote irrelevant.
Not when I laid out precisely why they don't apply. You didn't address that, which means you chose to ignore what I said and just keep reiterating the same stupidity over and over.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,625
Reaction score
5,915
Points
280
And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.
how droll coming from a right winger who has no valid arguments only fallacy.
Every single time you attempt this, I paint you into a corner and you go quiet. You haven't backed up a single thing.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. Is it any wonder why the left feels the need to censor right wingers who have nothing but right wing fantasy instead of Any valid arguments for rebuttal.
Someone who attempts to censor admits they can't counter what's being said.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,625
Reaction score
5,915
Points
280
There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:
All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.
I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:


The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.
It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.

Government programs are more expensive than simply paying more in minimum wages. The multiplier for those government programs has been estimated at around .8. In contrast even unemployment compensation has been measured with a multiplier of 2. In other words, simply raising the minimum wage and providing better access to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can reduce the Cost of Government while increasing economic activity as a result.
Where you completely and totally fail is the point where you ignore the reality that jacking the MW too high will just shift more people out of the work force and onto WELFARE, which is what you're actually clamoring for, despite your smokescreen of calling it UC.
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
13,610
Reaction score
6,705
Points
430
I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.
I've read your postings about the general Welfare.

You do not understand it.

The general Welfare clause was intended to limit the use of government's delegated powers.

Congress possesses 'no general legislative authority' (See Federalist #83)

See also Federalist #41.

Your entire premise is flawed as a consequence of this lack of understanding.

Is it worth it to argue with you over it? I doubt it. It'd be like playing checkers with a pigeon. When it's over, the pigeon's just gonna knock all of the pieces all over the place and then strut around crapping all over the board like he won regardless. Ha.
 
Last edited:

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,761
Reaction score
2,993
Points
1,918
Our endless and alleged wars are even more foolish and with less gold for the people or our economy.
Alleged wars? Do you just like to put random words in a sentence to feign intellect?
Regardless, if you dislike war, you must be a Trump supporter. If not that, a raging hypocrite.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
2,154
Points
1,918
There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:
All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.
I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:


The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.
It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.

Government programs are more expensive than simply paying more in minimum wages. The multiplier for those government programs has been estimated at around .8. In contrast even unemployment compensation has been measured with a multiplier of 2. In other words, simply raising the minimum wage and providing better access to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can reduce the Cost of Government while increasing economic activity as a result.
It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.
I think you are very wrong if you believe that poverty alleviation can be accomplished simply by raising minimum wages “until those [other] programs are not necessary.” Introducing a higher minimum wage law on federal, state and/or local levels can have a very positive (and “multiplying”) effect on the economy, but it also in certain cases can have negative aspects as well, especially on small labor intensive businesses with low margins. It is no panacea.

As for government programs, they are not all the same. Some are designed precisely to avoid creating whole new bureaucracies and complicated “means testing.”

Finally, some social (local, state & federal) government welfare programs are simply costly and necessary, and cannot be handled by the private economy. Not everybody can work, or is employable. Children and the ill, like the old and dying, need to be taken care of.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
38,874
Reaction score
8,688
Points
1,340
Location
Atlanta
I have had the same arguments with him. I too have given him plenty of reasons it will not work. He wants Unemployment Compensation to replace the entire welfare system, for the simple fact that welfare has a means test.
No, that is You simply making up stories, story teller. That is not my argument at all. You have no valid reasons why equal protection of the law in this matter won't work, just stories you make up that keep getting taller down the line.
This entire thread is about you wanting Unemployment Compensation just for being unemployed. So, yes, it IS your argument. UC is temporary help for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. You want EC whether they quit, got fired for cause or just don't want to work.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
38,874
Reaction score
8,688
Points
1,340
Location
Atlanta
Poverty can be caused by many reasons. It is up to the individual to do what is needed to get out of it. Bad choices can lead to poverty. There are many mechanisms provided by the State and Federal Governments to help them get out. . However, you can not make people take advantage of them. High School Dropouts, mental illness, personalty disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction, and many more human conditions get in the way.. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
The point is we should have no homeless problem in our first world economy. Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner means more capital circulating in our economy and fewer problems. Who would not benefit by that form of full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism?

For example, people with drug addictions or mental illness would be able to afford rehabilitation to help them be more productive in our economy. And, people with an income would be more market friendly and better able to afford housing to stay off the street. They would benefit, landlords would benefit, and the general public would benefit by not having a homeless problem in their neighborhood.
Homelessness is on a downward trend.



  • 39.8% of homeless persons are African-Americans.
  • 61% of homeless persons are men and boys.
  • 20% of homeless persons are kids.
  • 42% of street children identify as LGBT.
  • New York City has one-fifth of all US sheltered homeless.
  • The homeless problem is on a downward trend.
  • Permanent housing interventions have grown by 450% in 5 years.
The point is, we have a first world economy or should have, and we should have no homeless problem. There is a market friendly solution that merely requires enough morals to faithfully execute our own laws.
There will always be some homeless people.

no matter what the economy is like.
I agree to disagree. Simply camping out for fun is not the same as being homeless due to an inefficiency in public policies that enables it.
Many homeless people are mentally ill and will not ever submit to forced housing
Who said anything about forced housing with persons who have an income. Most would Want to get off the street on their own simply by having an income. And, those with mental health issues would be able to look into rehab with their income. Seems more like a form of free market capitalism than what we have now under our current regime.
you think the mentally ill homeless have incomes?
Daniel, we have been through this before. Here are some reasons your plan won't work.

1) Giving $2,600.00 to addicts would hasten their death by funding their addiction.
2) Giving $2,600.00 to homeless people with metal illness would make them targets for criminals.
3) Where would the gov't send the checks?
4) How many homeless people have a valid ID? No address = no state ID
5) Where would they keep their money? No address or ID = no bank account

There are more issues. But these show how ridiculous your plan is.
That is your story, story teller. Of course it won't work since you have nothing but a straw man who can't talk to the Wizard (of Oz).

Why are they homeless and on the street when we are spending billions on a generational basis for a War on Poverty? Besides, if they were being given that much money, they could participate in the market for mental healthcare in a friendly manner. And, free id to vote, could help them get an id and even make arrangements with EDD to pick up their checks or even a bank to receive direct deposit or even the (mental) health institution to help pay for their health care and rehabilitation. Those are simple problems and not insurmountable at all.
Your same tired answer of "that is your story, story teller". I think everyone can see that my points are valid.

Points #1 and #2 are valid and not addressed by anything you have said. The other points would require major changes prior to giving Unemployment Compensation to homeless addicts or homeless mentally ill.
 

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
38,874
Reaction score
8,688
Points
1,340
Location
Atlanta
No. The "for cause" criteria simply means you are responsible for your own life.
No, the for Cause criteria is repugnant to the concept of employment at the will of either party. Being responsible for your own life still happens with unemployment compensation in our market based economy.
Being fired for cause means you did something to get fired. You broke the rules set by your employer. That is not repugnant to anything. Employment at the will of either party does not mean an employer must keep an employee who violates company policies.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top