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

[WinterBorn]

You expect the employer to continue to pay you, even though you quit the job or were fired for violating stated ruled. And you want to call that equality?

Even worse, the dipstick wants to receive unending unemployment even if he never had a job.

There is no requirement to be a wage-slave in any at-will employment State. Only right wingers want to abolish even statutory minimum wages just like in the good old days.

Your reply has nothing to do with what Toddster said.

 

[WinterBorn]

You expect the employer to continue to pay you, even though you quit the job or were fired for violating stated ruled. And you want to call that equality?

Even worse, the dipstick wants to receive unending unemployment even if he never had a job.

He wants welfare, except welfare has a means test. You have to prove you cannot survive without aid. He obviously can.

He wants employers to be forced to pay him, even if he quits or is fired for cause.

Not welfare at all; merely a simple and market friendly solution to Capitalism's not socialism's Natural rate of unemployment.

Yes, it is welfare. You want it to be indefinite. You want it to be independent of whether you voluntarily quit your job or were fired for cause. That is not UC.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO.. Don't we owe our fellow citizens that much? What are we afraid of?

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO..

And those who don't should still get paid.....ask Daniel.

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed in our market economy. It is free market capitalism at its finest; unlike your right wing, alleged War on Crime which is nothing but socialism on a national basis.

You are changing the definition of unemployment compensation to suit your needs.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no requirement to be a wage-slave in any at-will employment State.

Of course not. Just don't expect to be paid.

I don't expect any employer to pay me; equal protection of the laws, however is a State responsibility.

The employment laws are based on the employer providing pay for the labor or services provided by the employee. You want to deprive the employer of your labor or services, and yet you still want to paid. That is not what UC was created to do. That is what welfare was created to do. And even that was not created to support people for life.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

The state provides 12 years of public education, and often access to trade schools. I think bringing them back to the public school system would be a great idea.

But if you just fucked around for 12 years, playing games or whatever, that is your fault. And it means the climb to productivity will be longer and harder. That is not the fault of the state or the tax payers.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

So you want those people to simply, easily and conveniently obtain money without working?

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Homelessness statistics in the US for 2021 | Policy Advice

Despite the efforts to provide adequate housing, homelessness statistics reveal that they haven’t been enough. Look here to learn more.

policyadvice.net

• 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.

So all mental health issues should be dealt with by sending people to rehab? The ignorance of our poverty, mental health and drug dependence issues is stunning. Not sure a person with no understanding of a basic issue in America is qualified to show us a way out.

Only if you want to quibble. I meant mental health issues due to drugs since many have claimed drug issues are a problem with the homeless. Mental health issues should be treated by mental health professionals. Simply having an income makes that more likely under any form of, free market capitalism.

And, those persons would be less likely to have trouble with law enforcement. A cost savings in both lives and money simply by being able to participate in our market based economy in a market friendly manner.

No..not a cost savings at all -------------------druggies chose their own problems
Throwing money at medical help provides them free housing, free medical to get drugs, free food------and only improves their living standards at the cost of taxpayers.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Thanks for your completely biased and unsubstantiated opinion. Have any valid arguments to prove your point or are you a right winger and don't know it?

You are close enough to Sierra College to commute, and once you get your G.E.D. , perhaps you could go there and take that first step towards improving yourself.

It certainly beats living off other people your whole life.

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment even if Labor is required to obtain a doctorate to participate in the market for labor.

capitalism has never required doctorates to participate

 

[Turtlesoup]

Obviously you are clueless about the real world. Theories and philosophy treat the symptoms not the problem.

Obviously you are on the right wing and have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments, like usual for right wingers.

In otherwords, you mean you got butt kicked and you have no facts to argue just attacks and smears on posters..

 

[hadit]

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.

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO.. Don't we owe our fellow citizens that much? What are we afraid of?

How do you intend to pull off that miracle?

1. Do you have any actual idea of what it takes for a job to be created? If you imagine that you can just create jobs out of nothing because you want them, stop right here and go back to your safe space, because that's not how it works. A job is created when an employer faces enough demand for his product or service that adding an employee would earn him more money than the cost he would incur for hiring the employee, and you should already know the costs associated with hiring an employee. You have the base wage that you pay, then you have Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes you have to pay on top of that. Then you have benefit costs added on top of that and unemployment insurance. All of a sudden, that job you want to create costs a lot more than what you would think.
2. Are you willing to buy more things than you already do and pay higher prices so employers can hire more people and pay them? Businesses run off demand. If there is not enough demand for their product, they don't create new jobs and hire more people.
3. Why don't you hire a bunch of people if you believe anyone who wants a job should have one? Answer that honestly and you'll better understand why it doesn't happen in the real world.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Homelessness statistics in the US for 2021 | Policy Advice

Despite the efforts to provide adequate housing, homelessness statistics reveal that they haven’t been enough. Look here to learn more.

policyadvice.net

• 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.

So all mental health issues should be dealt with by sending people to rehab? The ignorance of our poverty, mental health and drug dependence issues is stunning. Not sure a person with no understanding of a basic issue in America is qualified to show us a way out.

Only if you want to quibble. I meant mental health issues due to drugs since many have claimed drug issues are a problem with the homeless. Mental health issues should be treated by mental health professionals. Simply having an income makes that more likely under any form of, free market capitalism.

And, those persons would be less likely to have trouble with law enforcement. A cost savings in both lives and money simply by being able to participate in our market based economy in a market friendly manner.

You don't seem to understand mental health do you? Drugs are usually self medication for those with mental health issues, the other side is many mental health patients refuse to take any medication. You can't throw money at a problem and expect it to end. We need to help mentally ill patients and throwing money at them isn't going to help them or anyone else, it will make them targets and that will hurt them. Unless you have a comprehensive plan on how to take care of these people, you are wasting time, money, and creating a risk for the mentally ill person.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

As I have shown you in previous discussion, the majority of homeless people either have mental health issues, addiction issues, or a combination of the two.

Your idea that having a paycheck would mean the mentally ill would seek treatment and reintegrate into society is laughable. The mentally ill who are homeless need more than a few sessions a week with a therapist. Most would need to be institutionalized. We cannot do that if they don't want to go.

As for addicts (which includes alcoholics), they would have to want to live in a home more than they want to continue to do whatever drugs they do. They would not make that choice to get clean in order to get off the street. In fact, they have already made that choice.

 

[Papageorgio]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The two largest transfers of wealth occurred under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President and a split Congress. Republican or Democrat, they are owned by the rich. Time to rid America of the two party and the crooks that operate them.

I would agree with you, but for right wingers being willing to insurrect against the Union. Equal protection of the laws seems more straight forward and is actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.

Yep, thank you for pointing out that the Democrats are just as guilty of transferring money to the rich as the GOP, that cannot be denied. Blame who you need to however the facts show the Dems and GOP are equally responsible for the transfer so think either one would be willing to fix the issue is just wishful thinking.

I agree with you that even the reality tv guy was unable to get real for the Poor, only the rich in the Middle East.

Not sure about reality TV, I don't waste my time with such nonsense. The fact you can't see that the two party system is broken leads me to believe your sputtering is nonsense. You are delusional in believing either party will help us out of our mess. I have over 100 years of history on my side, you have absolutely nothing.

 

[BlackSand]

I would rather we live in a free country absent fascist authoritarians supported by frightened sheep ...

.

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 ...

.

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

You speak without knowledge, about things I am fully aware of and accept as both very much real and dangerous.
The place we disagree is that you may feel one sacrifice outweighs or justifies the other.

You are nothing more than a lowly servant that deserves the scraps your masters will provide.
There is no need to argue the obvious, for you are hardly worth the trouble, and of no real consequence to me.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

As I have shown you in previous discussion, the majority of homeless people either have mental health issues, addiction issues, or a combination of the two.

Your idea that having a paycheck would mean the mentally ill would seek treatment and reintegrate into society is laughable. The mentally ill who are homeless need more than a few sessions a week with a therapist. Most would need to be institutionalized. We cannot do that if they don't want to go.

As for addicts (which includes alcoholics), they would have to want to live in a home more than they want to continue to do whatever drugs they do. They would not make that choice to get clean in order to get off the street. In fact, they have already made that choice.

Getting a mentally ill person to take medication is very difficult. That medication separates them from normal people and no one wants to be mentally ill. Tough stigma to be assigned to. It is a small part of a very complex problems that make the throwing of money to homeless or the mentally ill a very bad, if not awful idea.

 

[irosie91]

OK----at age 18, I had a minimum wage job in a large department store----1.25 per hour----------I worked 20 hours per week ---senior year in High School. I NEEDED that one too.
Employees get around that one by hiring PART TIME ONLY

If that works for everyone, why have we had a War on Poverty for over a few decades? Anecdotal evidence is simply that. The proof is, why do you or any right wingers complain about taxes when it is soo easy, according to right wingers, to simply improve themselves through hard work and get a job that pays enough so you don't feel any need to complain about taxes. Simply whining about taxes is proof right wingers are simply wrong even though they are on the right wing.

it's not easy. It was not easy for me or for my four brothers. It is a fact that I have---in the course of my long life, never complained about income tax---I simply calculated my income was half of that which "they said I was getting". I have been a registered democrat since the day I turned 21 ---EONS ago----by heredity ---my grandmother, born in 1899, marched and demonstrated Pro-Union as a sweatshop worker as a teenager. Just how EASY is it supposed to be? I am now beginning to complain about --TAXES because
the country has turned to BREAD AND CIRCUSES

 

[irosie91]

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.

Lately----and I mean REALLY LATELY---a sickness that has been developing since the 1960's "Turn on, tune in, and DROP OUT"
generation of the 1960s------the AL LA MODE
approach has been in reference to "self-help programs" -----BE A HORSE THAT REFUSES TO DRINK. It is this very attractive fashion that has so dazzled MASSES OF PEOPLE---to
whom corrupt politicians----like Biden and the kamalahump, cater

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I agree to disagree. The concept of illness, mental or otherwise could and should be treated by the appropriate practitioners.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law. You have less standing than I do.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sure, the consequences are economically manageable just like these ones are:

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.