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

[danielpalos]

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.

You appealed to ignorance of why they don't apply. Equal protection of the law must apply in any conflict of laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I have been censored on this very board. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[danielpalos]

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:

Fifty Years Later, Reflecting on the Defeat of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan

Guest Editorial by Almaz Zelleke, Associate Professor of Practice in Political Science, NYU Shanghai Fifty years ago, on August 8th, 1969, President Nixon p ...

basicincometoday.com

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.

You miss the point about your one trick pony problem. Equal protection of the law for UC solves it in a market friendly manner.

 

[danielpalos]

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

It is not me that misunderstands but the right wing. We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause nor a common offense clause.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Not at all. I am not the one complaining about taxes and only blaming the cost of Government on the Poor.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I am asking for proof and you have nothing and still have nothing so you by virtue of being ignorant and not having links, you are FAKE NEWS!!! If you can't supply information, you are FAKE NEWS!!! You lost your whole argument. Take care FAKE NEWS boi.

 

[danielpalos]

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:

Fifty Years Later, Reflecting on the Defeat of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan

Guest Editorial by Almaz Zelleke, Associate Professor of Practice in Political Science, NYU Shanghai Fifty years ago, on August 8th, 1969, President Nixon p ...

basicincometoday.com

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.

Not my claim at all. UC for simply being unemployed is the solution to any minimum wage hike.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Story teller. This entire thread is about equality and equal protection of the laws to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

No major changes at all, merely equal protection of the laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Employment is at-will not for-cause in any at-will employment State. You simply don't understand the law. How right wing of you.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I have been censored on this very board. Thanks for clarifying.

Who "censored" you? The only censorship that is illegal is that of the government, so far being censored on this board, means nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Nope. That is just You telling stories. UC is UC and administered by EDD.

 

[danielpalos]

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

That is what You do, story teller. I am bearing true witness to the terms.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Employment is at the will of either party. It really is that simple. It is a State responsibility and an externality to the private sector. A simple management issue.

 

[hadit]

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%.

And that's when the wheels fell off your tricycle. Once you admit that, you reveal such a vast ignorance of basic economics that there's no hope in ever teaching you anything. We'll just watch you and laugh.

 

[Dadoalex]

Once these items are fully funded 100% of profits go toward employee salaries.

With no "owners" there's no income taxes and no owner income so the rest can go to the employees.

Employees already pay "income taxes." Businesses pay business taxes. Governments exist to provide necessary infrastructure that history shows no private entity should be trusted to manage, "profit" or no.

On the other hand, Worker Owned Conglomerates already exist.

First sentence: Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Second sentence: Not like I'm describing. The effort, at a minimum will take several hundred million dollars to get started but once rolling it will compete effectively against for profit corporations and since all earnings are funneled into employee salary and benefits there are no corporate taxes beyond the payroll taxes and local property/business taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

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

In an at-will employment State? There is no requirement to work. So why not solve simple poverty instead of waste money on endless wars.

 

[hadit]

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.

Employment is at the will of either party. It really is that simple. It is a State responsibility and an externality to the private sector. A simple management issue.

The ability to STOP employment is at the will of either party. It is NOT in your power to be employed simply by wishing it. You do realize that basic truth, right? Or is this again where your changing the definitions of words to suit your narrative trips you up?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is a cost savings since we would not need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yet, right wingers have no problem simply throwing money at endless wars they could not win to begin with. Go figure.