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

[Toddsterpatriot]

That has not been the case with QE.

No inflation under QE? DURR.

Show us the link, don't merely imply you must be Right merely because you are on the right wing.

I await the proof of your claim.

The average annual inflation from 1990 through the end of 2018 was 2.46%. (Jan 1, 2021)

Average Annual Inflation Rate by Decade

Some Decades have Averaged massive annual inflation. This chart shows average Inflation Rates during each decade since 1913

inflationdata.com

.

The average annual inflation from 1990 through the end of 2018 was 2.46%. (Jan 1, 2021)

Thanks for admitting you lied.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your example isn’t realistic

No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?

businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.

Not for very long.

Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?

It doesn't matter. Statutory law makes the private sector a price taker not a price maker. All employers need to is re-evaluate their bottom line and decide how much of that price increase they can pass on to the consumer to remain competitive.

Statutory law makes the private sector a price taker not a price maker.

You're lying.

 

[Slade3200]

I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?

I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.

The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

That meant nothing at all.

Why not? Or, should I take your word for it simply because you are on the right wing.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

What have the blue cities done to alleviate homelessness, we need to follow their success.

Homelessness is really bad in many blue cities. What have Red cities done?

He is the one claiming solutions, not me, So he has lots of success, he needs to share for prosperity.

That’s great, he should keep it up. But I’m asking you if you know of any red cities that have set a better example how to alleviate homelessness?

 

[danielpalos]

What have the blue cities done to alleviate homelessness, we need to follow their success.

It may depend on how the homeless are counted, statistically speaking.

Trump’s discussions about homelessness seem to be predicated mostly on what HUD calls the “unsheltered” population; that is, those homeless individuals who aren’t living in shelters or other provided housing. Those populations have seen similar red- and blue-state patterns since 2007: flat for blue states, down for red states.

That obscures how important those shifts are, however. Remove the shifts in the unsheltered population from the total and the changes in red and blue states largely disappear.


Otherwise, one reason why red States have less homelessness, for now is due to people simply bailing on red States.

Much of the reason that the blue-state homeless population hasn’t fallen since 2007 is growth in New York state itself. By contrast, the population in Florida, the state with the third-largest population, has fallen since 2012.--

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/07/difference-between-red-state-blue-state-homelessness/

Red States will probably see an increase in homelessness once people leaving California, for example, go to cheaper red States and eventually start voting blue.

 

[danielpalos]

There is equality in to he law. The for-cause criteria is equal to an employee being able to sue for violations of labor laws.

That is not what I am referring to. Why do you deliberately appeal to ignorance instead of from ignorance?

Equal protection of the law means employees should be able bear true witness to our own at-will employment laws and simply quit, and still receive unemployment compensation.

 

[Papageorgio]

What law have the states enacted that have the effect of unequal portection?

For-cause criteria for UC in any at-will employment State. At-will means at the will of either party not just one.

So you want compensation to the employers as well to make it equal protection?

 

[danielpalos]

Why not fund it under welfare, why add red tape to a streamlined process which deals with a specific issue, namely people using a stop gap until they find work. A short term process

Welfare is a long term process and much more equipped to handle those not wanting to work.

Because the legal and physical infrastructure is already in place for UC. Simply creating a bigger bureaucracy doesn't make it better. Simply removing the for-cause criteria would make UC simpler and more cost effective. And, to reiterate the point again; (means tested) welfare programs are simply less efficient as demonstrated by the multiplier .8 for welfare spending versus 2 for UC.

 

[danielpalos]

It has been shown to you, over & over, that recreating the UC will not solve homelessness. Why do you persist in your fantasy?

All right wingers have shown is that they prefer to appeal to ignorance but still want to be Right simply because they are on the right wing.

Why do y'all persist in your (right wing) fallacy?

Tell me, why would equal protection of the laws not be a solution to homelessness. Any homeless person could simply go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation to get off the street not jump through hoops for temporary assistance as they do now.

What guarantees do you have that the homeless person would actually rent a home or even seek a home?

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

 

[danielpalos]

I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?

I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.

The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

That meant nothing at all.

Why not? Or, should I take your word for it simply because you are on the right wing.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

What have the blue cities done to alleviate homelessness, we need to follow their success.

Homelessness is really bad in many blue cities. What have Red cities done?

He is the one claiming solutions, not me, So he has lots of success, he needs to share for prosperity.

I share ideas all the time.

 

[danielpalos]

The OP wants tax dollars to support him while he makes no effort to work. There should be shame in such an attitude.

No shame to my game. I actually believe in market based Capitalism. I would still be paying general taxes if not income taxes on that money. The right wing simply prefers their socialism on a national basis and allege they are not really like that in socialism threads.

You claim to believe in market based capitalism, and yet you do not work, do not want to work, and want to live off of other people.

Someone has to, take it for the team. Right wingers are just plain selfish. And, right wingers simply complaining about it any at-will employment State shows Your ethical and moral character more than mine. Just quit and go on unemployment compensation; don't whine about it.

 

[danielpalos]

That has not been the case with QE.

No inflation under QE? DURR.

Show us the link, don't merely imply you must be Right merely because you are on the right wing.

I await the proof of your claim.

The average annual inflation from 1990 through the end of 2018 was 2.46%. (Jan 1, 2021)

Average Annual Inflation Rate by Decade

Some Decades have Averaged massive annual inflation. This chart shows average Inflation Rates during each decade since 1913

inflationdata.com

.

The average annual inflation from 1990 through the end of 2018 was 2.46%. (Jan 1, 2021)

Thanks for admitting you lied.

Where is the pre-WWII Germany level hyper-inflation with QE? You simply appeal to ignorance, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

Statutory law makes the private sector a price taker not a price maker.

You're lying.

Simply because a right winger says so? You have to show how it is a lie. Don't be full of fallacy like is usual for the (intellectually) Lazy (hard work advocating) right wing

 

[Papageorgio]

What have the blue cities done to alleviate homelessness, we need to follow their success.

It may depend on how the homeless are counted, statistically speaking.

Trump’s discussions about homelessness seem to be predicated mostly on what HUD calls the “unsheltered” population; that is, those homeless individuals who aren’t living in shelters or other provided housing. Those populations have seen similar red- and blue-state patterns since 2007: flat for blue states, down for red states.

That obscures how important those shifts are, however. Remove the shifts in the unsheltered population from the total and the changes in red and blue states largely disappear.


Otherwise, one reason why red States have less homelessness, for now is due to people simply bailing on red States.

Much of the reason that the blue-state homeless population hasn’t fallen since 2007 is growth in New York state itself. By contrast, the population in Florida, the state with the third-largest population, has fallen since 2012.--

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/07/difference-between-red-state-blue-state-homelessness/

Red States will probably see an increase in homelessness once people leaving California, for example, go to cheaper red States and eventually start voting blue.

Red cities generally don’t cater to homeless people. Secondly, most the homeless stay within the area where they go homeless, so moving to other cities is not going to happen.

 

[Grumblenuts]

While "welfare" has been rendered a dirty word in this country since Slick Willy, I don't think using the term "UC" stands any chance of wider acceptance. It's literally a term promising only temporary "compensation" or relief from being unemployed. Mandated "relief" offered only to existing employees on a pay to play basis. Beyond itself making little sense no matter how you look at it, the term is so institutionally established here that widely expanding its scope to somehow cover everyone without a job is simply no dog that will hunt. You clearly need a different name for your program at the very least. That coming from a lefty.

 

[Papageorgio]

It has been shown to you, over & over, that recreating the UC will not solve homelessness. Why do you persist in your fantasy?

All right wingers have shown is that they prefer to appeal to ignorance but still want to be Right simply because they are on the right wing.

Why do y'all persist in your (right wing) fallacy?

Tell me, why would equal protection of the laws not be a solution to homelessness. Any homeless person could simply go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation to get off the street not jump through hoops for temporary assistance as they do now.

What guarantees do you have that the homeless person would actually rent a home or even seek a home?

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

So in other words, you have no guarantee.

 

[hadit]

Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.

You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.

That is a FALLACY. The program works the way it does because it is limited to only a subset of people with a specific set of circumstances. Opening it up to everybody would introduce means testing and make it another welfare program. You don't like means testing, but that's what would happen. You would fundamentally change the nature of the program and it wouldn't work the way it does now. You can't avoid that, and STOP calling it "unequal protection of the laws", because it is NOT.

It is your misunderstanding. It is still limited to a subset of people. The employed would not need it and those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough would not want it. Not regular welfare at all. Not means tested. Only the unemployed would need it.

It's already means tested because you can only collect if you are laid off from a job, which means you would have to CHANGE the way the program works, thus eliminating your contention that the program would continue just as it is. And, whether you like it or not, when you set up a program that just pays people who decide not to work, it IS welfare. It's not Unemployment anything, it's welfare. Get used to it, because it's not going away.

And STOP calling it "unequal protection of the laws", because it is NOT. The law is applied equally to all, and you have consistently failed to demonstrate how it is not.

 

[hadit]

And again you fail to acknowledge the truth that you will be incentivizing people to not work, even when they have jobs they can do.

That is your misunderstanding under any form of free market Capitalism. Employers could simply raise wages to attract employees. There is no unemployment under Capitalism only underpayment.

And that is what employers do when they NEED (very important term there, as you will see) workers and can't attract them at lower wages. If they cannot attract workers at a wage level that is lower than the value the employee would represent, the employer will automate the job out of existence, add some of the job's tasks to the existing employees, or just do without. They will not hire someone who represents a net loss.

 

[hadit]

So you want to give those who refuse to work a LOT of money so you can take back a LITTLE money.

Unemployment compensation would still pay less than actually being employed via free market Capitalism. If anyone wanted to be rich they would need to get a job that pays more or learn how to invest, or start their own business.

You still have to take a lot of money out of the economy, incurring the opportunity cost. Why won't you deal with that?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I actually believe in market based Capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology. It's generally been imposed upon people by men of property, never offered as a choice. It soon gets out of control, requiring socially conscious checks to keep it from derailing so often or completely. There's never really been a "market" nor anything to "believe in" ..unless one really feels that working to accumulate property and currency beats providing needed materials or assistance in exchange for assurances of the same as needed to the best of one's ability.

 

[danielpalos]

What have the blue cities done to alleviate homelessness, we need to follow their success.

It may depend on how the homeless are counted, statistically speaking.

Trump’s discussions about homelessness seem to be predicated mostly on what HUD calls the “unsheltered” population; that is, those homeless individuals who aren’t living in shelters or other provided housing. Those populations have seen similar red- and blue-state patterns since 2007: flat for blue states, down for red states.

That obscures how important those shifts are, however. Remove the shifts in the unsheltered population from the total and the changes in red and blue states largely disappear.


Otherwise, one reason why red States have less homelessness, for now is due to people simply bailing on red States.

Much of the reason that the blue-state homeless population hasn’t fallen since 2007 is growth in New York state itself. By contrast, the population in Florida, the state with the third-largest population, has fallen since 2012.--

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/07/difference-between-red-state-blue-state-homelessness/

Red States will probably see an increase in homelessness once people leaving California, for example, go to cheaper red States and eventually start voting blue.

Red cities generally don’t cater to homeless people. Secondly, most the homeless stay within the area where they go homeless, so moving to other cities is not going to happen.

The study says differently. Have anything that backs up your currently unsubstantiated opinion?