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

[danielpalos]

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.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the equal protection clause of our federal and State Constitutions. UC (unemployment compensation) is simply compensation for merely being unemployed, not welfare as it was formerly known.

 

[danielpalos]

So in other words, you have no guarantee.

Why would anyone who is homeless want to stay that way if they could obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed? It does not make any rational sense.

 

[danielpalos]

It's already means tested because you can only collect if you are laid off from a job,

Only because of unequal protection of the laws. Otherwise, unemployment compensation is merely compensation for being unemployed. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is You who is appealing to ignorance of the law.

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

How is requiring for-cause criteria equal protection of that State (labor code) law?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That is the whole point of equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State.

Some people would simply quit and go to school instead. Who cares if employers automate for their bottom line in that case?

 

[danielpalos]

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

No money is being taken out of the economy because the Poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Local economies benefit and general taxes are still raised.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I am referring to the legality of the issue since our welfare clause is General not common or limited and must provide for any given contingency. And, we have a Commerce clause in particular which implies a market based economy.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

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."

 

[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.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the equal protection clause of our federal and State Constitutions. UC (unemployment compensation) is simply compensation for merely being unemployed, not welfare as it was formerly known.

No, in practice, it is pay to play, temporary insurance, vastly created to protect the employer and the state rather than to seriously try and help any struggling individuals.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the equal protection clause of our federal and State Constitutions. UC (unemployment compensation) is simply compensation for merely being unemployed, not welfare as it was formerly known.

No, in practice, it is pay to play, temporary insurance, vastly created to protect the employer and the state rather than to seriously try and help any struggling individuals.

In practice through unequal protection of at-will employment laws; a legacy from the black code days?

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

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."

Technically. Again, in practice.. sorry, but I'm apparently appealing to my much greater depth of experience and understanding. Between the two of us, you are either the ignorant one or just deliberately kidding yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Agree, temporarily. And "at will" really just means "with no union interference, especially no collectively bargained contracts, and with binding arbitration soon replacing any working stiff's rights to sue."

Sorry, but you are appealing to ignorance of the general understanding of the concept of employment at the will of either party.

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."

Technically. Again, in practice.. sorry, but I'm apparently appealing to my much greater depth of experience and understanding. Between the two of us, you are either the ignorant one or just deliberately kidding yourself.

Through unequal protection of the law, like I said. I am not the one appealing to ignorance of Constitutional law.

 

[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.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the equal protection clause of our federal and State Constitutions. UC (unemployment compensation) is simply compensation for merely being unemployed, not welfare as it was formerly known.

No, in practice, it is pay to play, temporary insurance, vastly created to protect the employer and the state rather than to seriously try and help any struggling individuals.

In practice through unequal protection of at-will employment laws; a legacy from the black code days?

Sure, if that language floats your dinghy. Point remains, it's ingrained. You ain't going to change what it means now, regardless of what you think it meant back when or should mean now.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the equal protection clause of our federal and State Constitutions. UC (unemployment compensation) is simply compensation for merely being unemployed, not welfare as it was formerly known.

No, in practice, it is pay to play, temporary insurance, vastly created to protect the employer and the state rather than to seriously try and help any struggling individuals.

In practice through unequal protection of at-will employment laws; a legacy from the black code days?

Sure, if that language floats your dinghy. Point remains, it's ingrained. You ain't going to change what it means now, regardless of what you think it meant back when or should mean now.

Why not?

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

 

[Grumblenuts]

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."

Explain how one can be "equally free" to "strike" having been discharged? Is the employee "equally free" to fire the employer and have them tossed out on their ear? This is happy talk.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why not?

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

Again, you can make such academic arguments all day long. The world seldom gives a shit. You need a better sales pitch, starting with not calling it "UC." No one deserves any "compensation" for just sitting on their tuffet.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I have no idea why you think that, or why you think being able to quit and still draw UC is equal protection of the law.

The employer loses your labors by YOUR choice. And yet you continue to get paid as if you were working. That is not equal at all.

If you CHOOSE to quit, you choose to forfeit your pay from the employer.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Welfare already exists and is exactly what you are describing. Except it has a means test. Your new "UC" will have a means test to. It is inevitable.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No, they don't have to take it for the team. Unless you are elderly or disabled, you are expected to support yourself. You are welcome to just quit. But you do so without an income from working tax payers.

If you want to talk about ethical and moral character, what does demanding to be paid from other people's labor, while you do nothing, say about yours? If you will not lift a finger to support yourself, why should anyone else give you the fruits of their labor?