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

[Orangecat]

Why would they do that if they could apply for unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour and go to school to study human resources management instead?

Because some people have the integrity to earn their own money instead of leeching off the system. Not that you would know. Your posts make your subsidized status obvious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is the pre-WWII Germany level hyper-inflation with QE?

Who claimed there would be? Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Simply because a right winger says so? You have to show how it is a lie.

Gladly.
When you post the statutory law that makes the private sector a price taker,
I'll show that you're a liar.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Hmmm...you sharing ideas? Not really, you only want to give ideas, you want no feedback on your ideas, thus you aren’t sharing.

 

[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.

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

Yep, I have them, and as soon as you show me the links I asked for and you ignored and called me lazy for not looking myself, I will happily give you my links, I have no issue with that because as you told me earlier, you like to share.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

Simply because a right winger says so? You have to show how it is a lie.

Gladly.
When you post the statutory law that makes the private sector a price taker,
I'll show that you're a liar.

It looks Dan is playing his hand out and it no longer looks good because he doesn’t share. So far all he has provided was fake news.

 

[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.

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

"Appeal to ignorance" is an informal logical fallacy. Like "UC" it means something quite specific. That something being decidedly not the way you've been abusing it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Many in poverty are there by choice.

I have one friend and several family members that are living in poverty and they wont listen to a damn thing I say. I've even offered to pay for trade school for several neices and nephews...only one has taken me up on it.

And guess what...after all that expense and school work, then 2 years of working in the trade...he is no longer working as an auto mechanic and is back living in poverty.

At this point I've learned that hunger is a great motivator for the lazy!!!

I have family members who are hard headed and who make bad decisions too. They're not typical of most poor people.

 

[Blues Man]

no it isn't.

Market research is conducted on relevant factors that will affect costs of the production and distribution of a product or service and those factors include the cost of labor but not the expenses of an employee.

You are selling your labor and as the seller you can ask any price you want for that labor but there is no obligation for any employer to accept that offer.

You are responsible for making your labor worth enough so that an employer will pay you more for it.

Yes, it is. Labor is subject to market based arbitraje. All factors of cost (for labor) must be considered by labor and therefore must affect the arbitraje in that market. Some potential labor may not seek employment with a given employer or a given market simply due to those factors; which affects that market in general.

Do you even know the definition of arbitrage?

And your housing costs are not related to my production costs in any way.

Yes, I used it instead of market based competition. Would you prefer I use that instead?

Any costs are inputs to somebody and must be considered. Your production costs are not necessarily related to anyone's housing costs. Why should a person's wage request be "overpriced" when costs can be passed on the consumer, ceteris paribus.

arbitrage isn't market based composition.

You might want to look it up.

And there is a limit to what costs can be passed on to the consumer.

If the price of a product is too high people won't buy it. That is where your market research comes in. What people are willing to pay for a service in a given area is what a business will gave to sell his product for.

If every other sandwich shop charges $6 for a sandwich and you charge 12 because you want to pay your employees a much higher wage than other sandwich shops then you won't be in business very long

 

[Blues Man]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

and just what profit margin do you think the average small business owner sees?

Don't forget that small business not big corporations employ the most people.

 

[Blues Man]

#1) You said you don't know anyone who is good with money that is poor
#2) We don't teach people how to budget. Parents may but teachers do not.
#3) Teach everyone how to open a bank account and manage money

Do the above and you will significantly reduce poverty. Education is the key. Fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

All corporate management is usually well educated and some specialize in business management.

All corporate management should have learned how to create a budget and manage their budgets.

All corporate management should know how to open a bank account and manage not only their money but also their corporation's money.

Why do we have Institutional corporate welfare?

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

― Calvin Coolidge

Corporations aren't people. CEOs aren't on the hook. How they manage personal finances has zero to do with how they manage corporate finances. They likely would not lever themselves at 7x but they will do so with corporations.

You are being disingenuous.

Besides, corporations are persons for juridical purposes. And, they have entire Management Teams to what you claim Individuals should be able to do on their own. Yet, corporate welfare is alive and well.

So do you know many corporations that don't have enough to eat or have to sleep outside at night? Corporate welfare is there to keep people employed. Corporations don't literally eat and drink, they are comprised of people. Who is really being disingenuous....?

Corporations are in it for their bottom line not to keep individuals employed. You are the one being disingenuous or we would not have the expense of an alleged and endless War on Poverty.

most people don't work for big corporations.

and businesses aren't obligated to keep people employed

 

[Grumblenuts]

and businesses aren't obligated to keep people employed

Yep, as he just said..

Corporations are in it for their bottom line not to keep individuals employed.

This is a point of agreement. Try building from it..

What societal good is being served by large corporations that artificially inflate their own stock value while bribing our supposed government representatives? There's a point where things grow too big and beyond control. This cancer is what needs nipping in the bud first.

 

[hadit]

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?

Because the law specifically defines who is eligible to receive the benefit and who is not. I've given you this one before and you ignored it, maybe you'll pay attention this time:

I pay a certain amount of taxes every year. My neighbor pays a different amount. Is that equal protection of the law? According to your standard, no, yet you champion the idea that people should pay different amounts of taxes.
I do not qualify for Social Security disability payments. Is that equal protection of the law? According to your standard, no, yet even an igmo should be able to see that only the disabled should be able to collect.
I cannot legally park in a handicapped only parking space. Is that equal protection of the law? According to your standard, no, yet you do not complain about it. Why is that?
I can drive my car on the road as long as I want to and stop when I want to, but truck and bus drivers are limited by law in the amount of hours they can drive every day. Is that equal protection of the law? According to your standard, no, yet you do not complain about it. Why is that?

Unequal protection under the law only applies when a law is not applied equally to those it specifically states it covers. For example, driving laws are routinely applied unequally. When an attractive woman can flash her boobs at a cop and get off with a warning while an unattractive woman gets a speeding ticket (all other factors being equal), that's unequal protection of the law. When a black man is taken out of his car, held in handcuffs and the car searched while a white man just gets a ticket for a tail light being out (all other factors being equal), that's unequal protection of the law. But you cannot claim unequal protection of the law if you get a ticket for jaywalking while a person driving a car at the same place and same time does not. The two women are under the same law but are treated differently. The two men are under the same law but are treated differently. THAT'S unequal protection. You getting a ticket for jaywalking while the driver of the car that almost hit you does not IS equal protection. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

Now, think very carefully, because this is the crux of the matter. Unemployment compensation laws are written to apply only to those who were let go from the job through no fault of their own. Do you agree with that? If you do not, give up because you're stupid or so dogmatically tied to an argument that you might as well be. That means in order for that law to be APPLIED unequally, one person laid off from a job would be able to collect while another person laid off from the same job would not. THAT would be unequal protection of the law. One person being able to collect from UC because he was laid off while another NOT being able to collect from UC because he walked off his job or never held one is NOT. That's the bottom line and where you walk into fallacy. Laws with means testing are applied equally to all. You not meeting the criteria does not mean the law is applied unequally to you, any more than you not being allowed to use a handicapped parking space is unequal protection of the law. It would only be unequal protection if you were handicapped but not allowed to use one. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. Don't you see that your claim would mean that every child should be receiving UC simply because they are unemployed? If you're going to admit they have to be of a certain age to be considered unemployed, you have to admit you've added means testing criteria and you've destroyed your own argument.

I don't expect you to actually read this far or to give an intelligent response, but it would be nice.

 

[hadit]

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

Okay, dude. Here's the bottom line. Are you going to claim that minor children are covered by UC laws and should be getting $15/hr for being unemployed? Because if you do, you're stupid. If you don't, you've applied means testing criteria and blown your whole argument, because if YOUR criteria can be applied so that a law does not apply to a subset of people, so can others.

 

[hadit]

and businesses aren't obligated to keep people employed

Yep, as he just said..

Corporations are in it for their bottom line not to keep individuals employed.

This is a point of agreement. Try building from it..

What societal good is being served by large corporations that artificially inflate their own stock value while bribing our supposed government representatives? There's a point where things grow too big and beyond control. This cancer is what needs nipping in the bud first.

There is a point beyond which a corporation grows to such size and power that they become a de facto (did I use that right?) monopoly and are broken apart, like what happened to Ma Bell. There is a legitimate argument to be made that we have a compelling interest for the government to step in at that point.

 

[hadit]

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.

Okay, as written your claim means that children should be getting UC payments. Is that what you intend? If so, quit and go home right now. If not, admit that you've applied means testing criteria and your whole argument is gone.

 

[hadit]

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.

A middle class family budgets money to replace the windows in their house. Quid Pro Joe raises their taxes and they can't replace their windows. THAT is the opportunity cost that you are ignoring. IOW, they would spend the money too. Even if they don't spend it directly but invest it, the capital still circulates. All you've done for the economy at large is shift the spending from one person to another, and added layers of bureaucracy on top of everything.

 

[hadit]

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.

Are children covered by your imagined set of laws? Please do answer that one, because either way you pretty much demolish your own argument. And now, as has been pointed out to you exhaustively, UC is NOT "simply compensation for merely being unemployed". You WANT it to be, you WISH it was, you continue clamoring that it is, but it is not.

 

[Slade3200]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

and just what profit margin do you think the average small business owner sees?

Don't forget that small business not big corporations employ the most people.

30%. I’m all about supporting small biz. I’d put stricter regs on corps for sure

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Begging the question is usually considered a fallacy. Why do you assume someone would "strike" having been discharged?