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

[Papageorgio]

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.

Typical poor person? Please tell us what a “typical” poor person is. Thank you.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

In other words, you simply don't care about being legal to the law. Are you on the right wing?

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner is the goal not just spending money on endless wars. And, employment is at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I actually understand what employment at the will of either party means.

 

[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.

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.

No it won't. That is just you begging the question. Simply eliminating the for-cause criteria is all that is necessary.

Anyone for whom solving simple poverty may not be enough would still seek means tested welfare.

 

[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.

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?

However did you get that understanding from the concept of employment at will. Where does it say that?

And, there is no unemployment under Capitalism only underpayment. You simply miss the point about having an Institutional upward pressure on wages.

Besides, with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, you could simply quit and collect unemployment if you don't have the moral fortitude to work for a decent wage and pay taxes on it. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You miss the point. There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. There is unequal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. Besides, if what you say is true, why were black codes ever institutionalized in the past? And, simply being faithful to our own at-will employment laws is not leaching off the system. Why are there any persons unemployed at all, if what You claim is true?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Who claimed there would be? Link?

The link I previously provided showed less than three percent inflation over a period of around a decade even with QE, no pre-WWII Germany level of hyper-inflation at all.

 

[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

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.

Isn't it a self-evident Truth that a statutory minimum wage imposes price taking on the private sector?

 

[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.

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

lol. A freeloading excuse for having no valid rebuttals?

 

[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?

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.

I already provided the link that shows no hyper inflation even with QE.

 

[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

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.

Says the special pleading right wing who advocate hard work but have only fallacy for rebuttals instead doing the intellectual work to have valid rebuttals. Are you sure you work as hard as you claim?

 

[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.

"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.

You have to show how I have been using it wrong not just claiming it and expect to be Right simply because you are on the right wing. Only lazy slackers who blame the Poor, do that.

 

[danielpalos]

arbitrage isn't market based composition.

You might want to look it up.

I did, unlike the right wing who simply manufacture their own lazy definitions but advocate hard work for the rest of us.

the simultaneous buying and selling of securities, currency, or commodities in different markets or in derivative forms in order to take advantage of differing prices for the same asset.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

This is a disingenuous argument used by the right wing who prefer to lay people off and then call them lazy for not working hard. Even small business pass on costs to the consumer. Y'all are just immoral for whining about it.

 

[danielpalos]

most people don't work for big corporations.

and businesses aren't obligated to keep people employed

Why complain when people don't work and collect unemployment compensation instead? Business doesn't have to hire anyone not even in alleged, Right to Work States.

 

[danielpalos]

Because the law specifically defines who is eligible to receive the benefit and who is not

The controlling law is employment at the will of either party. It is equal protection of that law which is being discussed. And, States are not authorized to create laws which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. Thus, any for-cause criteria in an at-will employment State is unConstitutional.

 

[danielpalos]

I pay a certain amount of taxes every year. My neighbor pays a different amount. Is that equal protection of the law?

No, that is just You begging the question. There is no equal payment of taxes laws on the books. We have a progressive tax system. Have anything more relevant and less of a non sequitur?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Your straw man argument is begging the question. The point here is that the law also applies to your competition it does not operate in a vacuum as it must with your reasoning.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm just gonna go through and thumbs down all your posts, daniel. You clearly have no understanding of economics.

Have a good morning.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I am claiming that a minor would have to apply for emancipation to help out his poor old mother. It is not stupid at all, you are merely resorting to fallacy with your bias and think you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.