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

[danielpalos]

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.

Promoting the general welfare is a compelling interest for solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

 

[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.

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.

Children would have to qualify for emancipation to be treated as adults. Is there a cost savings to the taxpayer for that course of action over regular means tested welfare?

 

[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.

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.

Unfortunately, you have provided a false analogy. Unemployment compensation is equivalent to a stimulus payment. The taxes levied are spent nearly as soon as they are received. Budgeting for a window with no additional income does what you claim. However, if we use your scenario and assume that one of the adults in that middle class family is unemployed, then simply obtaining unemployment compensation would help with budgeting for that window.

 

[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.

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.

The children would need to be old enough to be emancipated, otherwise means tested welfare would be the usual option like it is now.

 

[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.

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.

So if your employer catches you sleeping on the job, stealing from the company, or sexually harassing other employees, you should still get paid??

Nope. Not going to happen.

 

[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?

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.

No, you don't get to quit work because you don't have the moral fortitude to work for a living. If you are not elderly or disabled, society expects you to provide for yourself.

 

[hadit]

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.

And that's where you are completely wrong because you're tying together things that are not related that closely. Tell us this, which UC law has been found to be unconstitutional? You are no more credible in making that claim than you would be if you claimed laws forbidding you from parking in a handicapped space are unconstitutional.

Now, please explain why you believe the "controlling law is employment at the will of either party". Why does that principle control the principle that you can be compensated for being laid off but not for quitting a job?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Have a good morning.

Thanks for letting us all know of the typical right wing modus operandi. You need valid rebuttals not simply insisting you are Right simply because you are on the right wing.

How can we tell right wingers are lying? Their lips are moving or they are typing on the Internet. If I insisted that was the "gospel Truth", I would be as Wrong as the right wing, but hopefully funnier.

Good morning to you to.

 

[hadit]

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.

They are different subjects. You can quit a job whenever you want. You don't get to collect UC if you do. Two different things and you trying to redefine words doesn't make the case.

 

[hadit]

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?

So, IOW, you admit that a law can be written that treats people differently because of criteria. The same is true of labor law.

 

[hadit]

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.

No. That is not what you are claiming. You are claiming that anyone who is unemployed should be collecting UC, and you are claiming that means testing criteria are unconstitutional. That means that you are claiming children should be collecting UC because they are unemployed. Now you are trying to duck and say that children should NOT be considered unemployed. That means you're introducing means testing, and if you can introduce it others can as well. UC law is written to apply only to those who are laid off from a job through no fault of their own, and it is constitutional. Therefore, you have no leg left to stand on.

 

[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.

Promoting the general welfare is a compelling interest for solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

That means nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

So if your employer catches you sleeping on the job, stealing from the company, or sexually harassing other employees, you should still get paid??

Nope. Not going to happen.

It depends on whether or not criminal charges are filed and the person spends time in custody. That is not being unemployed but paying for that crime. Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party and the employer can discharge someone for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all.

 

[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.

Children would have to qualify for emancipation to be treated as adults. Is there a cost savings to the taxpayer for that course of action over regular means tested welfare?

Whoops, you're talking about means testing criteria. Now you are saying that the law does NOT apply to everyone, but only to adults. If you can use criteria to exclude people from protection of the law, so can others. You have no leg left to stand on and UC law as written is constitutional.

 

[WinterBorn]

So if your employer catches you sleeping on the job, stealing from the company, or sexually harassing other employees, you should still get paid??

Nope. Not going to happen.

It depends on whether or not criminal charges are filed and the person spends time in custody. That is not being unemployed but paying for that crime. Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party and the employer can discharge someone for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all.

No. When you are hired you agree to abide by the policies and rules of the employer. If you violate those rules, you have violated the contract between employee and employer. You do not get paid for that.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you don't get to quit work because you don't have the moral fortitude to work for a living. If you are not elderly or disabled, society expects you to provide for yourself.

Employment is at the will of either party. There is no for-cause criteria attached to it. And, under Capitalism if you want someone to work you need to pay an attractive wage. Your alleged morals mean nothing under Capitalism where Greed is Good.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you don't get to quit work because you don't have the moral fortitude to work for a living. If you are not elderly or disabled, society expects you to provide for yourself.

Employment is at the will of either party. There is no for-cause criteria attached to it. And, under Capitalism if you want someone to work you need to pay an attractive wage. Your alleged morals mean nothing under Capitalism where Greed is Good.

My morals are not the issue. Violating your agreement with your employer is the issue.

There may be no "for cause criteria" attached to the at will employment. But there is a "for cause" criteria attached to UC. If you are fired for violating your contract (verbal or written) with your employer, you do not get to collect UC. That is the way it is, and the way it will likely stay.

 

[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.

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

LOL. No one's presumed any strike taking place after discharge but you. To the contrary, I picture someone trying to exercise this "right" you've granted all by starting a strike at work, getting fired for it, beaten, and hauled off the premises. History should provide a clue here.. ya think? The point, exactly as posited, goes to equality of treatment before the law. If one party is allowed to hire and fire then so must the all be granted the exact same privilege. That alone constitutes equal treatment. Like most legal abstractions in this country, "At will" is happy sounding bullshit that exists for the haves alone. But it's a "free" country. Go on thinking you know so much better.

 

[danielpalos]

And that's where you are completely wrong because you're tying together things that are not related that closely. Tell us this, which UC law has been found to be unconstitutional? You are no more credible in making that claim than you would be if you claimed laws forbidding you from parking in a handicapped space are unconstitutional.

Now, please explain why you believe the "controlling law is employment at the will of either party". Why does that principle control the principle that you can be compensated for being laid off but not for quitting a job?

Your whole premise revolves around the assumption that all laws enacted must be necessary and proper and good instead of just plain wrong. Black codes were wrong, and so was the Dred Scott decision.

Simply requiring for-cause criteria is repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the Will of Either party. It is a self-evident Truth.

Simply because States are forbidden to impair in the obligation of contracts. At-will employment is a contractual obligation between the parties involved. There is no requirement to work or hire. Unemployment compensation is simply compensation for being unemployed under a truer and more effective understanding of the law.

 

[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.

They are different subjects. You can quit a job whenever you want. You don't get to collect UC if you do. Two different things and you trying to redefine words doesn't make the case.

I would have to be illegal in quitting in an at-will employment State. Being Faithful to our at-will employment laws cannot result in moral or legal prejudice by any State for any benefits administered by the State.