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

[hadit]

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.

Where does it say that in the labor code? Employers can fire someone for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. It is like impeachment in that it only results in removal from employment. For-cause criteria in an at-will employment State is unConstitutional for equal protection of the law purposes.

Sure, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you can quit a job whenever you want and you can get fired from a job whenever the employer wants to fire you. That's one issue. A SEPARATE issue is whether you qualify for UC as a result of not having a job. Quite clearly, you qualify if you were laid off, which means fired through no fault of your own. If you quit, you don't qualify, it's just that simple, and the number of times you stomp your feet or how long you hold your breath over it have no bearing whatsoever.

 

[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.

Where does it say that in the labor code? Employers can fire someone for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. It is like impeachment in that it only results in removal from employment. For-cause criteria in an at-will employment State is unConstitutional for equal protection of the law purposes.

It is stated when you are hired and they have you sign for the employee handbook. That statement that you signed says you agree to the policies and rules of the employer.

Besides, since it is at will employment, the employer can fire you at any time for any reason. The for cause comes into play when you want to collect UC. You do not draw UC for violating the contract you agreed to when you were hired.

 

[Papageorgio]

That means nothing.

You have nothing, for rebuttal.

Tough to rebut stupid and that is all you have, we rebutted, you don't like it and don't accept it. You got nothing but an unproven theory that even your own congressman didn't like.

 

[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.

And, that for-cause criteria is a violation of due process since States may not impair in the obligation of at-will employment Contracts by attaching for-cause criteria.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Employers are allowed to create a contractual agreement with the employees. Violate that contract and you can be fired. A state cannot enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation. But a private business can enter into a contract. In fact, your own post states that the State cannot impair the obligation of contracts.

 

[hadit]

You're missing the point, of course, which is that you have to confiscate someone's income in order to provide income for someone else.

I am not missing the point about that. You are missing the point that even confiscating someone's money via taxes to provide an income for someone else has the net effect of a stimulus to an economy not a deterrent. The proof is that unemployment compensation has already been measured to have multiplier of two. A stimulus to an economy not a deterrent to an economy.

But you are not accounting for the opportunity cost, which means at best the net result is a wash, because the money would have been spent either way. Now, if you're talking about an actual stimulus, that's a different beast, because that is the government borrowing to pump money into the economy for a short term gain. Used correctly, it can prevent the economy from sliding into a depression or total collapse, but that isn't what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is a permanent setup wherein the government takes money from the people earning it and gives it to the people who not only did not earn it, but could have and decided not to. Society has long ago agreed that those who CANNOT work should be taken care of, and we put into place taxes and programs to help them. You want to drastically expand that now to cover those who CAN work but choose not to, and that's an order of magnitude difference.

 

[hadit]

That means nothing.

You have nothing, for rebuttal.

That's because there's nothing to rebut. You spewed nonsense that didn't relate.

 

[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.

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

most corporations are small privately held businesses that operate under subchapter S

 

[danielpalos]

I know you believe that this is a great idea, you pitched it to some congressmen and he failed to to sponsor anything like it because he knows it won't work.

I'll go with it if you get it passed, so I'd get $14 an hour not to work? Why not $15 an hour like minimum wage? The extra money would help me in my quest of getting paid not to work. Now, if I was a gas station attendant, not working would I get paid the less than a doctor not getting paid to not work? If I could make more, I would want hourly money not salary, because I plan on not working a lot of overtime, if my wife and I don't work overtime will we make time and a half for not working? That way we would be able to enjoy our life with little to no decline in our style of living. I figure with my wife and I not working and not working overtime, we could make over $140,000 a year not working, then that would be a nice change of pace.

He failed to sponsor it because he only has a limited number of opportunities to present bills and I am not rich enough to make it worth his while through non-corporate donations.

Thanks. I am only using hypotheticals since there is already an impetus for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage which won't be worth the same by the time it gets implemented due to inflation anyway. The rationale behind that is that it makes more sense to look for work at fifteen dollars an hour if you could otherwise not work and collect unemployment at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. We would not need statutory minimum wages in that case since market capitalism would apply.

In my opinion, since persons could quit for simply being unemployed, it would be simpler to simply have one unemployment wage rate than to tie it to a working wage by the State. That would not prevent the private sector from coming up with complementary products and services such that you could buy better coverage if you want to and can afford to spend the additional money. It could also create that market and employ that labor.

 

[hadit]

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.

And, that for-cause criteria is a violation of due process since States may not impair in the obligation of at-will employment Contracts by attaching for-cause criteria.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

You can't claim that for cause criteria is valid in some cases but violates due process in others. Either laws can be written that don't apply to everyone or they can't. Is welfare unconstitutional because it has criteria? Are truck and bus driving laws unconstitutional because they don't apply to people driving their own cars?

 

[Blues Man]

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.

and that definition does not apply to any of your uses of the word since you were applying it to labor

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Exactly my shop doesn't operate in a vacuum which is why I cannot make myself noncompetitive by charging exorbitant prices so as to cover the high salaries you say everyone deserves

 

[danielpalos]

No, it is not repugnant. What is repugnant is you thinking that violating the agreement between you and your employer has no consequences.

Employment is at the will of either party; an employer can discharge an employee for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all.

The law is still the same for State due process purposes.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, it is not repugnant. What is repugnant is you thinking that violating the agreement between you and your employer has no consequences.

Employment is at the will of either party; an employer can discharge an employee for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all.

The law is still the same for State due process purposes.

Yes it is. You are correct. But qualifying for UC has its own set of standards.

 

[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.

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

Are you lying again?

Post the statutory law that makes the private sector a price taker, liar.

 

[danielpalos]

If you are fired for cause, you violated the contractual agreement between you and your employer. That stops any obligation for you to be paid.

You can only be fired for-cause if you have a for-cause employment agreement otherwise an employee is fired at-will, for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all. Due process is being violated if the State cannot prove a for-cause employment agreement existed.

 

[danielpalos]

We have over and over and over again, the fact you can't mentally accept the correction is no reflection on anyone but you and your wanting to be ignorant forsake of a cause.

Simply because right wingers say so? You need valid arguments not merely your unsubstantiated opinions. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

IOW, the written text of the law doesn't matter when you decide for yourself what the law ought to actually mean. Can you cite a single legal decision that supports your assertion?

The law in question is employment at will.

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.

Where does it say you need Cause to quit? That is the law in question. Any agency of a State is simply violating due process by imposing, unilaterally upon Labor as the least wealthy in our economy, any for-cause criteria.

 

[hadit]

If you are fired for cause, you violated the contractual agreement between you and your employer. That stops any obligation for you to be paid.

You can only be fired for-cause if you have a for-cause employment agreement otherwise an employee is fired at-will, for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all. Due process is being violated if the State cannot prove a for-cause employment agreement existed.

Due process only applies if the law specifies such a process that must be followed. At will means there is no process that must be followed so the state has nothing to say about whether you get fired or not. What the state DOES have something to say about, however, is whether you can subsequently collect UC as a result. The two are not so related that one overrides the other, contrary to your thought process.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you are well and truly caught, because you want to apply means testing criteria, but deny that any other than what you apply are valid. You insisted that there be no means testing whatsoever, and now you want means testing. If children can be excluded, so can adults who quit a job or never held one.

Typically, only competent adults may enter legally binding contracts.

 

[Blues Man]

If you are fired for cause, you violated the contractual agreement between you and your employer. That stops any obligation for you to be paid.

You can only be fired for-cause if you have a for-cause employment agreement otherwise an employee is fired at-will, for bad cause, good cause, or no cause at all. Due process is being violated if the State cannot prove a for-cause employment agreement existed.

You're wrong again.

You can be fired for cause from any employment there is no need for some special agreement.

You can also be fired at will.