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

[danielpalos]

Yes they are two different things. One is a set of laws describing employment relationships. The other is financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own, which is funded (mostly) by the businesses.

Based on a previous employment relationship in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

I have already done that. But I will do it again.

"Funding. There are enough worthy projects that need to be funded by our taxes. But providing an income for someone who simply chooses not to work, but does not need the money is not one of those projects."

No, you haven't. Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner promotes and provides for the general welfare. We don't need the expense of an endless war on poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

YOu have still shown nothing that requires you be paid for doing nothing.

Only because equal protection of the laws means nothing to right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

I guess right wingers can't come up with any reasons as to why this simple solution to poverty won't work. Thanks for ceding the point and the argument.

 

[hadit]

I will be glad to. There is no requirement because there doesn't have to be. They are independent of UC. I showed you this before, and I'll show it again:

You miss the point. Employment is at the will of either party. What basis does a State have to infringe in the obligation of contracts regarding employment at-will in an at-will employment State? Why mention any for-cause stipulation at all?

Because the stipulation does not impact the at will doctrine. You still refuse to consider that you can legally quit your job under either scenario.

 

[hadit]

There can be because qualifications do not infringe on the at will doctrine. I've shown you this repeatedly, it's not my problem that you either refuse to acknowledge it or are too dense to get it.

You simply making up facts and insisting you are Right is merely right wing fantasy. You have shown nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law.
I have shown you repeatedly that employment is at the will of either party. There is no basis for any State to impair in the obligation of that contract for any benefits administered by the State.

Of course employment is at the will of either party. And I have shown you repeatedly that at will employment is not impacted at all by UC qualifications. You keep pretending that there's some kind of legal barrier preventing you from quitting your job if you can't collect UC, but there's just no barrier there. Tell you what, TRY IT. Quit your job and see if you are prevented from doing it. Then come back here and admit you have been wrong this whole time.

 

[hadit]

There is no requirement unless you want to qualify for benefits. You are always free to not work. What you are NOT free to, however, is the money others have earned.

Simple faithful execution of the law is a qualification. On what basis does any State deny or disparage our privileges and immunities regarding employment at the will of either party for unemployment compensation?

And, you must agree with me that unemployment compensation can solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner since you have no arguments against it, only your appeals to ignorance of the law.

1. THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN AT WILL EMPLOYMENT AND UC.
2. UC cannot solve poverty because it's not a poverty program. It is a special program designed to temporarily help a specific segment of the population, NOT combat poverty. And you have proven yourself totally ignorant of the law by pretending there's some legal barrier preventing you from quitting your job when there is none.

 

[hadit]

Bad or good is irrelevant, it's simply not legal.

It must be legal in an at-will employment State.

No, it doesn't have to be. No one but you is saying that, and no court has ever agreed with you. You're simply wrong and ignorant of the law but you don't have the maturity to realize it.

 

[hadit]

Now as for bad, it's been explained to you that would merely result in a bunch of people taking a job just long enough to qualify as being employed, then quitting to continue getting paid. The fact that you don't see anything amiss with that is the problem.

It is not a problem under Capitalism merely a market based metric for an employer to raise wages. Free market capitalism. Only right wingers have a problem with it.

People with common sense realize that when you start rewarding people for doing nothing, you will get more nothing. When you reward them for hard work, you get more hard work. You, OTOH, not having any common sense, believe that rewarding people for doing nothing results in positive things. That is ridiculous.

 

[hadit]

[Depends on the purpose would it not? Promoting people to not work is not healthy for people. One the largest causes of depression in the US is not working, it damages self worth and self confidence, it can lead to isolation. Also, people not employed lack routine and struggle more from social and mental issues. Suicides are a lot higher if unemployed.

Why do you believe it would be promoting people to not work instead of a market based metric for employers to raise wages on an Institutional basis to retain qualified labor?

Because people do more of what they get rewarded for. If you stand on a street corner and offer strangers $100 to do the chicken dance, you will get people doing the chicken dance, and the more often you do it, the more chicken dances you'll get.

 

[hadit]

Actually, it IS a special program. Employers pay into it through special taxes. That's one reason why it works so well. To do what you want, you once again have to turn it into welfare with a general tax on the whole country, because it would not be right or sustainable to force employers to cover ever increasing numbers of people who refuse to work available jobs.

Edit to add: The bottom line here is you are trying to force employers to pay for what the whole country should pay for, namely a massive new welfare program that would require trillions in new taxes. Unsustainable.

Sounds more like an unnecessary burden on employers. Better administration of that program would not have employers pay for unemployment compensation directly. The revenue for that program should be through general taxes since anyone earning an income could be paying general taxes for it.

And that's when it becomes another massive welfare program.

 

[hadit]

I have already done that. But I will do it again.

"Funding. There are enough worthy projects that need to be funded by our taxes. But providing an income for someone who simply chooses not to work, but does not need the money is not one of those projects."

No, you haven't. Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner promotes and provides for the general welfare. We don't need the expense of an endless war on poverty.

That's what we'd get in your scenario, because you're not going to solve poverty, you're only going to increase it.

 

[Papageorgio]

[Depends on the purpose would it not? Promoting people to not work is not healthy for people. One the largest causes of depression in the US is not working, it damages self worth and self confidence, it can lead to isolation. Also, people not employed lack routine and struggle more from social and mental issues. Suicides are a lot higher if unemployed.

Why do you believe it would be promoting people to not work instead of a market based metric for employers to raise wages on an Institutional basis to retain qualified labor?

If given a choice between getting paid to work or paid not to work, people will take pay for not working.

 

[hadit]

I guess right wingers can't come up with any reasons as to why this simple solution to poverty won't work. Thanks for ceding the point and the argument.

And the pigeon takes another lap around the chess board.

 

[hadit]

YOu have still shown nothing that requires you be paid for doing nothing.

Only because equal protection of the laws means nothing to right wingers.

You don't understand what that even means because there's no unequal application of the laws. Tell you what, challenge your local UC law on that basis and tell us how it goes. Put your money, time and effort where your mouth is and do more than rant uselessly and stupidly on an internet board.

 

[hadit]

[Depends on the purpose would it not? Promoting people to not work is not healthy for people. One the largest causes of depression in the US is not working, it damages self worth and self confidence, it can lead to isolation. Also, people not employed lack routine and struggle more from social and mental issues. Suicides are a lot higher if unemployed.

Why do you believe it would be promoting people to not work instead of a market based metric for employers to raise wages on an Institutional basis to retain qualified labor?

If given a choice between getting paid to work or paid not to work, people will take pay for not working.

They will even take less to not work if the differential for working is not great enough.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People with common sense realize that when you start rewarding people for doing nothing, you will get more nothing.

That's why his claim of a positive multiplier is silly.

 

[hadit]

People with common sense realize that when you start rewarding people for doing nothing, you will get more nothing.

That's why his claim of a positive multiplier is silly.

Also, UC benefits people most of whom we KNOW will be back at work as soon as possible because they've already been working. He wants to pay people who have no intention of working and who would see a job as a means to get on the welfare bandwagon.

 

[WinterBorn]

Funding. There are enough worthy projects that need to be funded by our taxes. But providing an income for someone who simply chooses not to work, but does not need the money is not one of those projects.

Funding is the least concern since we should be abolishing our wasteful spending on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Funding is still a concern. If we abolish our wasteful spending, then the people who earned the money keep more of it.

 

[WinterBorn]

There can be because qualifications do not infringe on the at will doctrine. I've shown you this repeatedly, it's not my problem that you either refuse to acknowledge it or are too dense to get it.

You simply making up facts and insisting you are Right is merely right wing fantasy. You have shown nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law.
I have shown you repeatedly that employment is at the will of either party. There is no basis for any State to impair in the obligation of that contract for any benefits administered by the State.

Yes, you have shown that employment is at the will of either party. Any fool could do that. What you have not done is show that UC is required to operate under the same system. It is not.