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

[WinterBorn]

And those who do not want to work? You expect them to be paid, from the taxes of those who DO work?

Those receiving unemployment compensation would still be paying general taxes and some of those tax monies could be going to help fund unemployment compensation. You would have no basis to complain since compensation as wages would be higher on an institutional basis. In other words, you would be making to more to make up for it.

Yes, they would be paid by lowering my net income, which I earned. You keep bouncing back and forth between what helps the poor and what helps the economy.

 

[hadit]

And those who do not want to work? You expect them to be paid, from the taxes of those who DO work?

Those receiving unemployment compensation would still be paying general taxes and some of those tax monies could be going to help fund unemployment compensation. You would have no basis to complain since compensation as wages would be higher on an institutional basis. In other words, you would be making to more to make up for it.

Taking water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end hoping to fill up the pool makes as much sense.

 

[hadit]

I have money in a 401k account. I am earning from that. But, according to your plan I should be able to draw UC simply for being unemployed. And that would be in addition to what my investments pay me.

Any income you earn should be reported to the unemployment office which could lower the amount of unemployment compensation you receive.

And, you could also get an easy job which pays more than unemployment compensation; "hard work advocator".

Oh, so I would have to report my income, but no means testing? lol

He keeps getting himself caught on that one. Bottom line, he doesn't want anyone else applying means testing, just him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

That does not seem rational under rational choice theory. Why would anyone choose to not work for the equivalent to the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that merely compensates people for being unemployed instead of potentially making a far greater wage in a market based economy where there is no theoretical upward limit?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Doesn't it make more sense that anyone who can command a higher wage will want and desire to work in a market economy while those who cannot are better off not "being drafted to work" in an at-will employment State?

Capitalists still have a profit motive and may merely need Labor to achieve their profit goals.

How would your point of view work, for example, with Gravity Payments where the starting wage is around thirty-five dollars an hour?

The company received media attention in 2015 when CEO Dan Price announced that all employees would receive a minimum salary of $70,000.[2] In September 2019, Price issued an additional increase of $10,000 to all employees in the Boise office, with salaries increasing every year until 2023, when it would reach $70,000.[3--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Lies.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you plan would end poverty, then the welfare/food stamp/Section 8 housing systems would have solved it. Changing the source of the money does nothing.

That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.

And, means testing is being misused in our alleged war on poverty. Means testing should be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of capital under our form of Capitalism may not be enough. Means testing should be used to generate metadata in order to concentrate wealth to solve more complicated issues that prevent persons from leading more productive lives in our market based economy.

Means testing is an attempt to stop people from drawing a check if they do not need it to get by. That is all. Without means testing, someone with $100k in the bank could draw welfare. Or someone who has a spouse with a good job, owns their home ect, could draw a check from the tax payers. If UC is ever changed into what you want, there will be a means test. I assure you of that.

If the only qualification for UC is that the person does not have a job, every retiree in the US would be applying for it, despite having a pension or 401k.

That would be my plan if that went through. I could get SS, pension, 401K and $15 bucks an hour and I would work overtime to get more than 40 hours at $15 an hour. How tough would it be to get overtime for not working!

You would not qualify for unemployment compensation if you are employed. You could still work if you wanted to while on social security but unemployment compensation would not be available since you are technically retired and receiving an income for being retired from the market for labor.

I would not be working and I wouldn't retire. I know many people that aren't retired, get their pension, social security, 401K and still have a job. I would just choose not to work and collect all my benefits, why would I be discriminated against because of age? That is not equal protection.

 

[Turtlesoup]

No--not a cost savings at all---------it would only grow the welfare class and
Since anything that the government subsidizes grows---more would be doing drugs, collecting welfare, instead of contributing.

Time for you to grow up and support yourself-------

Don't really believe in Capitalism? Raise wages if you want people to work.

The stupidity of it all---
raising wages (via minimum wage increases) does NOT put people to work---it actually costs jobs

 

[Papageorgio]

If you plan would end poverty, then the welfare/food stamp/Section 8 housing systems would have solved it. Changing the source of the money does nothing.

That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.

And, means testing is being misused in our alleged war on poverty. Means testing should be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of capital under our form of Capitalism may not be enough. Means testing should be used to generate metadata in order to concentrate wealth to solve more complicated issues that prevent persons from leading more productive lives in our market based economy.

Means testing is an attempt to stop people from drawing a check if they do not need it to get by. That is all. Without means testing, someone with $100k in the bank could draw welfare. Or someone who has a spouse with a good job, owns their home ect, could draw a check from the tax payers. If UC is ever changed into what you want, there will be a means test. I assure you of that.

If the only qualification for UC is that the person does not have a job, every retiree in the US would be applying for it, despite having a pension or 401k.

That would be my plan if that went through. I could get SS, pension, 401K and $15 bucks an hour and I would work overtime to get more than 40 hours at $15 an hour. How tough would it be to get overtime for not working!

Exactly. I am just a few years away from retirement. If Daniel's fantasy plan came to fruition, I could stop working and still draw a check. My 401k is enough for me to retire now. Add in a check for $2,800 a month and I would be in great shape.

You could also save some money and invest in the markets to receive more than you could from unemployment compensation.

So why could he retire and collect and not me? Where is the equal protection?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why should anyone believe that assertion under our form of Capitalism?

Because it happens whenever people are given money for not working.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Your first question is at the crux of the debate. The concept of a living wage is that if a person is working full time then that time should be compensated enough for them to support themselves without the need of welfare.

Only right wingers don't seem to understand that social welfare programs are more expensive from a taxpayer point of view than simply and merely raising the minimum wage to reduce the need for such services.

Lordy, don't you know how anything works.

Raising minimum wage does not take people welfare. It costs jobs forcing more on welfare and it causes INFLATION------------pushing down the standard of living as money buys less.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because it could be funded through indirect taxation which is always preferable to direct taxation,

Liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People can make money by working. Why is that wrong?

Because he's mentally ill and no one will hire him.

 

[Papageorgio]

I have money in a 401k account. I am earning from that. But, according to your plan I should be able to draw UC simply for being unemployed. And that would be in addition to what my investments pay me.

Any income you earn should be reported to the unemployment office which could lower the amount of unemployment compensation you receive.

And, you could also get an easy job which pays more than unemployment compensation; "hard work advocator".

Unemployment only requires that you be unemployed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And, you could also get an easy job which pays more than unemployment compensation; "hard work advocator"

You should do that.
Let us know how it goes.

 

[danielpalos]

And if you want to increase MW you have to do it carefully so as to not destroy the labor market.

The labor market won't be destroyed if Capitalists are seeking to maximize profits.

 

[danielpalos]

Only a fool would think most people would choose to work 40+ hours for minimum wage when they could get the same amount for doing nothing.

Why do you believe it would be the same amount? Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States would be a rock bottom cost not a prevailing market based wage.

 

[hadit]

And if you want to increase MW you have to do it carefully so as to not destroy the labor market.

The labor market won't be destroyed if Capitalists are seeking to maximize profits.

It would be destroyed if you arbitrarily force a big cost increase on business. And you would because some 50% of the work force would get an immediate raise while some 20% more would demand one.

 

[danielpalos]

And every employer out there does their best to hire motivated employees. No employer turns away a motivated employee to hire someone who obviously doesn't want to work.

Then, by default, the employer won't hire everyone who seeks employment and may get stuck with employees who may be good liars and hypocrites. How is that morally or ethically Good? Faithful execution of our own laws is morally Good on its face.

 

[hadit]

Only a fool would think most people would choose to work 40+ hours for minimum wage when they could get the same amount for doing nothing.

Why do you believe it would be the same amount? Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States would be a rock bottom cost not a prevailing market based wage.

You've already stated that you want it to be $1/hr less then the MW you want.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm giving you an experiment that should prove your hypothesis. You think people would rather work to get paid the same amount they would if they didn't work, prove it.

No one is claiming that but disingenuous, special pleading right wingers. Being able to obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed puts an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

 

[danielpalos]

GG, the unemployment would not return a multiplier of two if people are using it permanently as income, it would become like welfare and the multiplier would diminish because you are fundamentally changing the program into something it wasn't meant to be.

It would average a multiplier of 2; and, those individuals would not be "doing nothing" as alleged by the right wing but doing something with those funds in a market friendly manner. Some of the socioeconomic effects would be less crime since some people would not want to work hard to be criminals if they could be moral and faithful to our own laws regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.