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

[danielpalos]

No, it is not the point. The natural rate of unemployment is around 4%. So 96% of the working population has a job, despite there being no requirement for an employer to hire them.

You have to make yourself attractive to the employer.

We are still talking about millions of persons. We would not need an endless war on poverty if what you claim is true. Why do we have any homeless problems or right wingers complaining about taxes if it is so easy to lift yourselves up from low wage jobs that make you complain about taxes?

Why can't the left wingers solve homelessness in their own states? Why is homelessness more prominent in left winger states?

That topic was actually covered in this thread in prior pages. First, States can't print their own money and second, red States simply change the way poverty and homelessness are counted to make it seem like they have lower numbers of homeless.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Earned income from gainful employment usually has to be reported for unemployment compensation purposes and is current practice now.

Which does not impair at will employment at all.

It could simply reduce the benefit amount to where is not really worth the time and effort to apply for unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

IOW, inflation. Do it too fast and you cost a lot of jobs in a short period of time that the market cannot absorb.

Why would it matter if Labor could simply quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State?

 

[danielpalos]

IOW, you're arbitrarily increasing costs all the way around and adding inflation. What used to buy an hour of labor now buys half that.

Inflation happens anyway. It would not happen as you describe under a supply-side economics paradigm. Employers would have more incentive to automate (for supply purposes) for their bottom line and for market based competitiveness to help keep their costs lower than their competition.

 

[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.

What source do you cite that claims you will get a multiplier of 2? And don't just recite what it does now, because you're changing it.

Page iv:
Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

You cited what it does now. I told you not to do that, because you're changing it fundamentally. Again, you can't soup up a Honda engine to Ferrari horsepower and expect to get the same gas mileage. You failed again.

The point is, the multiplier would higher not lower since more people would be circulating more capital in our economy and in a more market friendly manner. All of the homeless, for example would be able to contribute to the multiplier in that case where they cannot contribute as much now.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment only requires that you be unemployed.

And, Greed is Good under Capitalism if are gainfully employed.

You posted this:
"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". "

So, you are wanting to put added rules to collect unemployment, I thought unemployment only requires you be unemployed, no you don't want to discuss? Is that because you resort to fallacy,

Not my rules, but rules that already exist.

 

[danielpalos]

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

So what. Capitalists still have to seek a profit.

So what, workers no longer have to work.

Under our form of Capitalism. Many will still want to work simply be richer than the Poor on unemployment who don't or are not as greedy when greed is Good under Capitalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Part of your "Great Plan" is to pay unemployment compensation equal to at least $14 an hour. You have said this clearly.

 

[danielpalos]

Where did I say greed is good? Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?

Under Capitalism? Why complain about taxes if greed is not Good and only a social and moral Bad.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment only requires that you be unemployed.

And, Greed is Good under Capitalism if are gainfully employed.

Your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, it seems you are again trying to change a subject. Why are you now making requirements of income for unemployment, you claim that one should receive unemployment for being unemployed.

Existing rules that don't need to change for the greedy, since it is more socially responsible.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

And then the employers will fire the liars and hypocrites. Then you can get hired, unless you are a liar or a hypocrite. Should state pay for liars lying or for hypocrites?

 

[danielpalos]

Page iv:
Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

And that was because UC was used only for legit unemployment claims and the people went right back to work.
[/QUOTE]
It applied to extended unemployment benefits.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

That already happens now and you have asserted that the two programs are completely different.

The two programs ARE completely different. That people will not report other income does not change that. In fact, it proves that people will cheat to get more money.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

You miss the point that your net income would be higher even with any potential taxes taken out. And, even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes which reduces their net income.

My net income would not be higher by taking taxes out to give to someone else who refuses to work.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Earned income from gainful employment usually has to be reported for unemployment compensation purposes and is current practice now.

And if people do not report their income from gainful employment, such as those who are paid cash? What happens to them in the new plan of yours?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Many will still want to work

Many less than previously.

 

[WinterBorn]

For some. For far too many, though, free money leads to indolence. In your case, did you have incentive to find work or did you just give up?

I started getting into the stock market. Unfortunately, I had practiced with fifty thousand dollar practice accounts and it makes a huge capital difference for margin purposes. I found myself getting toe emotional and maybe even too greedy for my own good even under our form of Capitalism due to my low numbers and lack of constant practice. On the flip side, I probably would have only bragged if I had gotten it right the first time and maybe even just blown the (easy) money anyway instead of practice better money management.

That is a nice answer. Pity it isn't an answer to the actual question he asked. Playing the stock market with practice accounts is not finding work.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, it is not the point. The natural rate of unemployment is around 4%. So 96% of the working population has a job, despite there being no requirement for an employer to hire them.

You have to make yourself attractive to the employer.

We are still talking about millions of persons. We would not need an endless war on poverty if what you claim is true. Why do we have any homeless problems or right wingers complaining about taxes if it is so easy to lift yourselves up from low wage jobs that make you complain about taxes?

Why can't the left wingers solve homelessness in their own states? Why is homelessness more prominent in left winger states?

That topic was actually covered in this thread in prior pages. First, States can't print their own money and second, red States simply change the way poverty and homelessness are counted to make it seem like they have lower numbers of homeless.

You are incorrect on how the count, the homeless issue is greater in California, Oregon and Washington. Please keep up, you just like to avoid the hard cold facts because they hurt you ideology.

 

[Papageorgio]

Unemployment only requires that you be unemployed.

And, Greed is Good under Capitalism if are gainfully employed.

You posted this:
"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". "

So, you are wanting to put added rules to collect unemployment, I thought unemployment only requires you be unemployed, no you don't want to discuss? Is that because you resort to fallacy,

Not my rules, but rules that already exist.

There are no rules that say you can't have other income coming in if you become unemployed. So you are wanting to add rules.

 

[Papageorgio]

Where did I say greed is good? Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?

Under Capitalism? Why complain about taxes if greed is not Good and only a social and moral Bad.

I didn't complain about taxes, that is you trying to change the subject because you have gotten to a point where you can't answer a simple question.

Why do I need to qualify for UC and another person does not? Do you not believe in unemployment for simply being unemployed?