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

[danielpalos]

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

Yes, because they would no longer be disgruntled employees who Have to work for that income. They could be going to school or learning new skills to eventually get a job they are more suited for or enjoy more or simply make enough to not whine about taxes.

When an employee is earning $40/hr at a job he doesn't like, offering him $14/hr to quit is not going to make him happy. Just not going to happen. And another fallacy on your part. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It is the guys on the lower rungs of the ladder that don't have to worry about taxes.

Maybe not; but employees making forty dollars an hour have more economic opportunity find something else they may enjoy or even save up enough to retire early. And, the point is, that simply being able to quit is a market based metric for any employer who may change their practice or may not develop any practice which may create disgruntlement by employees simply because all employees should be more motivated to work not simply working because they have no other market friendly alternatives.

 

[Papageorgio]

Are you talking about temporary or long term homelessness? Short term homelessness can be alleviated by programs that provide basic shelter for those who, for example, simply hit on hard times and can't find work. Chronic homelessness, however, is much more intractable. Emotional and mental disability can cause people to isolate themselves from the rest of society and they can refuse to stay in any place. Sometimes people just prefer being outside on their own. They may not have a place to live, but carry what supplies they need in a backpack. IOW, there will always be homelessness because people are different.

A simple economic solution for solving simple poverty means we should have no homeless problem. Are you claiming capitalism has no solution for homelessness even with recourse to an income for simply being unemployed?

As shown to you several times, until you understand the homeless problem, $15 an hour will not solve the homeless problem. You only believe what you want, and go ahead and do it, you will be like others before and after that believe you have the answers and yet you will never understand the problem.

 

[hadit]

That's not a concern for the law, which makes it illegal to discriminate against women in hiring.

The point is that there is a simple and market friendly solution available in our at-will employment States.

When you equate apples to apples, women make basically the same amount that men do. There is no legal barrier to them being hired to work available jobs.

 

[danielpalos]

No it doesn't, I have explained the difference between passive and earned income, we are going in circles because you hate to recognize facts or counterarguments.

Your explanation appeals to ignorance of current EDD policy regarding reporting income from any source.

If you make more than the minimum wage, for example, you could be considered self-employed.

 

[danielpalos]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

 

[hadit]

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

Yes, because they would no longer be disgruntled employees who Have to work for that income. They could be going to school or learning new skills to eventually get a job they are more suited for or enjoy more or simply make enough to not whine about taxes.

When an employee is earning $40/hr at a job he doesn't like, offering him $14/hr to quit is not going to make him happy. Just not going to happen. And another fallacy on your part. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It is the guys on the lower rungs of the ladder that don't have to worry about taxes.

Maybe not; but employees making forty dollars an hour have more economic opportunity find something else they may enjoy or even save up enough to retire early. And, the point is, that simply being able to quit is a market based metric for any employer who may change their practice or may not develop any practice which may create disgruntlement by employees simply because all employees should be more motivated to work not simply working because they have no other market friendly alternatives.

You can quit whenever you want to. Like having the freedom to jump off your roof, you may not like the consequences but you have the freedom. What you want to do is like forcing society to put cushions around every house so no one gets hurt if they decide to jump off the roof.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, you are not simplifying you are adding conditions and as already shown, it does not solve poverty, it just creates more layers of government and switching responsibility from one agency to another.

Yes, it is a simplification. And, it costs time and money to adjudicate any appeals. Also, people would litigate less if they could simply quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Employees will also be less likely to become disgruntled.

We aren’t talking a few extra dollars here. Unhappy workers cost the U.S. between $450 and $550 billion in lost productivity each year, according to a 2013 report on the state of the U.S. workplace conducted by research and polling company Gallup.--https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246036#:~:text=Infographics-,Unhappy%20Workers%20Cost%20the%20U.S.,%24550%20Billion%20a%20Year%20(Infographic)&text=Your%20employees'%20happiness%20can%20make,And%20that's%20expensive%20for%20you.

It isn't simplifying, you want to add conditions, please stop lying. It isn't going to solve homelessness as we have seen in many large liberal cities the cost of a one bedroom apartment is very costly and beyond anyone making $15 per hour.

There are more conditions now and more potential and incentive for fraud now than there would be then.

You are full of BS, you are adding conditions, we have all explained it and your counterargument is no. That isn't an argument. You need to figure out what the hell you are talking about before you spew your BS because as bright as you must think you are, you have absolutely nothing.

Nope. There are currently more conditions for qualifying than there would be then. Having to resolve any issues simply costs more.

 

[Papageorgio]

No it doesn't, I have explained the difference between passive and earned income, we are going in circles because you hate to recognize facts or counterarguments.

Your explanation appeals to ignorance of current EDD policy regarding reporting income from any source.

If you make more than the minimum wage, for example, you could be considered self-employed.

Not really, but you go on and believe what you need to believe, your idea will never work, the courts would shoot it down and even your congressman thinks it's a bad idea.

 

[danielpalos]

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

Yes, because they would no longer be disgruntled employees who Have to work for that income. They could be going to school or learning new skills to eventually get a job they are more suited for or enjoy more or simply make enough to not whine about taxes.

When an employee is earning $40/hr at a job he doesn't like, offering him $14/hr to quit is not going to make him happy. Just not going to happen. And another fallacy on your part. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It is the guys on the lower rungs of the ladder that don't have to worry about taxes.

Maybe not; but employees making forty dollars an hour have more economic opportunity find something else they may enjoy or even save up enough to retire early. And, the point is, that simply being able to quit is a market based metric for any employer who may change their practice or may not develop any practice which may create disgruntlement by employees simply because all employees should be more motivated to work not simply working because they have no other market friendly alternatives.

You can quit whenever you want to. Like having the freedom to jump off your roof, you may not like the consequences but you have the freedom. What you want to do is like forcing society to put cushions around every house so no one gets hurt if they decide to jump off the roof.

In this case it is more a type of insurance. The capital based metrics are public and easily available.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, you are not simplifying you are adding conditions and as already shown, it does not solve poverty, it just creates more layers of government and switching responsibility from one agency to another.

Yes, it is a simplification. And, it costs time and money to adjudicate any appeals. Also, people would litigate less if they could simply quit on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Employees will also be less likely to become disgruntled.

We aren’t talking a few extra dollars here. Unhappy workers cost the U.S. between $450 and $550 billion in lost productivity each year, according to a 2013 report on the state of the U.S. workplace conducted by research and polling company Gallup.--https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246036#:~:text=Infographics-,Unhappy%20Workers%20Cost%20the%20U.S.,%24550%20Billion%20a%20Year%20(Infographic)&text=Your%20employees'%20happiness%20can%20make,And%20that's%20expensive%20for%20you.

It isn't simplifying, you want to add conditions, please stop lying. It isn't going to solve homelessness as we have seen in many large liberal cities the cost of a one bedroom apartment is very costly and beyond anyone making $15 per hour.

There are more conditions now and more potential and incentive for fraud now than there would be then.

You are full of BS, you are adding conditions, we have all explained it and your counterargument is no. That isn't an argument. You need to figure out what the hell you are talking about before you spew your BS because as bright as you must think you are, you have absolutely nothing.

Nope. There are currently more conditions for qualifying than there would be then. Having to resolve any issues simply costs more.

Believe what you need to believe, your idea is DOA your congressman even thinks so. Feel free to present it to the Supreme Court.

 

[hadit]

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

Yes, because they would no longer be disgruntled employees who Have to work for that income. They could be going to school or learning new skills to eventually get a job they are more suited for or enjoy more or simply make enough to not whine about taxes.

When an employee is earning $40/hr at a job he doesn't like, offering him $14/hr to quit is not going to make him happy. Just not going to happen. And another fallacy on your part. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It is the guys on the lower rungs of the ladder that don't have to worry about taxes.

Maybe not; but employees making forty dollars an hour have more economic opportunity find something else they may enjoy or even save up enough to retire early. And, the point is, that simply being able to quit is a market based metric for any employer who may change their practice or may not develop any practice which may create disgruntlement by employees simply because all employees should be more motivated to work not simply working because they have no other market friendly alternatives.

You can quit whenever you want to. Like having the freedom to jump off your roof, you may not like the consequences but you have the freedom. What you want to do is like forcing society to put cushions around every house so no one gets hurt if they decide to jump off the roof.

In this case it is more a type of insurance. The capital based metrics are public and easily available.

Yes, we already have insurance in case you're laid off from your job. It's called Unemployment Compensation and covers a specific set of workers. Works pretty well too. It doesn't cover you if you quit your job, however.

 

[hadit]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

 

[WinterBorn]

And you're ignoring the reality that ANY program that does not have any qualifications is quickly overrun by those simply out for free money. Simple example, children. Right off the bat you have to have a way to know if the person applying for the program is a minor or an adult. Citizenship. You have to check. Are they already getting benefits from another program? Already you have to have a bureaucracy. So, no, you're not going to have a cheap, self-sustaining program. It WILL be another massive welfare program.

I am not advocating handing out one thousand dollars to everyone even those who don't need it. Solving for actual economic phenomena is the goal. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment that could be solved as simply and as easily as the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party can make it. It doesn't get more automatically stabilizing than that.

Without means testing, how will you know whether someone needs it or not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

How is endless government payments for sloth "market friendly"?

 

[danielpalos]

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

Yes, because they would no longer be disgruntled employees who Have to work for that income. They could be going to school or learning new skills to eventually get a job they are more suited for or enjoy more or simply make enough to not whine about taxes.

When an employee is earning $40/hr at a job he doesn't like, offering him $14/hr to quit is not going to make him happy. Just not going to happen. And another fallacy on your part. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It is the guys on the lower rungs of the ladder that don't have to worry about taxes.

Maybe not; but employees making forty dollars an hour have more economic opportunity find something else they may enjoy or even save up enough to retire early. And, the point is, that simply being able to quit is a market based metric for any employer who may change their practice or may not develop any practice which may create disgruntlement by employees simply because all employees should be more motivated to work not simply working because they have no other market friendly alternatives.

You can quit whenever you want to. Like having the freedom to jump off your roof, you may not like the consequences but you have the freedom. What you want to do is like forcing society to put cushions around every house so no one gets hurt if they decide to jump off the roof.

In this case it is more a type of insurance. The capital based metrics are public and easily available.

Yes, we already have insurance in case you're laid off from your job. It's called Unemployment Compensation and covers a specific set of workers. Works pretty well too. It doesn't cover you if you quit your job, however.

The point is, that the multiplier must have some capital effect on our economy since economic activity can be expected to double. Some rich Capitalist is going to want to Capitalize on that activity. Once that happens, a new market will be established that will require labor.

 

[hadit]

And you think paying people who are staying in jobs they don't like because the jobs pay them well $14/hr to quit is going to make them happy?

Yes, because they would no longer be disgruntled employees who Have to work for that income. They could be going to school or learning new skills to eventually get a job they are more suited for or enjoy more or simply make enough to not whine about taxes.

When an employee is earning $40/hr at a job he doesn't like, offering him $14/hr to quit is not going to make him happy. Just not going to happen. And another fallacy on your part. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. It is the guys on the lower rungs of the ladder that don't have to worry about taxes.

Maybe not; but employees making forty dollars an hour have more economic opportunity find something else they may enjoy or even save up enough to retire early. And, the point is, that simply being able to quit is a market based metric for any employer who may change their practice or may not develop any practice which may create disgruntlement by employees simply because all employees should be more motivated to work not simply working because they have no other market friendly alternatives.

You can quit whenever you want to. Like having the freedom to jump off your roof, you may not like the consequences but you have the freedom. What you want to do is like forcing society to put cushions around every house so no one gets hurt if they decide to jump off the roof.

In this case it is more a type of insurance. The capital based metrics are public and easily available.

Yes, we already have insurance in case you're laid off from your job. It's called Unemployment Compensation and covers a specific set of workers. Works pretty well too. It doesn't cover you if you quit your job, however.

The point is, that the multiplier must have some capital effect on our economy since economic activity can be expected to double. Some rich Capitalist is going to want to Capitalize on that activity. Once that happens, a new market will be established that will require labor.

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

 

[danielpalos]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

It used to be called the law of averages. The larger the sample size the more accurate the statistics produced.

 

[danielpalos]

And you're ignoring the reality that ANY program that does not have any qualifications is quickly overrun by those simply out for free money. Simple example, children. Right off the bat you have to have a way to know if the person applying for the program is a minor or an adult. Citizenship. You have to check. Are they already getting benefits from another program? Already you have to have a bureaucracy. So, no, you're not going to have a cheap, self-sustaining program. It WILL be another massive welfare program.

I am not advocating handing out one thousand dollars to everyone even those who don't need it. Solving for actual economic phenomena is the goal. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment that could be solved as simply and as easily as the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party can make it. It doesn't get more automatically stabilizing than that.

Without means testing, how will you know whether someone needs it or not?

The exact same criteria they use now, except for more comprehensive coverage.

 

[danielpalos]

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

How is endless government payments for sloth "market friendly"?

All it takes is Capital to succeed under Capitalism. Some may want to challenge themselves and learn now to make more money than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed will provide.

 

[danielpalos]

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

Not at all. It is just more comprehensive coverage that is all. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. The multiplier has already been measured at two. The reason for that is because the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. That means local economies will benefit the most. The reason why it will still generate a positive multiplier is that those receiving that income will be circulating that capital and paying general taxes on it, and possibly even income tax.

It also means that less money will be needed for regular welfare benefits which only generate a multiplier of .8.