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

[danielpalos]

Which state? Could we get a link?

It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

You claimed you quoted a state law, which state? Every state has a different view, I'd like to see which state you are quoting from.

Not at all. At-will employment means the same in all States but Montana. What I cited is federal doctrine regarding employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

Obviously you are clueless about the real world. Theories and philosophy treat the symptoms not the problem.

Obviously you are on the right wing and have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments, like usual for right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The two largest transfers of wealth occurred under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President and a split Congress. Republican or Democrat, they are owned by the rich. Time to rid America of the two party and the crooks that operate them.

I would agree with you, but for right wingers being willing to insurrect against the Union. Equal protection of the laws seems more straight forward and is actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.

Yep, thank you for pointing out that the Democrats are just as guilty of transferring money to the rich as the GOP, that cannot be denied. Blame who you need to however the facts show the Dems and GOP are equally responsible for the transfer so think either one would be willing to fix the issue is just wishful thinking.

I agree with you that even the reality tv guy was unable to get real for the Poor, only the rich in the Middle East.

Nothing to do with the GOP or Democrats. Please explain why the left made a choice to help the 1% not once but twice gain the most wealth ever in history? I mean once is a mistake but twice? It seems just as bad as the GOP except you expect that, but the Dems? Really? After pretending to be for the poor and getting paid off by the rich, how does that make one feel? Betrayed?

The republicans are worse. At least, the democrats are for healthcare reform and raising the minimum wage.

Why did the left agree to the two biggest transfers in wealth? They did this twice, does that seem like a group taking care of the poor? Giving more money to the rich helps the poor? How? Raising the minimum wage? That supports you supporting the Democrats after they transferred trillion to the rich? Healthcare? It is minimal at best, large deductibles, requiring people to pay to remain legal in their own country? Allowing rich health care providers guaranteed profit is good for America?

I see two corrupt political parties that seem only interested in putting money into their pockets and not the pockets of the American people.

Yet, it is only the right wing who object to healthcare reform and raising the minimum wage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You expect the employer to continue to pay you, even though you quit the job or were fired for violating stated ruled. And you want to call that equality?

Even worse, the dipstick wants to receive unending unemployment even if he never had a job.

 

[WinterBorn]

You expect the employer to continue to pay you, even though you quit the job or were fired for violating stated ruled. And you want to call that equality?

Even worse, the dipstick wants to receive unending unemployment even if he never had a job.

He wants welfare, except welfare has a means test. You have to prove you cannot survive without aid. He obviously can.

He wants employers to be forced to pay him, even if he quits or is fired for cause.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Unemployment compensation has already demonstrated a multiplier of 2 and is much more cost effective than means tested welfare. We could abolish our useless War on Poverty by having UC pick up the slack in a more market friendly manner.

It is one solution for this economic phenomena:

Its all whitey's fault that higher crime areas chase business such as grocery stores away even when the government hands out food stamps like candy meaning all the would be customers would have to do get all those HEALTHY FOODS in their neighbors is well behave like normal people?

 

[danielpalos]

That phrase "You seem to be implying" is weasel piss. Stop doing that. If you desire clarification, simply request it! You've been trained to think and talk that way (like an idiot) by idiots such as these you're currently engaged with here. No, that is not what I said nor my intent. Likewise, BM declaring "You think it's cheaper to eat junk food than it is to make your own meals" was not just wrong, it was a lie! I should know. These accusations amount to straw man personal attacks, not attempts at honest conversation. Weasels weasel, piss, and moan. Honest people quote others where appropriate and ask rather than accuse.

To the point, it's been well established for decades that "junk" or unhealthy foods are made deliberately cheap and largely "market"ed to leverage people already provided limited choices. The poor and busy people who "have to" work. School cafeterias, WalMart shoppers,.. Within grocery stores, the healthiest prepared foods and food ingredients cost more than their crappy, cheap counterparts. This is common sense, but please do let me know if pertinent research indicates otherwise. More specifically, "cooking your meals at home where you have total control of what you are cooking is" skilled. It requires a well provisioned "home." One must be relatively independent, privileged, healthy, wealthy,.. Not "poor." Circular reasoning is unsurprisingly circular.

I thought it was about eating a "healthy" diet versus eating an unhealthy diet or a less healthy diet. I agree with you that simply eating candy bars for example is less expensive than eating nutrition bars, but at what cost to the health of the consumer? And, the comparison was, I thought, between eating less healthy fast food and food that can be prepared at home. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[danielpalos]

And as I've explained, those jobs are not generating more revenue than a higher MW. Now, if everyone is willing to pay higher prices and see jobs disappear, we can increase the MW. You simply cannot expect to drastically increase the MW with no impact to prices and jobs. If you could, we could go to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Obviously, we don't.

That has always been a disingenuous argument since wages are subject to market based arbitraje not just value of alleged productivity. Inflation still happens and costs are still passed on to consumers regardless. The point I am making is that right wingers only complain when the Poor make more money.

 

[danielpalos]

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO.. Don't we owe our fellow citizens that much? What are we afraid of?

I agree with you, especially in alleged Right to Work States.

 

[danielpalos]

I have had the same arguments with him. I too have given him plenty of reasons it will not work. He wants Unemployment Compensation to replace the entire welfare system, for the simple fact that welfare has a means test.

No, that is You simply making up stories, story teller. That is not my argument at all. You have no valid reasons why equal protection of the law in this matter won't work, just stories you make up that keep getting taller down the line.

 

[danielpalos]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Yes, simple poverty can be solved merely with money. Complex poverty must be means tested.

The issues fall within the political debate. The Left wants to help the poor by giving them money, healthcare, and resources... the Right wants to minimize welfare and promote self sufficiency. They see the poor as lazy so giving them what they need only perpetuates the problem and disincentivizes them to work harder.

And as usual, there is truth in both approaches. Certainly, having resources available to help when someone falls on hard times is a good thing. At the same time, long term reliance on that help DOES result in dependency and a reluctance to provide for one's self.

You mean like poverty wages for the employer's bottom line so the Government can pick up the tab for social services? Why has the minimum wage not kept up with inflation on its own in our market based economy.

And as I've explained, those jobs are not generating more revenue than a higher MW. Now, if everyone is willing to pay higher prices and see jobs disappear, we can increase the MW. You simply cannot expect to drastically increase the MW with no impact to prices and jobs. If you could, we could go to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Obviously, we don't.

Are the Europeans so much smarter than we are? Or don't we have the will and intelligence for universal healthcare. Even Israel and Australia and Saudi Arabia can pull that off.

surada----how much time have you spent administering medical care in
the USA? How much have you heard the problems of people from those
universal healthcare countries with THEIR health care? There are people from whom
EVEN YOU, can learn. BTW ---if you need emergency care just GO TO THE
HOSPITAL----if you cannot pay they cannot refuse you

Emergency care is the most expensive option. An ounce of preventive care is worth a pound of emergency care. Only right wingers complain about the cost of Government but only have the most expensive options as their alleged solutions.

 

[Circe]

The point is we should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Both the people I described WANT to be homeless. What, are you going to imprison them?

For example, people with drug addictions or mental illness would be able to afford rehabilitation to help them be more productive in our economy.

Good luck with rehabbing chronic schizophrenics. Or alcoholics. That won't happen.
And they don't WANT to "be more productive in our economy." They don't want to be slaves to capitalism -- or civilization. They want to live in a barrel, like Diogenes the philosopher. As long as they don't urinate on people, as Diogenes did at dinner parties, maybe it's not a problem.

Except in San Francisco, it is a problem there.

 

[danielpalos]

And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.

how droll coming from a right winger who has no valid arguments only fallacy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO.. Don't we owe our fellow citizens that much? What are we afraid of?

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO..

And those who don't should still get paid.....ask Daniel.

 

[danielpalos]

OK----at age 18, I had a minimum wage job in a large department store----1.25 per hour----------I worked 20 hours per week ---senior year in High School. I NEEDED that one too.
Employees get around that one by hiring PART TIME ONLY

If that works for everyone, why have we had a War on Poverty for over a few decades? Anecdotal evidence is simply that. The proof is, why do you or any right wingers complain about taxes when it is soo easy, according to right wingers, to simply improve themselves through hard work and get a job that pays enough so you don't feel any need to complain about taxes. Simply whining about taxes is proof right wingers are simply wrong even though they are on the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

TARP transferred wealth to the rich? How?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. -- Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia

Yet, solving simple poverty by actually solving for an economic phenomena for the Poor is too much to ask?

 

[Papageorgio]

Which state? Could we get a link?

It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

You claimed you quoted a state law, which state? Every state has a different view, I'd like to see which state you are quoting from.

Not at all. At-will employment means the same in all States but Montana. What I cited is federal doctrine regarding employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.

No problem, just show the link.

 

[danielpalos]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

Hi.

I've something that's been floating around in my brain for a while.

The Nonprofit Conglomerate
So given the risk in any business startup a profit margin in the 15% range is expected. But, what if that 15% were poured into income and benefits for the employees instead?
This would be an interlocking corporation wherein individual companies within the corporation provide goods and services to one another
For example a payroll management company, in addition to its outside customers, would provide payroll services to member companies at steep discounts.
The company would fund the following for its employees:
3 month layoff protection
100% funded healthcare (using facilities that are members)
Heavily discounted childcare
Training
Education
Once these items are fully funded 100% of profits go toward employee salaries.

With no "owners" there's no income taxes and no owner income so the rest can go to the employees.

Seems like a good idea that could be beneficial, ceteris paribus. The issue however is that capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment regardless. We need a market friendly solution that is less expensive than our current, endless War on Poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

you think the mentally ill homeless have incomes?

Why are they mentally ill and homeless? Isn't our social safety net supposed to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

TARP transferred wealth to the rich? How?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. -- Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia

Yet, solving simple poverty by actually solving for an economic phenomena for the Poor is too much to ask?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. --

They changed it. They didn't buy toxic assets, they bought preferred stock.
Made billions. It was in all the papers.

Yet, solving simple poverty by actually solving for an economic phenomena for the Poor is too much to ask?

Yes, incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work is a terrible idea.