danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #601
Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed makes that a moot, right wing point.It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed makes that a moot, right wing point.It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
Show us the link, don't merely imply you must be Right merely because you are on the right wing.That has not been the case with QE.
No inflation under QE? DURR.
That is a FALLACY. The program works the way it does because it is limited to only a subset of people with a specific set of circumstances. Opening it up to everybody would introduce means testing and make it another welfare program. You don't like means testing, but that's what would happen. You would fundamentally change the nature of the program and it wouldn't work the way it does now. You can't avoid that, and STOP calling it "unequal protection of the laws", because it is NOT.You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.
At the same time you have fewer jobs you want the government to spend more. Who else sees the BIG problem with that?Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed makes that a moot, right wing point.It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
That meant nothing at all.The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?
I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
It would be analogous to improving the efficiency of a governor on an engine.
Then, why require them to work instead of obtain unemployment compensation so they can learn new skills and become worth more to an employer?Market research that is influenced by market based arbitrage. Not everyone in a low skilled job is as ignorant as the right wing would prefer.where in there does it say the employee's rent is part of the salary equation?Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?
As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.
What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.
How to Establish Salary Ranges
- Step 1: Determine the Organization's Compensation Philosophy. ...
- Step 2: Conduct a Job Analysis. ...
- Step 3: Group into Job Families. ...
- Step 4: Rank Positions Using a Job Evaluation Method. ...
- Step 5: Conduct Market Research. ...
- Step 6: Create Job Grades. ...
- Step 7: Create a Salary Range Based on Research.
How to Establish Salary Ranges
Follow these simple steps to create pay grades and salary ranges.www.shrm.org
No one said everyone in a low skill job is ignorant. But if they managed to get to adulthood with no skills, you are not worth as much to a business.
And again you fail to acknowledge the truth that you will be incentivizing people to not work, even when they have jobs they can do. That means more people taking and fewer producing. Does anyone else see the BIG problem with that? Now, we've explained to you that you can't apply UC to everyone who doesn't work. You would have to change it so much that it would become yet another massive welfare program. You can't escape that.You mean like taxes for our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?You're missing the point, which is taxes take money out of the economy, and that represents lost opportunity. Every dollar that goes to taxes is another dollar that isn't spent on the economy.Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.In there you will find the job multiplier effect of current jobs. When you take money out of business, jobs are lost and they are not lost in a vacuum, they cause other job loss as well.
According to some studies, general welfare spending along with defense spending generates a multiplier of point .8. That means that for each dollar spent only point eight dollars worth of economic activity is generated. UC has a multiplier of two. That means that for each dollar spent on UC, two dollars of economic activity are generated. It is simply more cost effective to simply pay surplus labor to not work than to rely on ineffective social services.
Show us the link, don't merely imply you must be Right merely because you are on the right wing.That has not been the case with QE.
No inflation under QE? DURR.
You miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.How old are you?I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.
But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?
Dear danielpalosI 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.
So you want to give those who refuse to work a LOT of money so you can take back a LITTLE money. Do you realize what you've just done? You've taken a LOT of money away from people who earned it, taken some of it to pay government workers, given the rest of it to the non-working, all in the hope that you will be able to collect a LITTLE of it back again. What a load.General taxes are much better than direct taxes. What if it lowered your direct taxes since even the unemployed would be paying general taxes?They would already pay general taxes like sales taxes.
You want sales taxes to fund your bum gravy train? DURR.
The program itself would not change. We would be using the same legal and physical infrastructure, only the returns to scale would be improved. It would be analogous to improving the efficiency of a governor on an engine. The engine is not changed only the output is improved.You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.
You keep saying that the UC program would not change.
But you are changing how it is funded.
You are changing who is eligible.
You are changing the qualifications for receiving checks.
You are changing the length of time you can draw a check.
Those are all big changes. And welfare already exists.
This is possibly the most famous danielpalos word redefinition. He literally thinks he's facing unequal protection under the law because he has to have been laid off from a job in order to collect UC. Literally.You miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.How old are you?I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.
But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?
You continue to whine about equal protection.
What protection does the employer get that the employee does not get?
Only due to unequal protection of the law. And, why do we have a homeless problem if even a War on Poverty has no simple solution only an expensive and ineffective non-solution?Not right now, but what if they could through equal protection of the laws.But they can't do that, can they?
How would that not solve simple poverty and provide that upward pressure on wages?
They can't do that now, via UC.
But they CAN do that now via welfare. You may not be able to study HR, per se. But you can gain valuable job skills through a variety of programs.
And, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue. A (positive) multiplier effect.other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7Of course it does. It’s called minimum wageThat’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.Who determines what the value of labor is?
The buyer and the seller.
Almost...
Tell me what additional determinant I missed.
A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.
Of course it doesn't.
Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.
If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.
$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.
Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.
I did answer your economic question. The Poor simply tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later and that is what generates a (positive) multiplier effect.Says you, story teller. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows better.Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.In there you will find the job multiplier effect of current jobs. When you take money out of business, jobs are lost and they are not lost in a vacuum, they cause other job loss as well.
Here is where you don't understand how the economy works.
You claim the richest don't tend to spend most of their income. What do they do with the rest of it? Stuff it in a mattress?
The authors—the first to use the PSID to estimate the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) by wealth—find that the MPC is indeed lower at higher wealth quintiles, suggesting that lower-wealth households respond more to changes in income than do higher-wealth households.
.
The richest tend to invest (even in off-shore tax havens).
I see you didn't answer my question. Not a surprise.
Let me help you out. The richest do not spend most of their income. But that is their choice, and part of why the got rich.
They also do not remove their income from the economic cycle. They invest, which gives opportunities to businesses.
Even if they put their money in a savings account at a bank, it is not removed from the economy.
Basically, he's complaining that a Ferrari engine uses too much gas, so he wants to take a Honda engine and soup it up so it has the same power as the Ferrari engine but a different label, then thinks he'll still get the same gas mileage the old Honda engine did.The program itself would not change. We would be using the same legal and physical infrastructure, only the returns to scale would be improved. It would be analogous to improving the efficiency of a governor on an engine. The engine is not changed only the output is improved.You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.
You keep saying that the UC program would not change.
But you are changing how it is funded.
You are changing who is eligible.
You are changing the qualifications for receiving checks.
You are changing the length of time you can draw a check.
Those are all big changes. And welfare already exists.
To use your engine analogy, you want to change the fuel, change the output, change the use of the engine, change who uses the engine, and basically create an engine that duplicates what an existing engine does.
UC is not meant to be long term income. You will never change it into welfare.
That is the one thing that he continues to do above all. No matter what he's shown, no matter how compelling the evidence, he still comes back spouting the same old garbage and insisting he's won all the arguments.Only due to unequal protection of the law. And, why do we have a homeless problem if even a War on Poverty has no simple solution only an expensive and ineffective non-solution?Not right now, but what if they could through equal protection of the laws.But they can't do that, can they?
How would that not solve simple poverty and provide that upward pressure on wages?
They can't do that now, via UC.
But they CAN do that now via welfare. You may not be able to study HR, per se. But you can gain valuable job skills through a variety of programs.
It has been shown to you, over & over, that recreating the UC will not solve homelessness. Why do you persist in your fantasy?
The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?
I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.