CDZ With 9.3 million job openings in the United States, why are there still people panhandling on the corner of Intersections?

[DudleySmith]

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place for unemployment compensation in our republic.

Too arbitrary and controlled by state govts., with widely varying amounts, none adequate.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Because Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is natural under Capitalism, for capitalism.

It has no such natural rate

 

[sartre play]

We have had people begging in some form from the beginning of human history. Better question is what are we doing about us slipping back into a two class society? Can those of us who have built a decent middle class life maintain it?

 

[danielpalos]

No, it is not. The infrastructure for unemployment compensation is based on unemployment insurance (a federal requirement) and not taxes on citizens. Also, the numbers collecting unemployment insurance are miniscule compared to welfare programs. Not to mention that the unemployment compensation is a limited time assistance program, usually around 26 week.

To shift the burden to UC would require a huge, expensive makeover of the entire program.

Yes, it is and is a self-evident truth.

 

[danielpalos]

Too arbitrary and controlled by state govts., with widely varying amounts, none adequate.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation could change that along with fixing federal Standards regarding poverty.

 

[Flopper]

We have had people begging in some form from the beginning of human history. Better question is what are we doing about us slipping back into a two class society? Can those of us who have built a decent middle class life maintain it?

The growth in income in recent decades has tilted to upper-income households. At the same time, the U.S. middle class, which once comprised the clear majority of Americans, is shrinking. ... The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019.

1. Trends in income and wealth inequality

Barely 10 years past the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the U.S. economy is doing well on several fronts. The labor market is on a job-creating

www.pewresearch.org

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is and is a self-evident truth.

No it is not. If the infrastructure were in place they would not have to make the following changes:
1) The basic criteria for who qualifies for assistance.
2) The source of funding (from employers to the general public's taxes).
3) The length of time you are allowed to draw unemployment.
4) The amount you draw.
5) The requirement that you be actively looking for a job.
6) Make it an entirely federal program.

 

[WinterBorn]

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation could change that along with fixing federal Standards regarding poverty.

The Equal Protection clause wouldn't change anything, since unemployment compensation does not violate that clause.

But, for the sake of argument, lets say it does violate it. The number of changes that would have to be made are huge. As is the number of people who would be qualified for your new & improved unemployment compensation. Unemployment compensation was never designed to provide for the huge number of people who would qualify.

And there are existing programs that provide what you want UC to take over. The only complaint you have with those programs is means testing. In other words, the only complaint you have is to show you NEED assistance to survive. You want it to cover those who can make it without assistance, but who WANT more money.

 

[danielpalos]

No it is not. If the infrastructure were in place they would not have to make the following changes:

Yes, the infrastructure already exists. You merely don't understand the concept, like usual for the right-wing. Simple changes to extra-Constitutional rules is all that is required.

At-will employment laws already exist in our republic. (legal infrastructure)

"Unemployment offices" also, already exist in our republic. (physical infrastructure)

 

[danielpalos]

The Equal Protection clause wouldn't change anything, since unemployment compensation does not violate that clause.

But, for the sake of argument, lets say it does violate it. The number of changes that would have to be made are huge. As is the number of people who would be qualified for your new & improved unemployment compensation. Unemployment compensation was never designed to provide for the huge number of people who would qualify.

And there are existing programs that provide what you want UC to take over. The only complaint you have with those programs is means testing. In other words, the only complaint you have is to show you NEED assistance to survive. You want it to cover those who can make it without assistance, but who WANT more money.

Not at all. At-will employment laws already exist. Faithful execution is all that is required.

And, unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment is simply more economically efficient. Only right-wingers whine about taxes and Big Government nanny-statism in socialism threads while obstructing simplification of our social safety nets.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, the infrastructure already exists. You merely don't understand the concept, like usual for the right-wing. Simple changes to extra-Constitutional rules is all that is required.

At-will employment laws already exist in our republic. (legal infrastructure)

"Unemployment offices" also, already exist in our republic. (physical infrastructure)

And, as has pointed out numerous times, the at-will employment laws are not effected AT ALL by the current unemployment compensation.

And while the unemployment offices already exist, they are not capable of handing the volume and duration of the program you want created. And you want those major changes simply because you do not want to get a job.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not at all. At-will employment laws already exist. Faithful execution is all that is required.

And, unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment is simply more economically efficient. Only right-wingers whine about taxes and Big Government nanny-statism in socialism threads while obstructing simplification of our social safety nets.

Perhaps right-wingers do what you say. Since I am not a right-winger I wouldn't know.

So 26 weeks of $450 a week will suit you? Then you will either find employment or find another source of income?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, the infrastructure already exists. You merely don't understand the concept, like usual for the right-wing. Simple changes to extra-Constitutional rules is all that is required.

At-will employment laws already exist in our republic. (legal infrastructure)

"Unemployment offices" also, already exist in our republic. (physical infrastructure)

Once again you selectively quote what I said. And you ignore all the major changes that would have to happen to create the program you want. Which is merely a duplication of welfare but without means testing.

Why are you so opposed to means testing? Do you want rampant fraud taking benefits away from those who need the benefits?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Panhandlers depend on people giving them money. Don't give them any money.

 

[danielpalos]

And, as has pointed out numerous times, the at-will employment laws are not effected AT ALL by the current unemployment compensation.

And while the unemployment offices already exist, they are not capable of handing the volume and duration of the program you want created. And you want those major changes simply because you do not want to get a job.

Thanks for finally admitting that right-wingers don't care about being legal to the laws except in border threads.

 

[danielpalos]

Perhaps right-wingers do what you say. Since I am not a right-winger I wouldn't know.

So 26 weeks of $450 a week will suit you? Then you will either find employment or find another source of income?

How does that solve simple poverty and end our alleged war on poverty and those associated costs?

 

[danielpalos]

Once again you selectively quote what I said. And you ignore all the major changes that would have to happen to create the program you want. Which is merely a duplication of welfare but without means testing.

Why are you so opposed to means testing? Do you want rampant fraud taking benefits away from those who need the benefits?

Faithful execution of our at-will employment laws means less cost for more expensive means tested welfare. Only right-wingers like yourself object to such simple measures for your socialism on a national or international basis.

 

[Indeependent]

How does that solve simple poverty and end our alleged war on poverty and those associated costs?

What causes inter-generational poverty?

 

[danielpalos]

What causes inter-generational poverty?

A lack of capital under any form of Capitalism along with unequal protection of the laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thanks for finally admitting that right-wingers don't care about being legal to the laws except in border threads.

I didn't. But if you want to pretend I did, that is up to you.