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

[danielpalos]

No, I am not. I have been on programs with means testing. I did most of the work providing the information.

And why do you object to a means test? Isn't it a good thing to make sure the assistance is needed and not just wanted?

With our current regime, there is incentive to commit fraud (which is worse than a tax) even with a war on crime under our form of Capitalism.

However, you miss the economic point of the convenience of public policies that also function as automatic stabilizers for our economy. The multiplier is the best factor and metric for public policies that can function as automatic stabilizers for our economy. Unemployment compensation was found to have a multiplier of two (2) in one study. For comparison and contrast, means tested welfare has a multiplier of less than one (1). The rational choice is obvious. And, we get a better "bang for our buck" by solving simple poverty since the Poor tend to spend (circulate) most of their income sooner and with less tax evasion.

 

[danielpalos]

1) We have people with jobs.
2) We have people who have lost their job but want to work.
3) We have people who only want a free ride.

Which of those 3 do you think is more likely to live in poverty?

That is just You begging those questions as if they were the Only "gospel Truth".

 

[danielpalos]

The only way UC will solve poverty is to spend billions of tax dollars on it. If we do that, we need to weed out as many of the people who have the means to support themselves as we can.

Merely a "targeted" economic stimulus on a permanent basis to automatically stabilize our economy more efficiently.

We have a First Amendment. Your morals don't matter only your ethics.

 

[WinterBorn]

Merely a "targeted" economic stimulus on a permanent basis to automatically stabilize our economy more efficiently.

We have a First Amendment. Your morals don't matter only your ethics.

It would take spending billions of tax payer dollars. There are economic stimulators that give us a better bang for the buck.

 

[WinterBorn]

With our current regime, there is incentive to commit fraud (which is worse than a tax) even with a war on crime under our form of Capitalism.

However, you miss the economic point of the convenience of public policies that also function as automatic stabilizers for our economy. The multiplier is the best factor and metric for public policies that can function as automatic stabilizers for our economy. Unemployment compensation was found to have a multiplier of two (2) in one study. For comparison and contrast, means tested welfare has a multiplier of less than one (1). The rational choice is obvious. And, we get a better "bang for our buck" by solving simple poverty since the Poor tend to spend (circulate) most of their income sooner and with less tax evasion.

None of that has anything to do with preventing the wholesale fraud your program would generate. Offering financial assistance without determining whether there is a need, won't happen on any long term basis. The UC as it stands does some means testing, by requiring you to have worked and to report your last earnings. If you got severance pay, your unemployment compensation is delayed accordingly.

 

[danielpalos]

It would take spending billions of tax payer dollars. There are economic stimulators that give us a better bang for the buck.

Means nothing with fiat money, and it will act as an economic stimulus to ensure our economy grows as a tide that can lift all boats.

 

[danielpalos]

None of that has anything to do with preventing the wholesale fraud your program would generate. Offering financial assistance without determining whether there is a need, won't happen on any long term basis. The UC as it stands does some means testing, by requiring you to have worked and to report your last earnings. If you got severance pay, your unemployment compensation is delayed accordingly.

You misunderstand the economic point under our form of Capitalism. Why would anyone want to commit fraud to be Poor instead of merely get a better paying job when they no longer want to be poor?

 

[DudleySmith]

With a national income, employers can pay a lot less in wages, for one, since the minimum wage floor would be already in place. Since MW is barely subsistence, it won't be hard to find workers willing to supplement that base at say another $2+ an hour on up to whatever. It will still be a market economy, but with far less welfare demands and actually more people willing to work since it will be more affordable for them t take lower paying jobs. We've been subsidizng corporate and speculation losses for hundreds of years already, so just consider it a return on the investments by cheap labor in making rich people rich and Wall Street gamblers and swindlers extremely wealthy without doing anything productive in their entire lives and passing their unearned fortunes down to many generations.

 

[DudleySmith]

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

It has fallen a lot further than that; the government has consistently lied about the real inflation rates for a long time now since 1973 or so, under-reporting it by at least half. They do this for a number of self-serving reasons, and still do.

 

[WinterBorn]

Means nothing with fiat money, and it will act as an economic stimulus to ensure our economy grows as a tide that can lift all boats.

So just spend all the tax dollars we can, since it means nothing? Don't worry about the deficit.

There are other places that billions in economic stimulus would have a greater effect.

 

[WinterBorn]

You misunderstand the economic point under our form of Capitalism. Why would anyone want to commit fraud to be Poor instead of merely get a better paying job when they no longer want to be poor?

People commit fraud because they want more. Being able to just sign up and get a check, without having to show a need, leaves it wide open for fraud.

Every other program giving assistance has some form of means test. With your New & Improved unemployment compensation there would be a means test before you got the unending payments without any effort to find a job.

 

[JoeB131]

Panhandling: How Much Money Do Panhandlers Make? Can It Even Make Money?

US job openings surge to record 9.3 million in April

There are quite a few panhandlers that i see day to day. I have decided to make a new sign for when i pass them.

THERE ARE 9.1 MILLION JOB OPENINGS
IN JOE BIDEN'S ECONOMY!
WHY DONT YOU QUIT
BEING A PANHANDLER AND GET A JOB
WHERE YOU CAN MAKE
SOMETHING OF
YOURSELF?​

A lot of those panhandlers have mental illnesses or drug addictions where they can't hold down a regular job.

Of course, if we invested in treatment programs, they probably could. But that would mean taxing rich people and how could Jeff Bezos afford his Phallus shaped rocket?

 

[JoeB131]

I am saying that the poor who can make up to $80,000 a year pan handling, need to pay their fair share also, if they want to enjoy the amenities of the United States. I keep hearing from the prog slaves that the rich dont pay their fair share, yet i know they pay a lot more into the Federal Government than some scumbag on the corner of streets.

Except most panhandlers don't make 80K a year. The ones who do are often addicted and they spend that money on booze and drugs. Others are mentally ill and can't hold down jobs.

So how about this. Let's invest in treatment programs.

 

[Indeependent]

That is just You begging that question and line of reasoning. Just admit y'all on the Right-Wing don't really care about being Legal to the Law and have no problem taking it out on the less fortunate like incorrigible, original sinners are wont to do.

The point is, there is no unemployment without natural unemployment since Labor can be easily purchased on the open market. Thus, it is only underpayment that prevents more full employment of Labor.

I hate RWers as much as you do but I also hate LWers such as yourself.
Education is the key to success.

 

[danielpalos]

So just spend all the tax dollars we can, since it means nothing? Don't worry about the deficit.

There are other places that billions in economic stimulus would have a greater effect.

You forget that we get the "biggest bang for our buck" by solving simple poverty since the Poor tend to spend (circulate) most of their income and engage in less tax avoidance than the Rich. And, there is no other place that can achieve a multiplier of two, except in right-wing fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

People commit fraud because they want more. Being able to just sign up and get a check, without having to show a need, leaves it wide open for fraud.

Every other program giving assistance has some form of means test. With your New & Improved unemployment compensation there would be a means test before you got the unending payments without any effort to find a job.

That is just You assuming that conclusion. Where are they going to get another income without a job?

 

[danielpalos]

I hate RWers as much as you do but I also hate LWers such as yourself.
Education is the key to success.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and subjective judgmentalism is duly noted. All you need now is a valid argument to be taken (intellectually) seriously.

 

[Indeependent]

Your unsubstantiated opinion and subjective judgmentalism is duly noted. All you need now is a valid argument to be taken (intellectually) seriously.

Your static minded postings are all the argument I need.
You expect government to solve the poverty issue while government has been failing at that for 50 years.
That indicates to me that you don’t come to conclusions based on facts.

 

[Indeependent]

Look!
DP, the greedy retard clicked the Smiley!

 

[danielpalos]

Your static minded postings are all the argument I need.
You expect government to solve the poverty issue while government has been failing at that for 50 years.
That indicates to me that you don’t come to conclusions based on facts.

You assume your own conclusion, typical of the right-wing. Begging the question is considered a fallacy.

Equal protection of the laws instead of (color) codes can help solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.