You honestly believe that paying people to do nothing is LESS socialized than what we have now? Tell me where you get your drugs from, I need some of whatever it is youre on.

What part of at-will employment doctrine and our Ninth Amendment do you object to? It could be as simple as unemployment compensation, at-will.

Why do you want the cost of something more expensive than that performed by our public sector?

We could eliminate the War on Poverty by actually solving poverty in our republic.

At will unemployment means you can apply for a job at will. If someone will hire you you can work. That in no way shape or form translates to paying people to sit on their duffs. What part of that do you not understand? Look at how "well" the whole bailout, increased government spending aka throw money at the problem solution is going. Its getting worse and worse by the day. NO thank you.

Youre never going to solve for poverty. If everyone has their needs met without having to do anything they'll never get off the damn couch. People NEED struggle to prosper.

You may be missing the point about the relevance of our own Constitution and any doctrines and laws pursuant to that supreme code law of the land.

Most states are at-will employment states.


Why would you want something more complicated than that, if you claim you are in favor of lower taxes? More regulations usually involve more Government expense. If you want to pay less taxes you should be advocating simplifying our social safety nets so they actually accomplish those goals.

If people really needed to struggle to prosper, most people would be moving to anarchies and third world economies. I think the opposite is true for civilization.

In my opinion, it is about the ethics and morals written into our Constitution.

Whats your point? You just weakened your own argument. We have at will EMPLOYMENT, not at will UNEMPLOYMENT. there is a difference, which means since we DO NOT HAVE AT WILL UNEMPLOYMENT its NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE 9th AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
An employer may HIRE someone to perform LABOR and may terminate that contract at will. That does not in any way shape or form translate to at will unemployment where the government uses my tax dollars to pay lazy fucks to sit around and do jack shit all day.
What part of that is hard to understand?

OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED UPON CAPITALIST PRINCIPLES AND MORALS, NOT SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES AND MORALS.

I thought you understood the concept of unemployment compensation, at-will? How would it be incompatible with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws? If anything, we are not being sufficiently moral and ethical to that doctrine and those state laws; and are suffering the consequences of poverty as a result.

Our Ninth Amendment is not socialist in nature.

With that type of public policy, you would be able to apply for unemployment compensation at-will yourself. You could even be doing your employer a favor since you don't seem to like your work enough to be happy working for market based wages.

You're still on this kick??? Geez! What part of "we don't want to pay someone to sit on their sofa playing tiddlywinks instead of working" do you not grasp? We already have unemployment for those that are laid off of work but in order to get it, you have to have had a job but you want to give it to some lazy bum that hasn't even worked just to keep out of poverty! That really has to be the most STUPID idea I've heard in a really long time. Here's a novel idea...make their lazy asses get jobs like the rest of us!!!

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I am still trying to lower our tax burden. Those of the opposing viewpoint seem to prefer to waste their tax money on public policies that are not intended to solve the socioeconomic conditions they are allocating resources to through the mechanism of Prohibition.

We have a natural unemployment rate that you cannot solve for with your advocacy of your viewpoint. Why should anyone who is naturally unemployed have to look for work? It could be viewed as a waste of time and effort that could be used for other purposes.

In other words, you prefer to advocate for a greater amount so statism (which costs money) to try to fix a problem that is caused by a lack of money. Greater or excessive amounts of statism are usually associated with communism. That is what you are achieving with your goals.

We have a Ninth Amendment for a reason.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where unemployment compensation at-will is consistent with that doctrine and those state laws.

We could find ways to lower other public sector costs. If no individual market participant can claim to be in official poverty, why would they need more government services? Those services may be more cost effective if provided by the private sector utilizing money based markets and our political-economy.

If no one can claim to be in official poverty, government health care mandates would be more ethical and moral to money based markets. Such capital would be allocated at the individual level and potentially result in better products at lower cost to the individual consumer.

By solving poverty in our republic via unemployment compensation, at-will; generational forms of poverty would also only exist at-will due to a lack of money management skills; not, a poverty of money.

As a form of minimum wage, unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide a market based metric for any potential labor market participant to easily recognize for money management purposes.

Simply paying less motivated labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy would make it easier for anyone actually wanting to work, to find work with less friction in that market and possibly with more motivated coworkers. As a moral incentive, anyone having a work ethic could pursue a form of Happiness by simply working and providing labor input to the economy for prevailing market based wages.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work could be as easy as signing up with a temp. agency and getting called and asked if you want to work for market based wages. This would involve a sufficiently motivated labor market participant to gain the skill sets that command such a rate. It could be considered a market based incentive to work.

Daniel, I don't know if you believe all the bullshit you write or not but paying someone unemployment because they choose not to work is beyond ridiculous. Social services are already abused and are definitely not being used for what they were designed for, which is NOT for the cradle-to-grave crap we see now and you're really wanting to add yet another handout to those too lazy to make their own way??? So let's see, we've got a family of 4, mom and dad decide not to work so we give them unemployment compensation, food stamps, free medical care, welfare checks because they have two kids, Section 8 housing...hell, lets just throw in a maid and a chauffeur and car for kicks. Let's also give them a clothing allowance at Saks while we're at it. Have we elevated them enough to suit you???

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Again, at will employment has nothing to do with what you are suggesting. Try again slugger

Red herrings are considered fallacies.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where unemployment compensation at-will is consistent with that doctrine and those state laws.

We could find ways to lower other public sector costs. If no individual market participant can claim to be in official poverty, why would they need more government services? Those services may be more cost effective if provided by the private sector utilizing money based markets and our political-economy.

If no one can claim to be in official poverty, government health care mandates would be more ethical and moral to money based markets. Such capital would be allocated at the individual level and potentially result in better products at lower cost to the individual consumer.

By solving poverty in our republic via unemployment compensation, at-will; generational forms of poverty would also only exist at-will due to a lack of money management skills; not, a poverty of money.

As a form of minimum wage, unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide a market based metric for any potential labor market participant to easily recognize for money management purposes.

Simply paying less motivated labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy would make it easier for anyone actually wanting to work, to find work with less friction in that market and possibly with more motivated coworkers. As a moral incentive, anyone having a work ethic could pursue a form of Happiness by simply working and providing labor input to the economy for prevailing market based wages.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work could be as easy as signing up with a temp. agency and getting called and asked if you want to work for market based wages. This would involve a sufficiently motivated labor market participant to gain the skill sets that command such a rate. It could be considered a market based incentive to work.

It is based on that doctrine and those state laws.

I'm quite happy with my job and my pay. I'm happy to earn my money. Where did i ever say or give the impression that i wasn't?
Nice straw man by the way, i like its fancy hat