I would like to discuss this scenario with anyone who wants an argument and not a quarrel.

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.

No matter how many times you repeat this post (for the record, it's at least 5), you're not going to convince anyone that your brand of welfare is an intelligent solution. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

__________________






"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!"

All I am asking for is a discussion. You are welcome to help me find any flaws in the scenario.

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.

Why would anyone have a problem with making it easier for anyone wanting to provide labor input to the economy as a form of Happiness, moral, and work ethic; even if it at the cost of paying couch potatoes to do nothing to enable them to pursue it? Anyone wanting to provide labor input to the economy would be able to do so at market based rates.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work for those labor market participants willing to 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.

Ending our extra-constitutional drug war could fund that hypothetical with existing resources and could potentially lower our tax burden and cost of Government.

What's to discuss? We've told you over and over again that we don't like your idea because it means paying someone to sit on their ass at home. As for the drug war, like it or not, we're getting deeper and deeper into that because of the drug cartels. If we don't fight them, we'll end up like Mexico where thugs are killing the police and overrunning the cities. Also, I doubt seriously that what we're spending on the drug war would even begin to fund your inane idea.

__________________






"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!"

For one it is NOT in line with at will employment as i've tried to explain to you at least 3 times. at will employment and at will unemployment are two wildly different things.
2nd: i don't care if it cures cancer and makes puppies crap rainbows, I'm not authorizing the use of my money that i pay to the government to take care of things like roads, the mail, the military, that kind of thing to pay some asshole to sit around all day for as long as he feels like it. It may not be rational, or logical, or ethical or moral to you but it is to me, and most of the other people who have posted here.

I would take your moral arguments more seriously if you weren't already paying people to commit fraud for welfare, as we currently know it. Unemployment compensation at-will could reduce the incentive for fraud, as a form of market based moralilty that can also provide for the general welfare of the republic; even if it means paying some people to not provide labor input to the economy.

Why would anyone claiming morals object to a more cost effective social safety net that can actually eliminate official poverty in our republic?

It can be considered less moral and is less ethical to allow poverty to continue in our more developed economy than it is to simply pay some people to not provide labor input to the economy.

The drug and terror wars are also less ethical and less moral public sector endeavors. The general government of the Union is not longer delegated the power to Prohibit commerce among the several States of the Union. Anyone who advocates continuing a public policy that only engenders corruption could be preceived as not very credible when claiming recourse to those same morals for labor market purposes.

You are welcome to provide a rebuttal for this argument.

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.

Why would anyone have a problem with making it easier for anyone wanting to provide labor input to the economy as a form of Happiness, moral, and work ethic; even if it at the cost of paying couch potatoes to do nothing to enable them to pursue it? Anyone wanting to provide labor input to the economy would be able to do so at market based rates.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work for those labor market participants willing to 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.

Ending our extra-constitutional drug war could fund that hypothetical with existing resources and could potentially lower our tax burden and cost of Government.

Welfare fraud is currently against the law. If we could get our government to investigate and punish these people there wouldn't be a problem.
The only way its reduces the incentive for fraud is by there being no fraud to commit since anyone at anytime can get on it for any reason and stay on indefinietly. That doesn't appeal to me.

I have been screaming for welfare reform for years and all I hear back is that I hate poor people and am a racist. How about this...we reform welfare by requiring the recipients to go to school or get a job or lose government assistance? I've no problem with giving someone a hand up but I hate that our current system is nothing more than a hand out. What you're proposing is actually nothing more than another hand out so all we would be doing is choosing one evil over another.

__________________






"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!"

Unemployment compensation, at-will, is fully compatible with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws, and our Ninth Amendment.

There would be less incentive for anyone to commit fraud with unemployment compensation, at-will. In that sense, "better" ethics and morals can be engendered, by simply being more moral to the institution of money based markets instead of denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of fellow human beings.

Thus, it can be considered more moral and is more ethical, to simply pay people to not enable the parent of revolution and crime as stated by Aristotle.

Being able to end the cost of the War on Poverty by eliminating poverty in our republic should be more appealing than the waste we currently have: poverty; merely for the sake of denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of fellow human beings.

It can be considered more moral and is more ethical, to simply pay less efficient potential labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide a blessing of a form of holiness and morality to economic liberty in our money-based, mixed-market, political-economy.

Time limits on access to an income (money) in money based markets do not solve the issue of generational poverty (of money).

Why would someone on unemployment at-will, not choose to go to school, learn a vocation, to earn market based wages if they wish? It could be much easier, from a money management perspective, to be able to plan for future events with access to a consistent income.

With unemployment compensation, at-will; at rock-bottom cost, why would any given individual choose to commit fraud instead of simply applying for an income, at-will? We could also be improving our moral standard of living as well with more effective use of money based markets.

Never mind, daniel...I've grown tired of your bullshit. Have fun in your little fantasy world.

__________________






"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!"

Responding with a fallacy (a form of false witness bearing) could be considered less moral and is less ethical to someone arguing for "truth value" instead of a public or private profit motive.

You are welcome to provide a rebuttal for this argument. Feel free to describe an alternative scenario based on your arguments or opinions.

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 simply having a work ethic could pursue a form of Happiness by working and providing labor input to the economy for prevailing market based wages.

Why would anyone have a problem with making it easier for anyone wanting to provide labor input to the economy as a form of Happiness, moral, and work ethic; even if it at the cost of paying couch potatoes to do nothing to enable them to pursue it?

Anyone wanting to provide labor input to the economy would find it easier to do so and at market based rates. Why would anyone want to maintain our current levels of disparity when eliminating poverty could provide a social economy safety net for the states as well as the individual. States would provide for their own several welfare by eliminating poverty through more cost effective income transfers at the public sector level.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work for those labor market participants willing to 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.

Ending our extra-constitutional drug war could fund that hypothetical with existing resources and could potentially lower our tax burden and cost of Government.

I think this thread should be closed. Afterall, danielpalos is doing nothing more than copying and pasting the same thing over and over. Posts 190, 193, 197, 208 and 211 are exact duplicates and post 213 and 217 are also exact duplicates of each other and almost exact duplicates of the first five posts I mentioned.

__________________






"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!"