Originally Posted by danielpalos

Subjective Reality is still trying to convince me using less valid arguments and resorting to forms of fallacy.

What is so difficult about the economics of this scenario? It conforms to the theory of supply and demand.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Subjective Reality is still trying to convince me using less valid arguments and resorting to forms of fallacy.

What is so difficult about the economics of this scenario? It conforms to the theory of supply and demand.

Originally Posted by Cari

You're right. "I demand you to supply me with income while I sit on my couch."

Originally Posted by wiggidy

It really doesn't, but I'm not getting dragged back in to this debate. Good Luck! I'm guessing the last poster wins.

Originally Posted by Cari

"Naturally unemployed",you just mean lazy. Will this diagnosis of lazy need a doctor's note, or can anyone claim it.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

As a simple matter of principle and common sense, at-will employment should be the presumption of any EDD office in any at-will employment state.

I still don't understand your argument since it doesn't make any sense to me. For the sake of argument, let's create a hypothetical scenario to explore the concept.

If I am an employee, and you hire me at-will, and then fire me at-will; why would EDD claim that the employment relationship was for-cause, and create a liability for me (i.e. a lack of unemployment compensation in money based markets).

Consider that we both agreed to a social contract that resulted in employment, under at-will terms. I did not agree to a for-cause employment agreement and neither did you; as a form of social contract that results in employment, it was at the will of either party upon proper notice.

Let's consider the actions of any given EDD office as is currently practiced. For cause-stipulations are assumed since they require, for-cause (just-cause) employment stipulations.

How can I prove for-cause employment stipulations, if I only agreed to an employment relationship that was at-will. Let's further assume that one of the reason's that I agreed to at-will employment, was specifically so I would not need to provide for-cause criteria to the EDD office when I become "naturally" unemployed.

The Ninth Amendment applies and Section 10 of our federal Constitution specifically denies and disparages the right of the several States, to impair in obligation of contracts (that may result in employment).

Originally Posted by danielpalos

It assumes full employment of resources in the market for labor, and therefore also eliminates poverty in that same market friendly fashion.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

You may be missing the point of our form of political-economy and social contract; it embodies the concept of individual liberty.

Unemployment compensation that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws; complies better with our Ninth Amendment than does our current regime; which can be perceived to require sufficient socialism for nanny-state functionality.

Originally Posted by reality

it would depend what i fired you for, according to the unemployment benefits statute. if i had to lay you off, say because i couldn't afford to employ you anymore, you'd be eligible for benefits. if i fired you because i caught you doing coke and fucking one of the other employees in the back, you would not be eligible for benefits. see how that works?

Originally Posted by reality

if youre sitting on your couch youre not employing any resources. your using a whole bunch being a lazy jackass. now if you were say... and i know this sounds insane but just hear me out... *gasps* gainfully employed you'd be employing full resources in the market for labor.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

You didn't address the premise. Wouldn't it depend on the type of social contract that resulted in that specific employment relationship? What if we had negotiated a for-cause employment agreement that specifically states you cannot fire me for doing coke and fucking chicks, who look really hot in a minimicro or peekaboo simply because they goaded me into it on company time; unless I get severance pay. I may not even need to apply for unemployment if I get employed by someone else before the severance pay runs out.

Consider that we both agreed to a social contract that resulted in employment, under at-will terms. I did not agree to a for-cause employment agreement and neither did you; as a form of social contract that results in employment, it was at the will of either party upon proper notice.

Let's consider the actions of any given EDD office as is currently practiced. For cause-stipulations are assumed since they require, for-cause (just-cause) employment stipulations.

How can I prove for-cause employment stipulations, if I only agreed to an employment relationship that was at-will. Let's further assume that one of the reason's that I agreed to at-will employment, was specifically so I would not need to provide for-cause criteria to the EDD office when I become "naturally" unemployed.

The Ninth Amendment applies and Section 10 of our federal Constitution specifically denies and disparages the right of the several States, to impair in obligation of contracts (that may result in employment).

Originally Posted by danielpalos

You still haven't told me how you factored for a "natural" unemployment rate. Thus, under your hypothetical, we can never have full employment of resources.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, can simulate full employment of resources because only those market participants that actually want to work will be motivated to provide labor input to the economy.

Those that don't want to work for market based wages may not have enough market based skills to command such a wage and would be better off not working and improving those skill sets.

In any case, simply paying people be couch potatoes and not be exploited, while actually solving poverty in our republic is more holy and moral that "free riding" on the parent of revolution and crime.