What you are describing, is a recipe for generational forms of poverty. Simply giving someone a "fish" is not the same as giving someone an income (capital) to utilize in our money-based, mixed-market, (capitalist) political economy. With all the "free" stuff being given to some people, why do we still have official poverty in our republic? How is anyone on those programs going to learn better money management skills, if they are getting stuff for free?

Unemployment compensation, at-will can actually solve official poverty and enable the individual to learn the fundamental economics of money management. We should be a role model for the rest of the industrialized world with our political-economy.

They don't because they don't have to. We even teach money management skills but they are well aware that they don't have to manage their money (there is always another safety net). Your system only increases the problem.


Also, "official poverty" doesn't mean anything.

With an unemployment compensation wage, why would they not need to manage their money? It would be treated just like any other income. We should only be responsible for eliminating official poverty in our republic, not micromanaging individual liberty without the consent of the individual.

Official poverty as a form of official weights and measures is a power delegated to the general government of the Union, and inherent and organic to the several States. It is also used in matters pertaining to "Statism", due to a legal monopoly on the coercive use of force. I use official poverty to distinguish between it, and absolute poverty, real poverty, and relative poverty.

Because when they don't pay their bills, SELF does it for them. If they can't go to SELF, there is a local church that will do it every 4 months. I could go on and on but there are a million and one organizations that prevent any sort of "money management skill" because they include these charities in their money management already.

If you keep bailing people out they will realize it and abuse it. That's just another money management skill and it's basic economics.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, could not be abused very easily. In that sense, it could be considered a better product of statism, at a lower price for the consumer.

Please explain in detail this claim. We've all asked for it and you still just claim it.


edit: Also, do you currently have a job?

Mr. Danielpas,
I missed your response to this particular problem.

Fewer workers producing, combined with more mouths eating, mean that demand will go up, while the amt of resources go down. Basic supply and demand law states that then the price will go up to balance the increased demand - supply ratio. Prices go up, and your unemployment wage is no longer enough to to feed and clothe the individual, so now what do we do. Let them subsist? Tell them to go get a job? Raise amount we pay in unemployment compensation? We end up back in the hole we're in now.

It is only a simple generalization. In my opinion, we would not need the expense of a War on Poverty, without actually solving for poverty, nor an extra-constitutional Drug War, as a form of social spending that does not solve for a poverty of well regulated drugs.

We would not need to duplicate most other forms of public assistance, if an individual can apply for unemployment compensation, at-will. This also provides for better resource utilization in the labor market since less productive labor market participants would tend to sort themselves and lower that cost to the employer.

The "mechanism" of unemployment compensation already exists. Eliminating duplicate services by attrition could result in a lower tax burden and higher workforce productivity.

I am currently on unemployment. How do you think I get my perspectives?

I think a market recognizable metric would preclude your red herring argument from happening, ceteris paribus.

The reasoning is very simple. It was employed recently through stimulus rebates. Unemployment compensation would be just another form of income for market based decision making. Anyone wanting to earn a market based wage would be free to do so, if they can command such a wage.

call me dense, but what is a market recognizeable metric.

Secondly there is nothing "red herring" in my argument. If you beleive there is, you could enlighten me as to why.

The stimulus package was short term, people didn't stop working because of it. They didn't stop putting resources into the economy. I'm not talking about monetary resources, but about physical resources, and time/labour. Under your system, a large portion of the population would end up takeing physical resources out of the economy at - large, but not putting any back in. Basic supply and demand states that if the supply shrinks and the demand stays the same, prices will go up.

Market recognizable metrics, in money based markets, is usually price information regarding products or services. In other words, most people would know the difference between a job that pays in the upper five to six figures and a hypothetical unemployment compensation that pays a "minimum wage"

I consider it a red herring argument because of the assumption that people earning market based wages would suddenly stop utilizing those market based metrics and give up an income that pays more, to become couch potatoes for a hypothetical, "minimum wage". It doesn't make much sense in our semi-Capitalist economy.

How did you reach your conclusion? Less resources would be taken out of the economy by providing recourse to an unemployment compensation wage, that also eliminates official poverty because most people opting for that wage would spend that disposable income sooner, rather than later as a form of consumption. Compare and contrast that to lowering the tax burden on the wealthy. They may or may not invest their increased disposable income in job creating ventures.

Because to some extent, it happened with welfare. Further, you've missed the the concept of generation poverty.

Lets be hypothetical for a minute. Follow me if you can. Let the birth - rate of your stipend class of people (those recieving pay for nothing) be x, the birth rate of all people working be y.

Possibility 1

X < Y. Then economic growth without constant influx of new tech is possible (not in terms of money, but in terms of actual physical stuff. Assuming the that growth rate of the economic classes is equal to the birthrate in the class.

Possibility 2

X > Y If the the rate of growth for the stipend class, is greater, and there is a less than 50% upward mobility then given enough generations the stipend class will grow larger than the working class.

Well I certainly don't use drugs, so don't search me or anything....

How did you reach the conclusion that we can have generational poverty with unemployment compensation at-will? Can you elaborate on how that would occur in mixed-market, political-economy, with someone having recourse to unemployment compensation, at-will? In my view, with unemployment compensation, at-will, anyone could become wealthy with sufficient money management skills.

We already know we have poverty without unemployment compensation at-will, even with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws; since a "natural" unemployment rate (as a form of friction in the labor market) will guarantee a poverty of income when experienced by an individual on a long term basis.

Sigh

Do you even know what poverty is other than the abstract sense. First off generational poverty is caused by the lack of skills necessary to be a middle class individual. Amongst those is the lack of money management skills. This is one reason we have impoverished people walking around with 200 dollar shoes on. Compensation, or welfare, or any form of hand-out of money/goods is unlikely to affect generation poverty because they do not address the underlying issues.

Secondly if you implement your system, the generation poverty of today will simply be inherited. IE it already exists, when your system starts, and your system has no way of ending it.


So You will start with Generation Poverty, caused in part by lack of money mangament skill, amongst other things.