I specifically refer to official poverty for a reason. Most poverty in the US is due to the underlying issue of a lack of income. How can anyone obtain money management skills, if they have a poverty of money in a mixed-market political-economy?

How would generational poverty continue to exist, with unemployment compensation, at-will, if all it takes is an income to no longer be in official poverty? In other words, if someone lacks an income that would otherwise keep them out of poverty, all they would need to do, is apply for unemployment compensation, at-will. Generational poverty could end upon implementation since those individuals would no longer be in official poverty. They may still be poor, but they will not be in official poverty.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, could end official poverty, as we know it, because of recourse to an income that is above the official poverty rate. Why would someone who has access to an income, not learn better money management skills on their own, even if they don't go to school? It would take some level of money management to simply purchase something on the open market. Most forms of charity do not address the issue of better money management since they usually just "give" people Things (e.g. food, clothing, shelter, education) instead of money.

Lack of income is the symptom, not the disease.

Why would a lack of income in our political-economy be a symptom and not the disease?

It could also be said that a "natural" unemployment rate is also a symptom and not the disease; since a "natural" unemployment rate is also symptomatic of poverty. How do you solve for a "natural" unemployment rate and the poverty it can engender, without unemployment compensation, at-will?

The ability to earn income is what is at the heart of poverty, or the lack there of. If you have the ability to earn a decent income, then you really don't belong in poverty, you may choose to be there, but it is a choice. If you don't have the ability to earn an income above poverty level, then you don't have a choice but to be in poverty.

This lack of ability to earn a decent wage is caused by several different factors.
1 a lack of available jobs (ie depression or recession)

2 a lack of skills (welding, electricians, plumbers) necessary for the blue collar jobs that exist

3 a lack of money management skills to allow savings, and the focusing of available wealth towards longterm goals

4 a lack of basic job skills (knowing to arrive ontime or early to the job every day, knowing how to impress the boss, knowing not to sag on company time, ect.)

5 criminal behavior, i.e. stupidity (this can be both a cause and a symptom depending on circumstance)

6 Lack of advanced education (college) in a field that is needed in the industry.

7. Decent job, huge family to support

8. Fill in the blank......



Solve these, and you solve the poverty issue.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, can solve for those issues since anyone who doesn't have an income from a job could simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.

Lack of available jobs would not be an issue with unemployment compensation that is above the poverty rate. From this perspective, the economy could continue its boom and bust cycles and not have to create more poverty due to that friction.

Anyone on unemployment compensation, at-will, could learn a new vocation and take as long as they want.

As a consistent form of income, basic economic principles could be learned through normal market activities and could engender better money management skills.

Unemployment compensation could also solve for couch potatoes not actually wanting to provide labor input to the economy. Currently, couch potatoes who don't want to work, for a variety of reasons, may be willing to engage in less ethical behavior at work and lower morale and productivity. If they could have access to an income and not have to work, labor market participants who are more motivated to work may be more productive and possibly be happier working.

Anyone on unemployment compensation, at-will, could go to school for as long as they want and become more marketable as a result.

Since unemployment compensation is based on market principles and a specific market, it would not be as arbitrary or confusing as welfare and other forms of safety nets are now. Unemployment compensation would compensate the individual for a lack of employment, not for having children out of wedlock. In this sense, market based morality could be more efficient than Iron Age morality in modern times.

It won't work. People would rather collect this than work a lot of different jobs. Heck, you could collect it then go work under the table somewhere.

It seems to work ok with less efficient forms of unemployment compensation and welfare, as we currently know it. Why would it be much different with unemployment compensation, at-will? In my view, people would be able to more moral and ethical if they had access to unemployment compensation, at-will.

What we have now is not efficient because we've made it too cozy. Removing even more incentives to work will only blow up in your face (even though I want to believe you have good intentions).

I don't think it is too cozy. I think being able to get a bailout when making six of seven figures is even cozier.

If your logic is consistent, why isn't everyone quitting their day jobs for one of those jobs? Would market based metrics have anything to do with it? In the same manner, not everyone would want to quit their six or seven figure day jobs, plus bonus and bailout potential, for unemployment compensation, at-will.

Supply of those jobs vs. Demand for those jobs.

Anyway, I don't support the bailouts for the exact same reason.

What about a natural unemployment rate? Isn't supply for that lack of jobs already a market recognizable metric? In that same manner, compensating for that inefficiency could lead to greater productivity and higher standards of living for everyone.

The point is that corporate welfare is practically a form of entitlement. Why shouldn't recourse to unemployment compensation be a form of entitlement? It is due to an inefficiency that is often due to public policy and should be ameliorated accordingly.

As I stated earlier, you risk a system that is dragged down by the bottom. I understand needing money in an emergency, but nobody should live expenses free without having to work. Racism, market, history, what-ever, all society owes you is the opportunity to succeed and pass on your genetics. It doesn't even owe you a fair chance, just the chance.

How did you reach your conclusion about risking a system that is dragged down by the bottom? We already have that without solving for official poverty.

If anything, a social safety net that actually solves for official poverty would also solve for being dragged down by the bottom.

I disagree. We have a Constitution for a reason. It is based on individual liberty. At-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws are compatible with individual liberty and our Ninth Amendment.

I think advances in socialism have enabled our society to be more ethical and moral than they could be in the Iron Age.

I'm darwinian in my beliefs, if you can't support your own offspring then you should not have any. I don't support the current system, as it makes few provisions for solvig the actual causes of povery. I can't support your system which is just a more easily accessable version of what we have now, that gives people who don't work more money, at the expense of those who do work. What happens when people like me who make up the labour force move to other nation's rather than become mired in your system. What happens when teenagers grow up seeing that they don't have to work for a living.

If you really want to help society, then a system similar to china's laws concerning birth control and childeren would be a much better solution, and would ameloirate one of them cheif causes of poverty.

Your belief system was fine last millennium, especially during the Iron Age. Why should someone from an Information Age perspective, consider your belief anything other that the already discredited Malthusian economics of last millennium, before advances in socialism made that theory obsolete?

What if you needed an income that could keep you out of poverty until you got a better market based job? Wouldn't most people be like you?

I really don't see many people moving to Mexico or other third world economies, where your viewpoint is practiced on a daily basis concerning Darwinism. In fact, many of those people would rather come to a first world economy where they can be better off poor, than they would probably be if they were wealthy in their country of origin.

It depends on what you mean by work. What if we get a generation of teenagers that also had the leisure to create art or become better educated? I don't think we would be worse off and our labor market could be more productive which would raise our standard of living, in general.

We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights for a reason. I subscribe to the concept of individual liberty as embodied by that document. Why would I want to be immoral and unethical to that document, merely for the sake of Communism? It would be analogous to me wanting to quit a prevailing wage job for unemployment compensation.