Why do you feel that way? A minimum wage only provides that market based metric. It does not cure laziness.

If an employer has a "minimum" wage that is keeping people from working in that establishment, wouldn't that employer prefer to raise wages to attract employees rather than go bankrupt? It is that simple.

Why would unemployment compensation affect more that those who are naturally unemployed? In effect, primarily those who would be most susceptible to exploitation would be the ones being able to pursue other opportunity costs. Why would that be a bad thing in a mixed market political economy like ours, where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?

At-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws already exist and are more cost effective than our national and socialized, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

One word: Reality.

What you are proposing and stating does not match up to reality. Don't worry though, even Communism and Socialism look great on paper.

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Do you have an actual argument for a rebuttal or have you run out of logic and reason?

If an employer has a "minimum" wage that is keeping people from working in that establishment, wouldn't that employer prefer to raise wages to attract employees rather than go bankrupt? Consider also, an employer who will be eligible for a substantial bonus for doing well. Why would that employer forgo the opportunity of a substantial bonus, if all that employer needs, is qualified individuals?

Why would unemployment compensation affect more that those who are naturally unemployed? Consider that current minimum wage laws have the effect of displacing workers due to increased costs for the same work.

In effect, primarily those who would be most susceptible to exploitation would be the ones being able to pursue other opportunity costs. Why would that be a bad thing in a mixed market political economy like ours, where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?

I didn't mean it as an insult. I meant, look at what happens in reality and subject it to your view. People are already upset about the "welfare class". And you suggest making more of it. It would not work in reality.

Why would a minimum wage that pays people to not provide labor input to the economy create a welfare class?

Are you implying that people would never want a market based wage if they can be couch potatoes for a minimum wage?

That could be considered analogous to someone never wanting to earn more than a minimum wage in our form of political-economy. Very few market participants would have any justification for that market based decision. Consider also, that being compensated for being unemployed is also a form of market based metric.

Why would any subsidized potential labor market participant not want to pursue an education, vocation, or some other form of Happiness?

Anyone who spends money in the open (Regulated) market pays taxes. Increasing the circulation of money can act an economic stimulus on a longitudinal basis.

Why would anyone care about couch potatoes getting a minimum wage if anyone who wants to work will be able to find a market based income sooner rather than later with full employment of resources in the market for labor?

If a potential labor market participant can apply for unemployment compensation at-will, simply because they are naturally unemployed; why would that not solve for a natural unemployment rate caused by friction in the market for labor?

Why would having a social safety net of a "minimum wage" that pays people to pursue other opportunity costs than providing labor input to the economy, have any other effect than providing those market based metrics in our form of political-economy?

As I stated before, companies with low margins (Profit) cannot afford to just increase wages. Please try to stop reposting the same things over and over.

So hiring people automaticaly equals doing well?

You are the one suggesting a class of people on subsidies to keep them out of the workforce, that would affect the naturally unemployed because then you would need to make their employment equal to all others, including the permanently unemployed. Why try to look for work when you can get paid for sitting at home? How do the current minimum wage laws displace workers? The minimum wages in the US are far below their initial purpose, for a person to be able to provide for his family. It seems you are blaming high wages for increased costs while in the same argument proposing tactics to increase wages........

As for the parts in Bold, seriously, do you even read what you write?
I've been trying to be nice, but seriusly, stop saying political-economy. It's annoying and it makes little sense. Fiscal policy and Political environment have more to do than with the conversation than the political economy.

Also, when I already addressed your points, why do you repost them? You use a lot of terms that do not add anything to the point you are trying to make. You sound like a guy I know who always tried to sound more intelligent than he really was. It was annoying.

Simple = effective.

You are trying to find a solution to a problem by not addressing the problem. Messing with the wage structure and welfare system does nothing to affect the root of the problem, which is international trade policy. Let's look at Pakistan. They began making clothing for us years ago, and make a lot of it. 70% of their industrial capacity provides clothing for the US. Their average pay? 25 cents an hour, which is below the poverty line. In effect, we laid off tens of thousands of expensive american workers so that we could hire hundreds of thousands of underpaid sweat shop laborers overseas. What's better? We don't need to pay attention to annoying and expensive things like safety and benefits. And the average savings to the average American? Nothing. Prices still go up, profit margins go through the roof and the rest of us who are working pay taxes that help out the people who got laid off, while the people who run the company make millions. That is the problem in America and adjusting the wage structure will not change that.

People being paid to not work, that is what welfare is.

What is the vehicle that will ensure these jobs are available? You're leaving that part out which is a very large part of the puzzle.

And your point it? Again, Market Based Metric, a term used in talk about business and consumers, not normally used when talking about unemployment compensation.

Ask any inner city poor kid what his/her chances for success are, and you will get your answer. There is little hope for the future, little value put into our children. Meaning we as a society have very little hope that our deisres can actually come to fruition.

Sure, higher spending equates to better economies, so how much are we planning to hand over to the welfare class? Where will this money come from? So you want to raise taxes? How much and to who?

Oh, so jobs will be falling from the skies will they? Where will all these high paying jobs come from? If you say not that many will be created, then you need a larger Welfare class. If you say more will be created, who is going to start hiring US employees at higher rates and why?

I have no issue with Unemployment insurance. I have an issue that US policy has eroded the US job base to horrible levels. As it progresses faster with the recession, you get millions of people making decent middle class wages put into the Unemployed pool where there is no one hiring at or near or remotely close to those wages. There are no good jobs, that is the issue.

What are you trying to say here?

I don't understand how these people are supposed to pursue these other opportunities and education to further themselves on minimum wages. What if they have a kid? There goes the education. What if they have 3 kids, there goes the vocational training. I'm not against unemployment, I'm against a large portion of the population permanently on unemployment because there is a lack of good jobs. Just going out and allowing these people to further their education and training will not mean there will be a job for them when they finish. The lack of good jobs is due to Corporatons being able to squeeze the middle class out of their jobs. Allowing those displaced and some of the lower class to try to acheive higher paying jobs makes the assumption that there will be even higher paying jobs.

A merket based metric is a statistic based upon a consumer market segment. A political economy is economics.

The point you bring up is another consideration in the scenario. Why wouldn't the employer seek cost savings through gains in productivity rather than wages? An employer could find more efficient and motivated employees if less efficient and less motivated potential employees are subsidized to pursue other opportunity costs. It could provide an impetus for forms of retail automation that could increase productivity even more.

Hiring qualified people in order to ensure a well deserved bonus is also a market based metric in any given mixed-market economy.

You have to come up with a market based reason why anyone in our form of political-economy would prefer to go bankrupt or pass up a bonus rather than hire qualified people.

The only Class of people I am referring to is anyone who is naturally unemployed. Why would unemployment compensation not solve poverty when due to a simple lack of income due to lack of employment? How do you construe a welfare Class if unemployment compensation could be as at-will as employment. Why would anyone want to subscribe to generational forms of poverty at-will?

Unemployment compensation would not be welfare, but compensation for being naturally unemployed. This is a primary consideration for a public policy because it relies on the market based metrics of the labor market and individual liberty rather than the more arbitrary and less efficient command economics employed by welfare, as we currently know it. In this sense, unemployment compensation that conforms to existing at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws provides a basis for assuming full employment of resources in accordance with theory of supply and demand.

Subsidizing the least efficient potential, labor market participants will enable active labor market participants to obtain market based wages sooner rather than later if they compete with fewer but more efficient and motivated labor market participants. In effect, this could also save employers money by not having to hire personnel who don't really want to work.

A poor inner city kid could be a beneficiary of such a public policy scheme because that individual could be subsidized to pursue an education until they have a degree or two, instead of having to overcome excessive friction in the market for labor in the inner city. With a degree or two, why would that same inner city kid not be competitive in our global and integrated economy?

Unemployment compensation is not welfare. It does not pay to have children on unemployment like it does on welfare, usually. Most people, having access to that market based metric could work on their money management skills and get an education. Welfare could be ended by attrition.

Simply having a more motivated and efficient workforce could provide an impetus for advances in productivity through automation and technology much as was the case when "free" labor was emancipated in the US.

The only way your system would work is if it were specifically designed to pay UE for people actively training to better themselves in whatever way. But then would the education be subsidized as well? After all, if they are making minimum wage which is roughly 15,000 dollars a year, it's not like they can attend Harvard or any well established 4 year college.

It's not a bad idea, per se, however you persistently leave out the lack of jobs. Also, you are not taking into account jobs that are out there that simply cannot pay higher wages, such as the cashier at your local fast food place. So, you have a whole segment of people who are unemployed but furthering their education because they are naturally out of work, meaning there are not enough jobs in society to support them. So when does that change? They become more desireable due to their higher education and displace someone else who was doing fine?

Your are making assumptions, you are are assuming that employers can afford to pay higher wages. If you own your own business, it does not automatically mean you are wealthy. You are also assuming that employers would want to pay higher wages. Ask any employer how they feel about that. They want to pay as little as humanly possible.

Simply eliminating low wage jobs is not an option. For one, low wage jobs have steadily replaced higher paying jobs over the years especially since the WTO was joined by the US. This goes to show that there are fewer high paying jobs in the US than there was 40 years ago. While we need more high paying jobs, eliminating low wage jobs will not automaticaly mean more high paying jobs. It will simply mean more unemployed. And while your system would work if there was a vehicle to create jobs, in OUR current system, it would mean a massive surge in UE to the point where up to 30-50% of the population would be on UE. That would equate to one half of the working population working and earning to pay for most of the population (don't forget about the retirees on Social Security).

How did you reach your conclusion on how your view is the only way it will work? The federal at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws are all that is required with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge and social contract.

In other words, under that doctrine and those state laws either the employer or the employee may terminate a social contract that results in employment, "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," with no liability.

The goal is only to eliminate official poverty. Nothing else would change except for better compliance with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws. What would prevent that same individual from doing well in school and qualifying for a scholarship? Not having to overcome significant "barriers to entry" would enable that individual to focus on becoming more marketable instead of needing to learn how to "play the game" of natural unemployment in a mixed market economy. That individual could simply request unemployment compensation for being naturally unemployed.

Employers are faced with employment decisions that affect their bottom line everyday. They either increase productivity or reduce the size of their workforce. Nothing would change but for an impetus for reducing costs through productivity instead of wages.

No one is eliminating any jobs that are cost effective for an employer given current market based metrics, including unemployment compensation at-will that can complement existing at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

Please explain where I stated my view on the matter of employment and how I proposed how to fix it. I don't believe I did other than stating we need better international trade laws. I have actually agreed with you that your idea is solid but needs to take into account a way to create high paying jobs. You ignore that and state that I am acting high and mighty? I am giving you a way to see the flaw in your (pretty good) idea and strengthen it. If you only see it as an insult well I'm sorry. I will need to go back through my posts but I don't think I stated a way to end poverty and fix our unemployment problem, so your first sentence as to "my view" is moot. If you mean my view that you need to take into account the lack of jobs, then we go back to that pesky thing called reality. Over the past 30 years, higher paying jobs have left this country. That is the truth and that is reality.

At-will employment gives anyone the right to fire people if they look at someone funny, don't get their coffee for them, don't work extra hours "off the clock" or based upon race, religion, sex, age or disability. You are putting too much power in the hand of the employer and placing the employee at the employers whim. Sure our system where someone can sue if they think there was no cause, i.e. the guy who thinks he does everything right but never does...... Basically the system we have is flawed, but At-Will employment would be disasterous. Politics in the work place are already out of control and this would make it worse.

I understand fully the idea behind at-will employment, do you? This is another instance where it looks fine on paper, but in reality it does not carry any weight. There is currently in America an "us versus them" mentality in the workplace, at will employment would make this worse.

I understand what your proposal is and why. But you still have yet to account for the lack of real jobs. Simply giving some people minimum wage pay at will would put some money into the economy, but not nearly enough to stimulate it into a the type of growth needed. You need a large middle class in order to stimulate the economy. Our middle class is small and getting smaller. We are about 40 million jobs away from having a strong manufacturing and industrial base. What do you propose we do about that?

With Employment at will, employers could use employees for the hours they need then send them home, cutting the employees pay but fattening the employers bottom line. Likewise they could demand them to work extra hours without pay or else be fired. No liability means they cannot be held liable or legally accountable for anything they do. Welcome to slave labor.

As Adam Smith wrote a few years back, employees need "something more than what is precisely needed for their own maintenance.". What you are proposing would put employers at the power to privide just that or just slightly below that. Employers do not WANT to pay high wages.

At will employment will not work for the employees. You will get abuse of the system, and if people want to make more than minimum wage (who doesn't?) they will work for these people and be taken advantage of in order to provide a better life for their family. We have already catered to the employers long enough, save for the Unions which have helped to decimate our manufacturing base, it's time to defend and grow the middle class.

That pesky thing called reality is what market friendly public policy schemes are about since they use the market based metrics available in our objective reality.

A poor inner city kid could be a beneficiary of such a public policy scheme because that individual could be subsidized to pursue an education until they have a degree or two, instead of having to overcome excessive friction in the market for labor in the inner city. With a degree or two, why would that same inner city kid not be competitive in our global and integrated economy? Why would that same individual not qualify for a prevailing wage job in our modern and global economy? With a better educated workforce, why would increases in productivity due to advances in technology not be an impetus rather than lower wages? With cost savings from advances in productivity, it could shift the emphasis from lower wages with more well informed labor market participants.

Why would any given employer have any more power, if potential labor market participants can opt for a minimum wage for not providing labor input to the economy? Why would forms of exploitation in the workforce not be ameliorated if anyone can claim unemployment compensation at-will for being naturally unemployed? If anything, why would the market for labor not become more efficient if only those that actually want to work can do so more effectively?

I think you are missing the concept of at-will employment and opposite side of that same coin: unemployment compensation at-will. Under that doctrine and those state laws either the employer or the employee may terminate a social contract that results in employment, "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," with no liability. With no for-cause liability, anyone could apply for unemployment compensation at-will if they are naturally unemployed.

How would a lack of real jobs be more of an issue if anyone can apply for unemployment compensation at-will? It could be considered a market based metric concerning the market for labor. Simply having a more motivated and efficient workforce could provide an impetus for advances in productivity through automation and technology much as was the case when "free" labor was emancipated in the US.

If someone can apply for unemployment compensation that is above the official poverty rate at-will and in full compliance with that doctrine and those already existing state laws, why would anyone want to work for an "abusive" employer? Would normal market forces create conditions for a lack of competitiveness for that employer by not being able to hire better employees?

At-will employment is a reality in our form of political-economy that conforms to our Ninth Amendment, the existing federal at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws; and , it protects the privilege and immunity (and natural right) to create and dissolve social contract that result in employment.

Employment at will does not automatically mean UE at will. However if you would propose it, that would make at-will employment much easier to swallow. However you were stating before the UE would be low wages. Considering middle class families are having a hard time getting by these days, low wages will not make it comfortable for them.

Why would someone work for an abusive employer? To feed their family. If jobs are hard to find, people will put up with more BS.

Now we are getting somewhere when you are talking about subsidizing education, which I think is a great idea. However the fact remains that government spending is already out of control and subsidized education as well as UEI-at-will would increase spending. The only way to offset it is to increase tax revenue. Without a large number of middle and high wage jobs in the country, people will be taxed a much larger percentage of their income.

Now, propose that we start taxing corporations the way we tax people and stop allowing companies to lobby and donate, stop allowing corporations to count executive stock options toward their bottom line and tax the hell out of exessive bonuses, do something in regards to home values and prices versus incomes, we introduce international trade laws that are good for the US as well as other countries, and decrease government spending except on the vital things that make the government function........ then we will be getting somewhere.