• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

pinqy said:
Considering that he says that in every state but Montana all unemployed should get benefits, his definition is quite relevant. Does he really think 16 year old high school students looking for a part time job for extra money should receive full government support?
Click to expand...

No. I only claim Montana is not an at-will employment State; but it may not matter as much since even persons who are employed for-cause (just cause) can be fired on an at-will basis as long as there are severance considerations.

A minor may need to apply for emancipation if they want to be treated as an adult in the market for labor for unemployment compensation purposes. Otherwise, they could be supported by the adults in the family.
 
pinqy said:
I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but do you understand the theory and reasons for the definition? It is meant to measure how many people tried and failed to work in that particular month…the number who could be working, but aren't.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is merely our elected representatives micromanaging the public sector, by committee.
 
pinqy said:
How would classifying people who don't want to or need to work as unemployed tell us anything about the labor market? And how could we objectively determine "capable of working?"
Click to expand...
I'm interested with both how many people are capable of working yet not, and how many people are looking for work and can't find it.
They both seem like useful data to me.

I'm not sure it's possible to objectively determine "capable of working".
Generalized parameters could perhaps be used, such as "no known mental or physical ailments which prevent working". How you define that though...dunno.
 
danielpalos said:
It is about simplification; we already have means tested welfare that does that.
Click to expand...

It was brought up about someones physical ability to be able to work. That has nothing to do with means....
 
danielpalos said:
You need to re-phrase your question. I will be happy to answer it once you have clarified your position.

Or, you are welcome to cede the point and the argument if you can't.
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

To solve poverty, we should just print enough money to give everyone the average median income today, is that what you think?
 
danielpalos said:
You seem to be missing the point about employment at will.
Click to expand...

No, I understand it well...Do you?

"At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.[1] When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
 
j-mac said:
*Sigh*

To solve poverty, we should just print enough money to give everyone the average median income today, is that what you think?
Click to expand...

I think I got it right the first time, and, those of the opposing view merely need better reading comprehension to prove they are serious.

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
 
j-mac said:
No, I understand it well...Do you?

"At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.[1] When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal."

At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

It was brought up about someones physical ability to be able to work. That has nothing to do with means....
Click to expand...

what does employment at will have to do with means?
 
To solve poverty, we should just print enough money to give everyone the average median income today, is that what you think?
Click to expand...

Begging the question is usually considered a fallacy.

I think I got it right the first time, and, those of the opposing view merely need better reading comprehension to prove they are serious.

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
 
I believe this thread may be an example of bias in the media as only those who seem to resort to the most fallacies seem to get the most traction. Is it really incompetence in moderation?
 
danielpalos said:
I believe this thread may be an example of bias in the media as only those who seem to resort to the most fallacies seem to get the most traction. Is it really incompetence in moderation?
Click to expand...

No one here is officially part of the media, so far as I am aware - or at least, not when they're on this site.
 
danielpalos said:
Begging the question is usually considered a fallacy.
Click to expand...

So is circular logic young man...And that so far is all you are offering.

I think I got it right the first time, and, those of the opposing view merely need better reading comprehension to prove they are serious.
Click to expand...

Oh, I comprehend just fine. I am asking you to clarify because you are really giving nothing more than plattitudinal regurgitation of slogan. It explains nothing.

For instance, you make a statement like:

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

But when asked what you mean by an "at will employment jurisdiction", or how, or even why someone NOT working should be, or could be paid minimum wage, where that money would come from, instead of expanding on your often repeated slogan, you simply insult the poster by questioning their "reading comprehension" and repeating again your still unexplained slogan....

Let's try a different question...Here it is....

You think that the unemployed should be paid a minimum wage. Leaving aside the questions that you refuse to answer about that, let's look at the welfare state.

The federal government currently funds 126 separate anti-poverty programs at an annual cost of $688 billion. Of these, 72 provide cash or other benefits directly to poor families. State, county, and municipal governments often operate additional benefit programs. The combined benefits from those multiple overlapping programs can easily add up to the point where welfare simply pays better than work.

This week, the Cato Institute released a new study calculating the state-by-state value of this typical welfare package for a mother with two children participating in seven common welfare programs — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, housing assistance, WIC, energy assistance (LIHEAP), and free commodities. We found that, in 2013, the value of those benefits varied widely across states, from a low of $16,984 in Mississippi to an astonishing high of $49,175 in Hawaii.

In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500.

snip

We found that, just to break even, a person on welfare would often have to take a job that paid considerably more than the value of the forgone welfare benefits. In Hawaii, for example, a person leaving welfare for work would have to earn more than $60,590 a year to be better off. In fact, welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 34 states and the District of Columbia. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, and in five additional states it yields more than a $15-per-hour job.

Welfare: A Better Deal than Work | National Review Online
Click to expand...

Now you can pull the semantic game if you wish, but look, these benefits are able today to be accessed while on UE compensation as well. But I want to know

1. Just what the hell are you talking about when you regurgitate your phrase above with no explanation, and no further elaboration on how, why, or any discussion of your thoughts.

2. How you would pay for it

3. Why dependency on the government for sustained wage is a good thing, when studies have show this to be not true.
 
But when asked what you mean by an "at will employment jurisdiction", or how, or even why someone NOT working should be, or could be paid minimum wage, where that money would come from, instead of expanding on your often repeated slogan, you simply insult the poster by questioning their "reading comprehension" and repeating again your still unexplained slogan....
Click to expand...

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.

Did you not claim previously that you understood the concept of employment at will? All you need to know is in that concept.

What part of, a form of minimum wage that simply compensates unemployed labor for being unemployed in any at-will employment State do you find difficult to understand?

At will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Source: At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Why do you believe labor should be denied and disparaged recourse to their enumerated rights?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Let's try a different question...Here it is....

You think that the unemployed should be paid a minimum wage. Leaving aside the questions that you refuse to answer about that, let's look at the welfare state.

Now you can pull the semantic game if you wish, but look, these benefits are able today to be accessed while on UE compensation as well. But I want to know

1. Just what the hell are you talking about when you regurgitate your phrase above with no explanation, and no further elaboration on how, why, or any discussion of your thoughts.

2. How you would pay for it

3. Why dependency on the government for sustained wage is a good thing, when studies have show this to be not true.
Click to expand...

It is about simplification of public policies by using existing legal and physical infrastructure in our republic, instead of merely creating more sense of entitlement (mentality) through more government programs.

I believe we could lower our tax burden through general forms of taxation on employers instead of our more complicated, current regime. It could be viewed as a market based metric for employment purposes.

I am not sure those studies apply if they don't account for any sense of entitlement regarding the "rule of law".
 
danielpalos said:
This site is part of the media or we wouldn't be discussing politics in the public domain on it,
Click to expand...
Guess I'm using a different definition of "media".
 
danielpalos said:
I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.

Did you not claim previously that you understood the concept of employment at will? All you need to know is in that concept.

What part of, a form of minimum wage that simply compensates unemployed labor for being unemployed in any at-will employment State do you find difficult to understand?



Why do you believe labor should be denied and disparaged recourse to their enumerated rights?
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, you're proposing that anyone who is unemployed (undefined term) should be compensated for such. Not sure how minimum wage fits in there, since if they aren't working, by definition they have no wage, and min wage laws do not apply.

Unless you're saying that the minimum allowable wage should be a required amount of money for every single person to have, and thus they must be paid min wage even if they aren't working?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom