• 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!

Work requirements for social benefits are unlawful in...

D

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,520
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
...our at-will employment States.


Only the right wing insists the Poor have to Work but the rich don't have to hire; even in alleged, Right to Work States.

We have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will. The right wing's alleged morality from the Age of Iron, is not the law.

And, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

Management should have to do situps and pushups on the golf course, to convince the rest of us.

Only the right wing prefers to create hardship for the poor and bottom line convenience for the rich.
 
danielpalos said:
...our at-will employment States.


Only the right wing insists the Poor have to Work but the rich don't have to hire; even in alleged, Right to Work States.

We have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will. The right wing's alleged morality from the Age of Iron, is not the law.

And, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

Management should have to do situps and pushups on the golf course, to convince the rest of us.

Only the right wing prefers to create hardship for the poor and bottom line convenience for the rich.
Click to expand...

wut-5a6943.jpg
 
danielpalos said:
...our at-will employment States.


Only the right wing insists the Poor have to Work but the rich don't have to hire; even in alleged, Right to Work States.

We have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will. The right wing's alleged morality from the Age of Iron, is not the law.

And, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

Management should have to do situps and pushups on the golf course, to convince the rest of us.

Only the right wing prefers to create hardship for the poor and bottom line convenience for the rich.
Click to expand...

Red:
What?
  • "One is rich; therefore one must hire [someone]" is a notion nobody, other perhaps than you, holds or insists be implemented.
 
danielpalos said:
Then, why require someone who is poor, work if they can't find a decent job?
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don't care whether a poor person works or doesn't work. I simply recognize that if one, anyone, doesn't work and has no other lawful way to obtain money, one will go without a number of things that one would rather not do without.

"Finding a decent job" is a function of two primary factors: (1) the nature of labor that individuals and entities are willing and able to purchase and (2) the skills any given would-be laborer has to offer. Secondary to those factors is where one looks for a so-called decent job. It does one no good to possess the skills of, say, an architect or a plumber and, in either field, seek a job in a location for which there is demand for neither.
 
Xelor said:
Frankly, I don't care whether a poor person works or doesn't work. I simply recognize that if one, anyone, doesn't work and has no other lawful way to obtain money, one will go without a number of things that one would rather not do without.

"Finding a decent job" is a function of two primary factors: (1) the nature of labor that individuals and entities are willing and able to purchase and (2) the skills any given would-be laborer has to offer. Secondary to those factors is where one looks for a so-called decent job. It does one no good to possess the skills of, say, an architect or a plumber and, in either field, seek a job in a location for which there is demand for neither.
Click to expand...

Employers don't hire due to their bottom line; why can't labor choose to keep looking until they find a decent job?
 
Xelor said:
Frankly, I don't care whether a poor person works or doesn't work. I simply recognize that if one, anyone, doesn't work and has no other lawful way to obtain money, one will go without a number of things that one would rather not do without.

"Finding a decent job" is a function of two primary factors: (1) the nature of labor that individuals and entities are willing and able to purchase and (2) the skills any given would-be laborer has to offer. Secondary to those factors is where one looks for a so-called decent job. It does one no good to possess the skills of, say, an architect or a plumber and, in either field, seek a job in a location for which there is demand for neither.


danielpalos said:
Employers don't hire due to their bottom line; why can't labor choose to keep looking until they find a decent job?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Red:
You'd need to query laborers who have so ceased their search and ask them what led them to choose to stop continuing to look "until they find a decent job?" By my reckoning, there's nothing stopping one from looking for a "decent job."
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
Red:
You'd need to query laborers who have so ceased their search what led them to choose to stop continuing to look "until they find a decent job?" By my reckoning, there's nothing stopping one from looking for a "decent job."
Click to expand...

why do unemployment benefits stop?

Employers don't have to hire for their bottom line. Labor has that same, bottom line consideration.
 
danielpalos said:
why do unemployment benefits stop?

Employers don't have to hire for their bottom line. Labor has that same, bottom line consideration.
Click to expand...
Red:
Because governments/taxpayers are unwilling to indefinitely pay people unemployment benefits. They are thus unwilling because they are of the mind that one way or another, a formerly employed person should, given a certain period of time, be able to somewhere find and obtain a job of some sort, be it "decent" by that person's standards or not thus "decent," that pays as much or more than the unemployment payment the government offers.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Because governments/taxpayers are unwilling to indefinitely pay people unemployment benefits. They are thus unwilling because they are of the mind that one way or another, a formerly employed person should, given a certain period of time, be able to somewhere find and obtain a job of some sort, be it "decent" by that person's standards or not thus "decent," that pays as much or more than the unemployment payment the government offers.
Click to expand...

Employment is at the will of either party. What You or I morally believe, is irrelevant.
 
‘At will’ does not mean that should you not have the will it’s everyone else’s obligation to cover you. It never has. It never will.
 
Your entire argument is premised on a fallacy.
 
Aberration said:
Your entire argument is premised on a fallacy.

danielpalos said:
simply claiming that is a fallacy; you have to state what the fallacy is.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's not so much that there's a clearly defined fallacy involved in Daniel's argument; rather it's that it contains at least one premise, albeit tacit, that isn't existentially true.





hqdefault.jpg




Argument_terminology_used_in_logic.png



The quality of his argument (being kind enough to call the sum total of blather he's in this thread posted an argument) is that it is unsound/uncogent because it relies on an untrue premise, namely the nature of the meaning of "at will employment."
  • Arguments are made unsound/uncogent in two main ways:
    • False premises (implicit or explicit) --> this detriment results from a lack of verity and pertains to the structure of an argument.
    • The presence (implicit or explicit) of one or more fallacies somewhere within the argument --> this detriment results from a lack of sound reasoning and pertains to the conclusion (or an inference) drawn from the premises.
The specific failing of Daniel's argument is that he's contrived a meaning for "at will employment" that simply doesn't comport completely with the agreed upon meaning of that term. "At will employment" refers to the nature of the agreement between an employer and workers whom the employer has hired. It does not pertain to what Daniel has been discussing with me, which is the nature of the labor purchase/sales process. AFAIK, the only laws governing the labor purchase/sales process are anti-discrimination laws that proscribe a buyer of labor from discriminating among job applicants on account of sex, race, age, religion, etc.

Aberration said:
‘At will’ does not mean that should you not have the will it’s everyone else’s obligation to cover you. It never has. It never will.
Click to expand...
There are at least two other things "at will" doesn't mean:
  • It doesn't mean that if A is willing to sell his labor to B, B is obligated to purchase it.
  • It doesn't mean that if B is willing to purchase labor, B is obligated to purchase it from A.
Daniels has been less than clear (coherent) in his remarks -- he's used the term "at will," but he's not identified what he thinks it means -- thus I don't specifically know which of those notions he holds, but it doesn't matter which. None of them comports with the meaning of "at will employment."
 
Fledermaus said:
Simply claiming that is a fallacy. You have to state what the fallacy is.
Click to expand...

Live up to your own standard before you sit on your high horse looking down at us peasants.

You simply claim something is illegal without anything to support it.

The fallacy is that those work requirement are illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
Live up to your own standard before you sit on your high horse looking down at us peasants.

You simply claim something is illegal without anything to support it.

The fallacy is that those work requirement are illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

(Shhhhhh..... I am having fun with Daniel)
 
danielpalos said:
...our at-will employment States.


Only the right wing insists the Poor have to Work but the rich don't have to hire; even in alleged, Right to Work States.

We have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will. The right wing's alleged morality from the Age of Iron, is not the law.

And, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.

Management should have to do situps and pushups on the golf course, to convince the rest of us.

Only the right wing prefers to create hardship for the poor and bottom line convenience for the rich.
Click to expand...

At will employment law.

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] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment​

"At will employment" is totally unrelated to government eligibility requirements for government handouts.
 
Aberration said:
‘At will’ does not mean that should you not have the will it’s everyone else’s obligation to cover you. It never has. It never will.
Click to expand...

lol. so, an employer who can't afford to hire me, has to anyway and not ask for a tax break for positions he allegedly can't fill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom