Current welfare system ruining our economy

Why don't capitalists demand enough labor to solve simple poverty?

Or, is that a social issue that must resolved through socialism.

Simply reserving labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage promotes the general welfare. I object to any "social" programs for employers which only reduce the need to pursue labor.

We could be promoting the general welfare by simply solving for simple poverty via Individual Liberty and on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; yes, the legal and physical infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federal districts. There is no reason to delay.

 

Actually, it is those who become unemployed who are entitled to unemployment compensation as a result of losing their employment, noting that the compensation they receive is a result of payments made by their employer during the time they were employed.

Firms exist for the purpose of producing a product or providing a service NOT to create a jobs boom, and only remain in existence as long as the sales of the products produced and/or services provided keep them out of debt.

 

You can't force people to work.

If by socialism you mean by the free choice of each of the individual members of each society, yes.

We already have a minimum wage, but it may in many cases exceed the value of the work a prospective employer is able to afford or willing to pay.

I've not worked for nearly 30 years, how much back pay would I be due?

 

Why is it that inefficient? We could be solving simple poverty and the capital effects of capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis.

The capital gains tax preference is to help with full employment. It should be taxed as ordinary income if there is no jobs boom to show for it.

 

Putting more judges on to process appeals cases makes sense; it's one thing if you are healthy and gainfully employed; another if you are disabled, have no job and no money, thus you shouldn't have to wait forever due to a lack of resources on the government's end.

 

A capital work ethic can be bought in the usual and customary manner.

Are capitalists merely too "cheap" or "greedy"?

 

It makes sense if you consider crack addicts worthy of money from workers who will never see it.

 

Our current regime doesn't work.

Simply reserving labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage promotes the general welfare. I object to any "social" programs for employers which only reduce the need to pursue labor.

 

Are you suggesting that nothing be done for the poor?

 

Are you unemployed now? If so, with equal protection of the law, you should be able to apply for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

 

And those who are not on crack, who've worked their entire lives and who unfortunately through no fault of their own have become ill to the point where they cannot work anymore and have no other resources?? I guess we throw them under the bus?? You need to consider the fact that not everyone in this country seeking help is not a crack addict.

 

The reason we need more judges is because SSDI is the new perma-welfare.

 

What are these people supposed to do who can no longer work??? Die? Whatever happened to the so-called compassionate conservatism??

 

Never have been employed and losing ones employment are not the same. Recognize the fact that unemployment compensation was created to provide temporary support while someone who has become unemployed looks for new employment. The law equally protects those who have become unemployed, unless they have become unemployed for reason of their own making.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither.

 

so what; a moral of Badwill towards men is also repugnant to the concept of equal protection of the law. employment at will means employment at the will of either party, not just the employer.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are they not solving simple poverty with a capital work ethic, for a capital price?

 

When your employer lets you go it means he doesn't need or doesn't want you any longer, and you're entitled to apply for unemployment compensation that he has paid into.

When you leave your job by your own choice it means you don't need or don't want to be employed by your employer any longer, and are entitled to live on your savings that you should have accumulated prior to quitting your job.

If the employer lets you go, unemployment compensation is a way the employer takes responsibility for your loss of income.

If you quit your job on your own accord,the responsibility for your loss of income is entirely your own.

It's a case of either you or your employer making a choice which also determines who is responsible.

You work you get paid, simple as that. Employment is not the same as adoption.

 

Socialism means equality and equal protection of the laws.

 

i guess there is more dignity associated with calling it compensation for unemployment, rather than welfare.

when there is a strong correction in the economy that results in massive loss of jobs due to layoffs and firings, those people who become unemployed are deemed inferior for being unable to remain competitive in the market, and must rely on charity or welfare.

in the real world if the taxpayer has to pay someone for sitting idle even if it is the fault of employer or capitalist, then it is referred to as welfare.

 

ok. i claim it is a form of social safety net that is more market friendly than traditional forms of welfare. In any case, you seem to be missing the point about the legal concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employers' due to capital.

 

While the 14th amendment of our Constitution states

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That, in no way, is meant to produce any form of equality between the citizens but only equality in their attempts to achieve success. Our form of government, a Constitutional Republic, was meant to allow all the people equal freedom to put their minds and labours to use in pursuit of achieving their individual happiness. As such, great strides in human achievement has resulted.

While Socialism may appear to result in more equality of the governed, it does not promote innovation or individuals to put their minds or labours to best use, and only results in a lowest common denominator form of society. I noted that when I and another became new employees at a large corporation many years ago, and were chastised by some of the older employees for being too efficient which we were told would result in reducing the number of persons in that work force. Later two of the older employees were fired for throwing work orders in the trash so we could not complete all the work before their shift started. This was a Union work force, which I did not know at the time I was hired until I was threatened one day by a job steward who claimed I needed to join the Union or else which resulted in my not joining the Union for over a year until a new job steward asked me politely. I later became involved in the Union and that enlightened me as to just how corrupt it was and a few years later I and all my co-workers in the building dropped out of the Union when I was able to prove to them where the Union had been lying to us. So I have seen socialism at work, literally.

Our laws should be written to assure your protection not your achievement in pursuit of your success/happiness.

 

Why can't we combine the two? Here is my take the brilliant, talented to a high measure and the innovators will rise from the common man or woman and for them Capitalism benefits their advancement so is a good thing. For ordinary people who may have less quality they may work hard or have skills or be socially gifted benefit from Socialism in many ways one can work in a factory or in some trade and live well and not worry which suffices for most people even a shop owner tends not to be a Bill Gates sort they want to make a living and get ahead some.

So I would argue our system with changes is ideal the Cream Rises and the rest of the masses should be able to work and get ahead as far as less limited talents allow but shouldn't worry about things even if a laborer or in my case become unfit to work. Housing, sustenance, medical care, clothing and security with some recreation is not asking much and for an ordinary family is often enough to make them content. But the government should demand if your fit enough to work then you should as far as available work allows.

 

Your propaganda and rhetoric is duly noted.

Socialism can do anything capitalism can do, and includes the coercive use of force of a State.

Socialism starts with a social contract such as our federal Constitution.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

We just need better social management.

 

As is yours.

Yes, force can accomplish many things.

Governments begin with a social contract.

Really we need better money management.

 

I agree with you that True capitalists should always strive for Perfection in Capital Management, as a form of "holy grail".

 

Thank you, but I don't recall ever making such a claim.