Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    492

    Default Legal Theory and Politics: At-Will Unemployment Compensation

    At-will unemployment insurance in states that have at-will employment laws.

    A discussion of a hypothetical at-will unemployment scheme. In this scenario, unemployment compensation would be available on an at-will basis, similar to employment laws that are at-will. In other words, anyone would be able to apply for any reason, or no reason.

    With at-will unemployment compensation available, employers would be freer to exercise their Ninth Amendment right to create private social contracts that may result in employment, in manners more conducive to their private
    profit motive.

    At-will unemployment would be a more market friendly alternative to legislated welfare schemes.

    A uniform rule on this type of market friendly public policy would provide market recognizable metrics for the US as whole (e.g. GDP).

    An issue of homelessness due to lack of income could be addressed with a minimum wage subsidy based on at-will unemployment. Panhandling laws would have a more ethical, legal, and moral standing, if an indigent person could simply apply for at-will unemployment compensation.

    With lower barriers to entry, the private sector could provide value added products to any guaranteed public sector unemployment compensation.

    People on at-will unemployment would also be freer to perform civic duties, such as jury duty, attend school, or simply pursue happiness.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    I think you are missing the reason we even have UI. It is not a freebie. It is paid for by your previous employers and is s temp subsidy. To be eligable for UI (in most states anyway) you must be able, available, and looking for work.

    The reason you can be denied is the fact that the employer should not be dunned for your improper activities that caused you to be fired.

    What you are suggesting is welfare without responsibilities. Why should we ever allow payment simply because you don;t want to work and at the taxpayers (those folks who are working) expense.

    What you are suggesting is very similar to the communist work guarantees of USSR past. No incentive to work allows people to become irresponsible and lack any reason to be productive either in their life or their job.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    492

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    You may be misstating your point. UI was intended to ameliorate the effects of frictional unemployment. The premiums (in California) are paid by the employer. The difference between an at-will scheme, and welfare as we know it, is that an at-will unemployment compensation scheme is more market friendly. Our current welfare schemes are mired in "red-tape" and subject to much more fraud, waste, and abuse than the an at-will unemployment compensation scheme could ever be (since it is at-will).

    In one sense, an at-will unemployment compensation scheme could be considered a minimum wage at which people can be paid to stay out of the labor market, and as simple to administer. I am of the opinion, that any public funding that benefits the markets, and our economy (thus, the populace) can be considered a form of providing for the general Welfare.

    We already have welfare without responsibilities. It is called welfare as we currently know it. That scheme has not solved many of our socioeconomic problems, and is considered, by some, to not be conducive to the pursuit of higher education, art, or happiness.

    An issue of homelessness due to lack of income could be addressed with a minimum wage subsidy based on at-will unemployment. Panhandling laws would have a more ethical, legal, and moral standing, if an indigent person could simply apply for at-will unemployment compensation. How does our current system solve for that?

    Why do you advocate third world economics when we have a first world economy? What recourse does a person have in such an economy when there is no work available due to market inefficiencies that lead to frictional unemployment? Are you implying that the US (and its populace) was better off as a third world country during the industrial revolution?

    An at-will unemployment scheme would also benefit the labor market and our economy by subsidizing less efficient labor market participants to stay out of the market for labor. With at-will unemployment compensation available, employers would be freer to exercise their Ninth Amendment right to create private social contracts that may result in employment, in manners more conducive to their private profit motive. How does welfare, as we know it, accomplish these goals in a manner consistent with out Bill of Rights?

    I am of the opinion, that any self-respecting first world economy can afford to subsidize people to not provide labor input to the economy; in much the same way as corporate welfare subsidizes agribusiness to not produce commodities for the market. How does our current system provide for an income to people on leaves of absence?

    The main difference between a hypothetical at-will unemployment compensation system, and the command economics of the former Soviet model you mentioned, is that an at-will unemployment compensation scheme is market friendly. In other words, market principles still apply. Employers will benefit by having more motivated and productive employees because anyone who would prefer being a couch potato could claim at-will unemployment.

    With lower barriers to entry, the private sector could provide value added products to any guaranteed public sector unemployment compensation. How does our current system enable the private sector to create new and improved financial products for US consumers?

    From another perspective, do you think that ancient Athens would be better or worse off, if they had simply paid Socrates a minimum wage based on at-will unemployment compensation?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28,906

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    I doubt that you're going to get much traction with the public for a hand-out to able bodied adults who choose not to work, or for people who are fired for cause.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    492

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    Welfare as we currently know it is more expensive than a simple and market friendly at-will unemployment scheme that conforms to our social contract (constitution, and specifically the 9A in regards to at-will employment in states that have at-will employment).

    Paying less efficient labor market participants to be couch potatoes helps the employment sector of the labor market in that the more efficient labor market participants will be actively seeking employment.

    No one has any problems with some of the largest agribusinesses in the world asking for a public handout. Why do those same people balk at paying fellow human beings to pursue art, education, or happiness; if they can benefit from better labor market conditions if they choose to provide labor input to the economy?

    Is it more holy and moral to let people stay in third world economic conditions in our first world economy?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,241

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    Balderdash.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    Welfare as we currently know it is more expensive than a simple and market friendly at-will unemployment scheme that conforms to our social contract (constitution, and specifically the 9A in regards to at-will employment in states that have at-will employment).
    and how is that. It will be welfare no matter what you want to call it and will be subject to the same inefficiencies and graft as the current methods of welfare face.

    Paying less efficient labor market participants to be couch potatoes helps the employment sector of the labor market in that the more efficient labor market participants will be actively seeking employment.
    How is this. I suggest simply not paying them saves everybody money. If they choose to not work, then they get what they give.

    No one has any problems with some of the largest agribusinesses in the world asking for a public handout. Why do those same people balk at paying fellow human beings to pursue art, education, or happiness; if they can benefit from better labor market conditions if they choose to provide labor input to the economy?
    Subsidies are very different than what you suggest and for different reasons. It is incorrect to compare the two. Not that I totally support subsidies but that is another situation altogether.

    Is it more holy and moral to let people stay in third world economic conditions in our first world economy?[
    Granted, this is far from a perfect nation but the bottom line is, no work, no pay. Anything less would be creating a nation of welfare.

    if people want to get paid, they get to work.

    Since all states (in one regard or another) are employment at will, the employer can chose who to hire and who to retain NOW. They do not have to continue to employ a deadbeat simply because they have hired them.



    Paying less efficient labor market participants to be couch potatoes helps the employment sector of the labor market in that the more efficient labor market participants will be actively seeking employment.
    And how is this? The less efficient will be couch potatoes simply by the laws of supply and demand. If there are better employee possibilities out there, the employer will hire them and divest themselves of the less efficient employees they currently employ.


    The one thing you fail to address. Many of the homeless (males to a much greater degree than females) choose to be homeless and live in third world conditions. They do not wish to apply themselves and they do not wish to comply with the rules in place to recieve assistance. Paying this class of person would serve absolutely no benefit to society. There would be no gain but actually a loss to expendable cash for the remainder of society. It wold cost additional money to support a program as you suggest which would require greater taxes on those working which means less disposable income for those paying for your system.

    So, should we understand that your great endevour to alter society to benefit only those that choose to not work indicates that you yourself are homeless or unemployed?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    492

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    Balderdash.
    Your cogent rebuttal is what gave me the impression that the Democrats didn't go far enough in ending welfare as we currently know it, in the US.

    What is your opinion of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution and its relation to the specifically enumerated power of our federal government to provide for the general Welfare?

    Section 8
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
    Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
    Welfare of the United States
    ; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
    uniform throughout the United States;
    Doesn't the specifically enumerated (thus, legally enforceable) power of the federal government to provide for the general Welfare imply the use of a Welfare-State economic model?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    492

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    and how is that. It will be welfare no matter what you want to call it and will be subject to the same inefficiencies and graft as the current methods of welfare face.

    How is this. I suggest simply not paying them saves everybody money. If they choose to not work, then they get what they give.

    Subsidies are very different than what you suggest and for different reasons. It is incorrect to compare the two. Not that I totally support subsidies but that is another situation altogether.

    Granted, this is far from a perfect nation but the bottom line is, no work, no pay. Anything less would be creating a nation of welfare.

    if people want to get paid, they get to work.

    Since all states (in one regard or another) are employment at will, the employer can chose who to hire and who to retain NOW. They do not have to continue to employ a deadbeat simply because they have hired them.



    And how is this? The less efficient will be couch potatoes simply by the laws of supply and demand. If there are better employee possibilities out there, the employer will hire them and divest themselves of the less efficient employees they currently employ.


    The one thing you fail to address. Many of the homeless (males to a much greater degree than females) choose to be homeless and live in third world conditions. They do not wish to apply themselves and they do not wish to comply with the rules in place to recieve assistance. Paying this class of person would serve absolutely no benefit to society. There would be no gain but actually a loss to expendable cash for the remainder of society. It wold cost additional money to support a program as you suggest which would require greater taxes on those working which means less disposable income for those paying for your system.

    So, should we understand that your great endevour to alter society to benefit only those that choose to not work indicates that you yourself are homeless or unemployed?
    I am not sure how you reached your conclusion? A market friendly subsidy scheme would not rely on the current command economics to achieve its results. It would be a form of welfare, as we currently know it, in name only. Any US labor market participant that chooses not to provide traditional labor input to the economy would be able to request "at-will" unemployment compensation. Politically induced economic inefficiencies can be reduced to the extent of simplification and market friendliness.

    This could be viewed as a form of minimum wage that pays labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy. This also conforms to the theory of supply and demand, in that there will always be competition between the public and private sectors for market participants. If the only private profit motive is a minimum wage subsidy, the amount of interest in black (private) market activities will be correlative.

    If it were only about saving money, why not eliminate the government? Not having to pay any taxes, at all, would also save any individual consumer of statism a lot of money.

    The point of a minimum wage subsidy, that can be as market friendly as forms of private insurance, is that it can also provide for the general Welfare of a segment of the population that otherwise has very little recourse, other than to engage in black market activities or forms of fraud (in order to obtain a subsidy income that can cost more than a hypothetical minimum wage). In this sense, we could be paying people to be more market friendly, and less privateering.

    If panhandling can be viewed as a 1st and 9th amendment right, how does your scenario help insure the individual liberties that are enumerated in our Bill of Rights?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Legal theory and politics: At-will unemployment compensation.

    while trying to impress those that bother to read your overly verbose posts, you have failed to do so.

    panhandling is not a right enumerated, in any way, in the 1st or 9th or any amendment. There is no legal right to panhandle.

    Maybe I'm simply missing something in your idea but giving people money to not work will in no way improve the labor pool. We already have a supply and demand sysem in place. We just don;t pay those that will not work for doing so.

    This also conforms to the theory of supply and demand, in that there will always be competition between the public and private sectors for market participants
    there already is a supply and demand system in place. It just so happens that if there is no demand for you, you don;t work. If you don;t work, you don't get paid and you get hungry. You then do what you can to improve yourself so you can be employable so you get to eat. Pretty simply theory.

    You work, you eat.

    you don't work, you don't eat.

    you can't get employment, you attempt to improve yourself so you can work.

    Not only does this allow those in demand to work but it encourages those that do not get to work to improve themselves so they can work which improves all of society.

    sounds about right to me.

    If it were only about saving money, why not eliminate the government? Not having to pay any taxes, at all, would also save any individual consumer of statism a lot of money.
    I preseume you are being a bit facetious here. The gov does so much more than suck up our money. Anarchy is not pretty.


    So you theory is; if we pay people to sit on their butts it will cost us less and improve the quality of the workpool?

    Why don;t we try this out. You send me oh, say, $125,000 annually and I'll quit my job so somebody else can have it. The new employee will enjoy employment and somewhere in your mind, it won;t cost anybody anything to give me the $125k each year. HHmmm. Still trying to figure that one out.

    better theory. I work, I get paid. I want more money; I work more time or I educate myself so I can become employed at a more lucrative type of employment.

    A far as black market "occupations". Do yo really think that giveing lazy people a subsidy will stop illegal activity?

    Ya, right. I can see all those dealers giving up their money because you provide them with a very small percentage of the money they can make dealing drugs.

    So, what amount of money do you suggest would be great enough to cause grifters to give grifting up?

    They would simply take the money and continue to grift to supplement their "legal" income.

    Ya, I can see how this will work. Just don;t send this idea to GW. He might actually see it as a possibility to improve things.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights
    By danielpalos in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: 04-25-2008, 08:23 PM
  2. Legal Theory And Politics: Is Dan A Virgin?
    By blueeagle in forum Banter
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-18-2008, 12:59 AM
  3. Legal theory and politics: At-will employment doctrine.
    By danielpalos in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-03-2007, 10:49 AM
  4. Legal theory and politics: The Militia and States Rights.
    By danielpalos in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 09-24-2007, 08:51 AM
  5. Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    By danielpalos in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 05:34 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources