As predicted - Study shows Seattle $15 min wage result is less hours and 5000 less jobs

[danielpalos]

Y'all are just, lousy capitalists. Simply circulating capital engenders a positive multiplier effect.

Says the idiot who claims socialism "bails out" societies despite its catastrophic failure world wide.

Venezuela was one of the wealthiest nations in the world at one time. Socialism "bailed it out" of prosperity and into poverty.

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Lousy management accounts for all of it.

 

[Markle]

Capitalism has a Natural Rate of Unemployment. It is why the left is advocating for Compensation, simply for being naturally unemployed.

You just can't keep up with how Progressives develop their own language!

NATURALLY UNEMPLOYED! Translated to English, naturally unwilling to work!

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a Natural Rate of Unemployment. It is why the left is advocating for Compensation, simply for being naturally unemployed.

You just can't keep up with how Progressives develop their own language!

NATURALLY UNEMPLOYED! Translated to English, naturally unwilling to work!

nothing but emotionalism? employment is at will, not for-Cause in our at-will employment States.

 

[hadit]

More expensive labor means capital will seek gains from productivity.

And they have - through automation and outsourcing. Turning more low-wage labor into no wage labor (what failed left-wing policy does best). And then of course, you people whine about that and attempt to blame capitalism for your own failed policies.

That is only a problem for the right wing. The left has a solution, it is called, unemployment Compensation for Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

No. It's called welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welfare is not a solution; it is a palliative. Unemployment compensation for simply being (naturally) unemployed, actually solves simple poverty.

You're just using a different word. It's the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

More expensive labor means capital will seek gains from productivity.

And they have - through automation and outsourcing. Turning more low-wage labor into no wage labor (what failed left-wing policy does best). And then of course, you people whine about that and attempt to blame capitalism for your own failed policies.

That is only a problem for the right wing. The left has a solution, it is called, unemployment Compensation for Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

No. It's called welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welfare is not a solution; it is a palliative. Unemployment compensation for simply being (naturally) unemployed, actually solves simple poverty.

You're just using a different word. It's the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You merely don't understand the difference.

 

[hadit]

And they have - through automation and outsourcing. Turning more low-wage labor into no wage labor (what failed left-wing policy does best). And then of course, you people whine about that and attempt to blame capitalism for your own failed policies.

That is only a problem for the right wing. The left has a solution, it is called, unemployment Compensation for Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

No. It's called welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welfare is not a solution; it is a palliative. Unemployment compensation for simply being (naturally) unemployed, actually solves simple poverty.

You're just using a different word. It's the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You merely don't understand the difference.

Both are society taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. You want to pretty it up so you can justify wanting it. Doesn't work that way.

 

[danielpalos]

That is only a problem for the right wing. The left has a solution, it is called, unemployment Compensation for Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

No. It's called welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welfare is not a solution; it is a palliative. Unemployment compensation for simply being (naturally) unemployed, actually solves simple poverty.

You're just using a different word. It's the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You merely don't understand the difference.

Both are society taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. You want to pretty it up so you can justify wanting it. Doesn't work that way.

Everybody should be able to earn; but, capitalism has a, "natural rate of unemployment". You simply have no answer and have nothing but repeal, as a result.

 

[hadit]

No. It's called welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welfare is not a solution; it is a palliative. Unemployment compensation for simply being (naturally) unemployed, actually solves simple poverty.

You're just using a different word. It's the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You merely don't understand the difference.

Both are society taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. You want to pretty it up so you can justify wanting it. Doesn't work that way.

Everybody should be able to earn; but, capitalism has a, "natural rate of unemployment". You simply have no answer and have nothing but repeal, as a result.

We're not talking about earning, we're talking about getting paid and NOT working. You do realize that, don't you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Liberals ruin everything they touch.

they are like locusts

 

[danielpalos]

Welfare is not a solution; it is a palliative. Unemployment compensation for simply being (naturally) unemployed, actually solves simple poverty.

You're just using a different word. It's the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You merely don't understand the difference.

Both are society taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. You want to pretty it up so you can justify wanting it. Doesn't work that way.

Everybody should be able to earn; but, capitalism has a, "natural rate of unemployment". You simply have no answer and have nothing but repeal, as a result.

We're not talking about earning, we're talking about getting paid and NOT working. You do realize that, don't you?

Yes, it is called, compensation for Capitalism's Natural Rate of Unemployment.

 

[hadit]

You're just using a different word. It's the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You merely don't understand the difference.

Both are society taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. You want to pretty it up so you can justify wanting it. Doesn't work that way.

Everybody should be able to earn; but, capitalism has a, "natural rate of unemployment". You simply have no answer and have nothing but repeal, as a result.

We're not talking about earning, we're talking about getting paid and NOT working. You do realize that, don't you?

Yes, it is called, compensation for Capitalism's Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

You merely don't understand the difference.

Both are society taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. You want to pretty it up so you can justify wanting it. Doesn't work that way.

Everybody should be able to earn; but, capitalism has a, "natural rate of unemployment". You simply have no answer and have nothing but repeal, as a result.

We're not talking about earning, we're talking about getting paid and NOT working. You do realize that, don't you?

Yes, it is called, compensation for Capitalism's Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Welfare.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

 

[hadit]

Both are society taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. You want to pretty it up so you can justify wanting it. Doesn't work that way.

Everybody should be able to earn; but, capitalism has a, "natural rate of unemployment". You simply have no answer and have nothing but repeal, as a result.

We're not talking about earning, we're talking about getting paid and NOT working. You do realize that, don't you?

Yes, it is called, compensation for Capitalism's Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Welfare.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

It took you less time than usual to descend into muttering incoherence. Put the bong down.

At least you abandoned your own losing argument this time. That's a step in the right direction.

 

[danielpalos]

Everybody should be able to earn; but, capitalism has a, "natural rate of unemployment". You simply have no answer and have nothing but repeal, as a result.

We're not talking about earning, we're talking about getting paid and NOT working. You do realize that, don't you?

Yes, it is called, compensation for Capitalism's Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Welfare.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

It took you less time than usual to descend into muttering incoherence. Put the bong down.

At least you abandoned your own losing argument this time. That's a step in the right direction.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the right wing. You admitted it was welfare. WE have a General Welfare clause. It really is that simple. You merely lost, that is all.

 

[hadit]

We're not talking about earning, we're talking about getting paid and NOT working. You do realize that, don't you?

Yes, it is called, compensation for Capitalism's Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Welfare.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

It took you less time than usual to descend into muttering incoherence. Put the bong down.

At least you abandoned your own losing argument this time. That's a step in the right direction.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the right wing. You admitted it was welfare. WE have a General Welfare clause. It really is that simple. You merely lost, that is all.

Dude, now you're being purposely stupid. I said it was welfare from the beginning. You, OTOH, tried to claim it was unemployment that you were after. You lost when you admitted it was welfare. Heck, you lost before you started because I spanked you on this multiple times already.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is called, compensation for Capitalism's Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Welfare.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

It took you less time than usual to descend into muttering incoherence. Put the bong down.

At least you abandoned your own losing argument this time. That's a step in the right direction.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the right wing. You admitted it was welfare. WE have a General Welfare clause. It really is that simple. You merely lost, that is all.

Dude, now you're being purposely stupid. I said it was welfare from the beginning. You, OTOH, tried to claim it was unemployment that you were after. You lost when you admitted it was welfare. Heck, you lost before you started because I spanked you on this multiple times already.

So what. Welfare is welfare. We have a general welfare clause. You have, nothing but fallacy.

 

[hadit]

Welfare.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

It took you less time than usual to descend into muttering incoherence. Put the bong down.

At least you abandoned your own losing argument this time. That's a step in the right direction.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the right wing. You admitted it was welfare. WE have a General Welfare clause. It really is that simple. You merely lost, that is all.

Dude, now you're being purposely stupid. I said it was welfare from the beginning. You, OTOH, tried to claim it was unemployment that you were after. You lost when you admitted it was welfare. Heck, you lost before you started because I spanked you on this multiple times already.

So what. Welfare is welfare. We have a general welfare clause. You have, nothing but fallacy.

I have you admitting that your initial position was wrong. That's a step in your recovery.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

It took you less time than usual to descend into muttering incoherence. Put the bong down.

At least you abandoned your own losing argument this time. That's a step in the right direction.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the right wing. You admitted it was welfare. WE have a General Welfare clause. It really is that simple. You merely lost, that is all.

Dude, now you're being purposely stupid. I said it was welfare from the beginning. You, OTOH, tried to claim it was unemployment that you were after. You lost when you admitted it was welfare. Heck, you lost before you started because I spanked you on this multiple times already.

So what. Welfare is welfare. We have a general welfare clause. You have, nothing but fallacy.

I have you admitting that your initial position was wrong. That's a step in your recovery.

Having nothing but fallacy and claiming you are right only works on those, "twice a day moments". This is not, one of those moments.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

 

[hadit]

It took you less time than usual to descend into muttering incoherence. Put the bong down.

At least you abandoned your own losing argument this time. That's a step in the right direction.

Just lousy reading comprehension from the right wing. You admitted it was welfare. WE have a General Welfare clause. It really is that simple. You merely lost, that is all.

Dude, now you're being purposely stupid. I said it was welfare from the beginning. You, OTOH, tried to claim it was unemployment that you were after. You lost when you admitted it was welfare. Heck, you lost before you started because I spanked you on this multiple times already.

So what. Welfare is welfare. We have a general welfare clause. You have, nothing but fallacy.

I have you admitting that your initial position was wrong. That's a step in your recovery.

Having nothing but fallacy and claiming you are right only works on those, "twice a day moments". This is not, one of those moments.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

Which is, if course, not what we were talking about. It is, rather, a pathetic attempt to dodge the subject in which you were losing, badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

Just lousy reading comprehension from the right wing. You admitted it was welfare. WE have a General Welfare clause. It really is that simple. You merely lost, that is all.

Dude, now you're being purposely stupid. I said it was welfare from the beginning. You, OTOH, tried to claim it was unemployment that you were after. You lost when you admitted it was welfare. Heck, you lost before you started because I spanked you on this multiple times already.

So what. Welfare is welfare. We have a general welfare clause. You have, nothing but fallacy.

I have you admitting that your initial position was wrong. That's a step in your recovery.

Having nothing but fallacy and claiming you are right only works on those, "twice a day moments". This is not, one of those moments.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

Which is, if course, not what we were talking about. It is, rather, a pathetic attempt to dodge the subject in which you were losing, badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.