So you want better paying jobs?

[danielpalos]

dears, it merely and Only requires, a clue and a Cause.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dears, it merely and Only requires, a clue and a Cause.

stupid illiterate liberal

 

[Correll]

Why not solve for capitalism's laziness regarding full employment by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

There exists a cliche of the brilliant man, who is so brilliant, that the Common Man cannot understand him.

That he speaks and thinks on a Plane well beyond the reach of all but few other brilliant men, if any.

That is the cliche you are trying to emulate.


But it is a Myth.

The really brilliant people understand complex ideas enough to explain them in detail to the Common Man.



You cannot expand the minds of other people with obtuse metaphors and poetic jargon.


I have worked though out my life to improve my ability to communicate my ideas to people despite various Barriers to Communication.

Your little game on being purposefully obtuse, is not making you look Brilliant.


I don't know if it has every worked for you, but it is not working now, and frankly it is very disingenuous and rude.

it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

NO, it's not.

And why are you talking like that?

Why are you making me work just to SOMETIMES get a clue as to what you are saying?

If this is really the way your ideas come out of your head, you AT LEAST need to work very hard on improving your communication skills.

Medical intervention should not be ruled out, either.

You remind me of people who were over medicated.

Yes, it is; simply Because I just said so.

Do you have Any Thing more than Diversion for your Cause?

Not a diversion, real concern.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not solve for capitalism's laziness regarding full employment by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

There exists a cliche of the brilliant man, who is so brilliant, that the Common Man cannot understand him.

That he speaks and thinks on a Plane well beyond the reach of all but few other brilliant men, if any.

That is the cliche you are trying to emulate.


But it is a Myth.

The really brilliant people understand complex ideas enough to explain them in detail to the Common Man.



You cannot expand the minds of other people with obtuse metaphors and poetic jargon.


I have worked though out my life to improve my ability to communicate my ideas to people despite various Barriers to Communication.

Your little game on being purposefully obtuse, is not making you look Brilliant.


I don't know if it has every worked for you, but it is not working now, and frankly it is very disingenuous and rude.

it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

NO, it's not.

And why are you talking like that?

Why are you making me work just to SOMETIMES get a clue as to what you are saying?

If this is really the way your ideas come out of your head, you AT LEAST need to work very hard on improving your communication skills.

Medical intervention should not be ruled out, either.

You remind me of people who were over medicated.

Yes, it is; simply Because I just said so.

Do you have Any Thing more than Diversion for your Cause?

Not a diversion, real concern.

yes, a real diversion since it is irrelevant to the argument. red herring and straw man are examples.

 

[Correll]

There exists a cliche of the brilliant man, who is so brilliant, that the Common Man cannot understand him.

That he speaks and thinks on a Plane well beyond the reach of all but few other brilliant men, if any.

That is the cliche you are trying to emulate.


But it is a Myth.

The really brilliant people understand complex ideas enough to explain them in detail to the Common Man.



You cannot expand the minds of other people with obtuse metaphors and poetic jargon.


I have worked though out my life to improve my ability to communicate my ideas to people despite various Barriers to Communication.

Your little game on being purposefully obtuse, is not making you look Brilliant.


I don't know if it has every worked for you, but it is not working now, and frankly it is very disingenuous and rude.

it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

NO, it's not.

And why are you talking like that?

Why are you making me work just to SOMETIMES get a clue as to what you are saying?

If this is really the way your ideas come out of your head, you AT LEAST need to work very hard on improving your communication skills.

Medical intervention should not be ruled out, either.

You remind me of people who were over medicated.

Yes, it is; simply Because I just said so.

Do you have Any Thing more than Diversion for your Cause?

Not a diversion, real concern.

yes, a real diversion since it is irrelevant to the argument. red herring and straw man are examples.

REquesting that you post so that I can understand what you are saying is very, very relevant to the argument.

Your "Style", such as it is, in nothing but noise reducing data flow, sometimes to zero.

NOt to mention your repeatedly refusal to answer many questions.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

NO, it's not.

And why are you talking like that?

Why are you making me work just to SOMETIMES get a clue as to what you are saying?

If this is really the way your ideas come out of your head, you AT LEAST need to work very hard on improving your communication skills.

Medical intervention should not be ruled out, either.

You remind me of people who were over medicated.

Yes, it is; simply Because I just said so.

Do you have Any Thing more than Diversion for your Cause?

Not a diversion, real concern.

yes, a real diversion since it is irrelevant to the argument. red herring and straw man are examples.

REquesting that you post so that I can understand what you are saying is very, very relevant to the argument.

Your "Style", such as it is, in nothing but noise reducing data flow, sometimes to zero.

NOt to mention your repeatedly refusal to answer many questions.

What part of the concept of employment at will, in any at-will employment State do you not understand?

 

[Correll]

NO, it's not.

And why are you talking like that?

Why are you making me work just to SOMETIMES get a clue as to what you are saying?

If this is really the way your ideas come out of your head, you AT LEAST need to work very hard on improving your communication skills.

Medical intervention should not be ruled out, either.

You remind me of people who were over medicated.

Yes, it is; simply Because I just said so.

Do you have Any Thing more than Diversion for your Cause?

Not a diversion, real concern.

yes, a real diversion since it is irrelevant to the argument. red herring and straw man are examples.

REquesting that you post so that I can understand what you are saying is very, very relevant to the argument.

Your "Style", such as it is, in nothing but noise reducing data flow, sometimes to zero.

NOt to mention your repeatedly refusal to answer many questions.

What part of the concept of employment at will, in any at-will employment State do you not understand?

I have guesses about what you mean. YOU NEVER ANSWER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, NOR RESPOND TO ANSWERS TO YOUR POSTS IN A FASHION TO LET ME KNOW IF MY GUESS WAS RIGHT.


It is always a tangent off into la la land.

 

[Boss]

it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

This was introduced in 1933 by FDR. It was called the Minimum Wage. It has been around for 82 years, promising to clear poverty guidelines for the working poor. It never seems to accomplish this, it is only used repeatedly by Democrats to gin up the base and get voters to turn out.

In robust economic times, we have been able to raise the MW slightly and not realize any significant effect on the economy because the economy is outpacing the effects. Whenever the economy is in decline or barely growing as it has been the past 3-4 years, the effects are dismal. It doesn't help the economy or help to produce new jobs, it does the opposite.

The amounts of increase in MW which are now being boldly proposed by Democrats have never been tried but the results are not going to be good. You will effectively kill entry-level employment opportunity because it will no longer be feasible to hire such labor.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is; simply Because I just said so.

Do you have Any Thing more than Diversion for your Cause?

Not a diversion, real concern.

yes, a real diversion since it is irrelevant to the argument. red herring and straw man are examples.

REquesting that you post so that I can understand what you are saying is very, very relevant to the argument.

Your "Style", such as it is, in nothing but noise reducing data flow, sometimes to zero.

NOt to mention your repeatedly refusal to answer many questions.

What part of the concept of employment at will, in any at-will employment State do you not understand?

I have guesses about what you mean. YOU NEVER ANSWER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, NOR RESPOND TO ANSWERS TO YOUR POSTS IN A FASHION TO LET ME KNOW IF MY GUESS WAS RIGHT.


It is always a tangent off into la la land.

Nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause?

I asked you a specific legal question. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

This was introduced in 1933 by FDR. It was called the Minimum Wage. It has been around for 82 years, promising to clear poverty guidelines for the working poor. It never seems to accomplish this, it is only used repeatedly by Democrats to gin up the base and get voters to turn out.

In robust economic times, we have been able to raise the MW slightly and not realize any significant effect on the economy because the economy is outpacing the effects. Whenever the economy is in decline or barely growing as it has been the past 3-4 years, the effects are dismal. It doesn't help the economy or help to produce new jobs, it does the opposite.

The amounts of increase in MW which are now being boldly proposed by Democrats have never been tried but the results are not going to be good. You will effectively kill entry-level employment opportunity because it will no longer be feasible to hire such labor.

The point is, it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[Boss]

The point is, it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The point is, your party has been making this same point for 82 years and it hasn't worked. If the MW were something relatively new, we could maybe consider it hasn't had time to work or maybe it needs raising some more... but it's been around for 82 years. We've raised it, over and over again, still... people who make MW are not clearing the poverty level.

Why you continue to bring up "at-will employment" is a mystery. I think you've heard the term somewhere and think that you are somehow applying it in correct context... why you would think such a thing is beyond me, but that is how it appears. Do you think that you are arguing with people here who are dumber than you? I assure you, that is not the case.

"At-will employment" refers to U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason and without warning. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the minimum wage.

I don't know any other way to put this to you-- you will never solve poverty! Unfortunately, we will always live in a universe where there is poverty. You can't reduce poverty by virtually eliminating all entry-level labor because you've overpriced it. That only results in poverty becoming worse because there are less opportunities for the impoverished to get jobs and climb out of poverty. Why does this not make sense to you?

 

[danielpalos]

The point is, it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The point is, your party has been making this same point for 82 years and it hasn't worked. If the MW were something relatively new, we could maybe consider it hasn't had time to work or maybe it needs raising some more... but it's been around for 82 years. We've raised it, over and over again, still... people who make MW are not clearing the poverty level.

Why you continue to bring up "at-will employment" is a mystery. I think you've heard the term somewhere and think that you are somehow applying it in correct context... why you would think such a thing is beyond me, but that is how it appears. Do you think that you are arguing with people here who are dumber than you? I assure you, that is not the case.

"At-will employment" refers to U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason and without warning. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the minimum wage.

I don't know any other way to put this to you-- you will never solve poverty! Unfortunately, we will always live in a universe where there is poverty. You can't reduce poverty by virtually eliminating all entry-level labor because you've overpriced it. That only results in poverty becoming worse because there are less opportunities for the impoverished to get jobs and climb out of poverty. Why does this not make sense to you?

I believe you don't have a clue or a Cause.

The concept may be too simple. It has to do with actually solving simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis via unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis--and, that conforms to the theory of demand and supply and the assumption of perfectly competitive markets as a benchmark Standard.

We could be lowering our Tax burden by simplifying our social safety nets.

 

[Correll]

Not a diversion, real concern.

yes, a real diversion since it is irrelevant to the argument. red herring and straw man are examples.

REquesting that you post so that I can understand what you are saying is very, very relevant to the argument.

Your "Style", such as it is, in nothing but noise reducing data flow, sometimes to zero.

NOt to mention your repeatedly refusal to answer many questions.

What part of the concept of employment at will, in any at-will employment State do you not understand?

I have guesses about what you mean. YOU NEVER ANSWER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, NOR RESPOND TO ANSWERS TO YOUR POSTS IN A FASHION TO LET ME KNOW IF MY GUESS WAS RIGHT.


It is always a tangent off into la la land.

Nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause?

I asked you a specific legal question. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

And back to la la land.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, a real diversion since it is irrelevant to the argument. red herring and straw man are examples.

REquesting that you post so that I can understand what you are saying is very, very relevant to the argument.

Your "Style", such as it is, in nothing but noise reducing data flow, sometimes to zero.

NOt to mention your repeatedly refusal to answer many questions.

What part of the concept of employment at will, in any at-will employment State do you not understand?

I have guesses about what you mean. YOU NEVER ANSWER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, NOR RESPOND TO ANSWERS TO YOUR POSTS IN A FASHION TO LET ME KNOW IF MY GUESS WAS RIGHT.


It is always a tangent off into la la land.

Nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause?

I asked you a specific legal question. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

And back to la la land.

no, clue, no Cause, no Standing. Thank you for ceding the point and the argument due to your social, slack.

 

[Correll]

REquesting that you post so that I can understand what you are saying is very, very relevant to the argument.

Your "Style", such as it is, in nothing but noise reducing data flow, sometimes to zero.

NOt to mention your repeatedly refusal to answer many questions.

What part of the concept of employment at will, in any at-will employment State do you not understand?

I have guesses about what you mean. YOU NEVER ANSWER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, NOR RESPOND TO ANSWERS TO YOUR POSTS IN A FASHION TO LET ME KNOW IF MY GUESS WAS RIGHT.


It is always a tangent off into la la land.

Nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause?

I asked you a specific legal question. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

And back to la la land.

no, clue, no Cause, no Standing. Thank you for ceding the point and the argument due to your social, slack.

Not really feeling the motivation to interpret your language at this time.


I have pushed and discovered enough for now. I will probably take another swing at it against some time in the future.

 

[Boss]

The point is, it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The point is, your party has been making this same point for 82 years and it hasn't worked. If the MW were something relatively new, we could maybe consider it hasn't had time to work or maybe it needs raising some more... but it's been around for 82 years. We've raised it, over and over again, still... people who make MW are not clearing the poverty level.

Why you continue to bring up "at-will employment" is a mystery. I think you've heard the term somewhere and think that you are somehow applying it in correct context... why you would think such a thing is beyond me, but that is how it appears. Do you think that you are arguing with people here who are dumber than you? I assure you, that is not the case.

"At-will employment" refers to U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason and without warning. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the minimum wage.

I don't know any other way to put this to you-- you will never solve poverty! Unfortunately, we will always live in a universe where there is poverty. You can't reduce poverty by virtually eliminating all entry-level labor because you've overpriced it. That only results in poverty becoming worse because there are less opportunities for the impoverished to get jobs and climb out of poverty. Why does this not make sense to you?

I believe you don't have a clue or a Cause.

The concept may be too simple. It has to do with actually solving simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis via unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis--and, that conforms to the theory of demand and supply and the assumption of perfectly competitive markets as a benchmark Standard.

We could be lowering our Tax burden by simplifying our social safety nets.

You've simply copy-n-pasted the same nonsense you said before. I read it the first 5 times you posted it. That's the thing about text, it doesn't disappear after reading it. You need to explain what the hell you are saying here because it is incoherent babble. No one can decipher it and you just keep re-posting it, as if it will somehow magically make sense.

I've already told you, poverty can never be solved. Try to get that through your silly head. I know that you probably believe in a rainbow unicorn world where this could happen but that's a fantasy. There is nothing "simple" about poverty, it is a complex problem and one that every society faces. The one thing that has consistently worked to eliminate poverty is free market capitalism and free enterprise. It has produced more wealth in the form of millionaires and billionaires than anything man has ever devised. It has enabled more millions of people to rise from poverty and become "middle-class" or even wealthy.

The minimum wage is in contradiction to free market principles. It removes supply and demand from the equation and actually functions to baseline labor costs across the board. It removes the individual's ability to negotiate a better wage. It enables capitalists to exploit advantage over individuals by not offering necessarily what the market demands but rather this arbitrary baseline we've established. You can't, as an individual, combat this because the fix is in.

 

[Ernie S.]

What part of the concept of employment at will, in any at-will employment State do you not understand?

I have guesses about what you mean. YOU NEVER ANSWER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, NOR RESPOND TO ANSWERS TO YOUR POSTS IN A FASHION TO LET ME KNOW IF MY GUESS WAS RIGHT.


It is always a tangent off into la la land.

Nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause?

I asked you a specific legal question. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

And back to la la land.

no, clue, no Cause, no Standing. Thank you for ceding the point and the argument due to your social, slack.

Not really feeling the motivation to interpret your language at this time.


I have pushed and discovered enough for now. I will probably take another swing at it against some time in the future.

It's as if it has a big box full of words and phrases and shakes a few out at random.
It has never made sense, answered a direct question or attempted to answer a point.
Life is vastly more pleasant with it in ignore.

 

[danielpalos]

What part of the concept of employment at will, in any at-will employment State do you not understand?

I have guesses about what you mean. YOU NEVER ANSWER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, NOR RESPOND TO ANSWERS TO YOUR POSTS IN A FASHION TO LET ME KNOW IF MY GUESS WAS RIGHT.


It is always a tangent off into la la land.

Nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause?

I asked you a specific legal question. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

And back to la la land.

no, clue, no Cause, no Standing. Thank you for ceding the point and the argument due to your social, slack.

Not really feeling the motivation to interpret your language at this time.


I have pushed and discovered enough for now. I will probably take another swing at it against some time in the future.

Why not read up on the concept of employment at will; so we can discuss it.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is, it is about solving for simple poverty by solving for a natural rate unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines; on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The point is, your party has been making this same point for 82 years and it hasn't worked. If the MW were something relatively new, we could maybe consider it hasn't had time to work or maybe it needs raising some more... but it's been around for 82 years. We've raised it, over and over again, still... people who make MW are not clearing the poverty level.

Why you continue to bring up "at-will employment" is a mystery. I think you've heard the term somewhere and think that you are somehow applying it in correct context... why you would think such a thing is beyond me, but that is how it appears. Do you think that you are arguing with people here who are dumber than you? I assure you, that is not the case.

"At-will employment" refers to U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason and without warning. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the minimum wage.

I don't know any other way to put this to you-- you will never solve poverty! Unfortunately, we will always live in a universe where there is poverty. You can't reduce poverty by virtually eliminating all entry-level labor because you've overpriced it. That only results in poverty becoming worse because there are less opportunities for the impoverished to get jobs and climb out of poverty. Why does this not make sense to you?

I believe you don't have a clue or a Cause.

The concept may be too simple. It has to do with actually solving simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis via unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis--and, that conforms to the theory of demand and supply and the assumption of perfectly competitive markets as a benchmark Standard.

We could be lowering our Tax burden by simplifying our social safety nets.

You've simply copy-n-pasted the same nonsense you said before. I read it the first 5 times you posted it. That's the thing about text, it doesn't disappear after reading it. You need to explain what the hell you are saying here because it is incoherent babble. No one can decipher it and you just keep re-posting it, as if it will somehow magically make sense.

I've already told you, poverty can never be solved. Try to get that through your silly head. I know that you probably believe in a rainbow unicorn world where this could happen but that's a fantasy. There is nothing "simple" about poverty, it is a complex problem and one that every society faces. The one thing that has consistently worked to eliminate poverty is free market capitalism and free enterprise. It has produced more wealth in the form of millionaires and billionaires than anything man has ever devised. It has enabled more millions of people to rise from poverty and become "middle-class" or even wealthy.

The minimum wage is in contradiction to free market principles. It removes supply and demand from the equation and actually functions to baseline labor costs across the board. It removes the individual's ability to negotiate a better wage. It enables capitalists to exploit advantage over individuals by not offering necessarily what the market demands but rather this arbitrary baseline we've established. You can't, as an individual, combat this because the fix is in.

Dear, you really don't have a clue or a Cause, do you.

Why do you believe official poverty and a natural rate of unemployment would not be solved with recourse to a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines as a form of unemployment compensation to correct for capitalism's poverty inducing, natural rate of unemployment?

 

[danielpalos]

I have guesses about what you mean. YOU NEVER ANSWER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, NOR RESPOND TO ANSWERS TO YOUR POSTS IN A FASHION TO LET ME KNOW IF MY GUESS WAS RIGHT.


It is always a tangent off into la la land.

Nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause?

I asked you a specific legal question. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

And back to la la land.

no, clue, no Cause, no Standing. Thank you for ceding the point and the argument due to your social, slack.

Not really feeling the motivation to interpret your language at this time.


I have pushed and discovered enough for now. I will probably take another swing at it against some time in the future.

It's as if it has a big box full of words and phrases and shakes a few out at random.
It has never made sense, answered a direct question or attempted to answer a point.
Life is vastly more pleasant with it in ignore.

why not learn how to acquire and possess a clue and a Cause.