The $15 Minimum Wage Is Turning Hard Workers Into Black Market Lawbreakers

[danielpalos]

it is to the extent the right wing wants to cut social services.

And are those services being cut?

Sorry but that dog don't hunt, Corky

The debt has nothing to do with poverty just like CEO pay has nothing to do with your income

debt has a lot to do with poverty; it means we can't spend money on the general welfare to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Not the governemnt debt you moron.

The government's debt has nothing to do with your debt

poverty is a social issue.

Not really.

only lousy socialists whine about the cost of social services.

 

[hadit]

I prefer to solve simple poverty through unemployment compensation. more people circulating capital, paying taxes, and creating demand.

Obviously, you have no idea how much that would cost, so you have no idea if that would even work.

He just wants a government check to pay for his weed.

I just ignore his ignorant economic mumblings.

Capital must circulate under capitalism. Market distorting "free goods and services" are worse.

Capital circulates fine without handouts to losers.
Get a job if you want capital, lazy shit.

nothing but fantasy is all the right wing has. why whine about the cost of social services, right wingers.

Ignoring the cost of social services increases the debt and makes less available to spend on social services. Is any of this sinking in yet?

 

[danielpalos]

Obviously, you have no idea how much that would cost, so you have no idea if that would even work.

He just wants a government check to pay for his weed.

I just ignore his ignorant economic mumblings.

Capital must circulate under capitalism. Market distorting "free goods and services" are worse.

Capital circulates fine without handouts to losers.
Get a job if you want capital, lazy shit.

nothing but fantasy is all the right wing has. why whine about the cost of social services, right wingers.

Ignoring the cost of social services increases the debt and makes less available to spend on social services. Is any of this sinking in yet?

you have to make sense, first. can you restate what you said in a more cogent manner and fashion, please.

 

[hadit]

And are those services being cut?

Sorry but that dog don't hunt, Corky

The debt has nothing to do with poverty just like CEO pay has nothing to do with your income

debt has a lot to do with poverty; it means we can't spend money on the general welfare to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Not the governemnt debt you moron.

The government's debt has nothing to do with your debt

poverty is a social issue.

Not really.

only lousy socialists whine about the cost of social services.

Even lousier socialists ignore the cost of social services.

 

[hadit]

He just wants a government check to pay for his weed.

I just ignore his ignorant economic mumblings.

Capital must circulate under capitalism. Market distorting "free goods and services" are worse.

Capital circulates fine without handouts to losers.
Get a job if you want capital, lazy shit.

nothing but fantasy is all the right wing has. why whine about the cost of social services, right wingers.

Ignoring the cost of social services increases the debt and makes less available to spend on social services. Is any of this sinking in yet?

you have to make sense, first. can you restate what you said in a more cogent manner and fashion, please.

I take it English is not your strong suit, I'll try it this way. When you ignore the cost of social services, you always spend more on them than you have money to spend. Thus, you borrow to make up the difference. This adds to the debt, which means you have less to spend on social services.

Does that help you?

 

[danielpalos]

debt has a lot to do with poverty; it means we can't spend money on the general welfare to engender a positive multiplier effect.

Not the governemnt debt you moron.

The government's debt has nothing to do with your debt

poverty is a social issue.

Not really.

only lousy socialists whine about the cost of social services.

Even lousier socialists ignore the cost of social services.

I don't ignore them; we should simplify Government to lower our tax burden.

 

[danielpalos]

Capital must circulate under capitalism. Market distorting "free goods and services" are worse.

Capital circulates fine without handouts to losers.
Get a job if you want capital, lazy shit.

nothing but fantasy is all the right wing has. why whine about the cost of social services, right wingers.

Ignoring the cost of social services increases the debt and makes less available to spend on social services. Is any of this sinking in yet?

you have to make sense, first. can you restate what you said in a more cogent manner and fashion, please.

I take it English is not your strong suit, I'll try it this way. When you ignore the cost of social services, you always spend more on them than you have money to spend. Thus, you borrow to make up the difference. This adds to the debt, which means you have less to spend on social services.

Does that help you?

yes, it does. social services are welfare spending.

we need to cut your alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror. you don't want to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway. they can't be very serious.

 

[hadit]

Not the governemnt debt you moron.

The government's debt has nothing to do with your debt

poverty is a social issue.

Not really.

only lousy socialists whine about the cost of social services.

Even lousier socialists ignore the cost of social services.

I don't ignore them; we should simplify Government to lower our tax burden.

Actually, you are. You give no numbers, won't even talk about the cost and long term viability of what you want to do, just vague, bland assurances that it will work out somehow.

 

[danielpalos]

poverty is a social issue.

Not really.

only lousy socialists whine about the cost of social services.

Even lousier socialists ignore the cost of social services.

I don't ignore them; we should simplify Government to lower our tax burden.

Actually, you are. You give no numbers, won't even talk about the cost and long term viability of what you want to do, just vague, bland assurances that it will work out somehow.

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

 

[danielpalos]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

 

[hadit]

Capital circulates fine without handouts to losers.
Get a job if you want capital, lazy shit.

nothing but fantasy is all the right wing has. why whine about the cost of social services, right wingers.

Ignoring the cost of social services increases the debt and makes less available to spend on social services. Is any of this sinking in yet?

you have to make sense, first. can you restate what you said in a more cogent manner and fashion, please.

I take it English is not your strong suit, I'll try it this way. When you ignore the cost of social services, you always spend more on them than you have money to spend. Thus, you borrow to make up the difference. This adds to the debt, which means you have less to spend on social services.

Does that help you?

yes, it does. social services are welfare spending.

we need to cut your alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror. you don't want to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway. they can't be very serious.

Yes, when the cost of social spending is ignored, the debt goes up. That's clear. You still have not provided any numbers to back up your claims.

 

[hadit]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but fantasy is all the right wing has. why whine about the cost of social services, right wingers.

Ignoring the cost of social services increases the debt and makes less available to spend on social services. Is any of this sinking in yet?

you have to make sense, first. can you restate what you said in a more cogent manner and fashion, please.

I take it English is not your strong suit, I'll try it this way. When you ignore the cost of social services, you always spend more on them than you have money to spend. Thus, you borrow to make up the difference. This adds to the debt, which means you have less to spend on social services.

Does that help you?

yes, it does. social services are welfare spending.

we need to cut your alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror. you don't want to pay wartime tax rates for them anyway. they can't be very serious.

Yes, when the cost of social spending is ignored, the debt goes up. That's clear. You still have not provided any numbers to back up your claims.

i am not ignoring welfare spending; i would like to be able to cut discretionary spending on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; Especially, when the right wing is merely being frivolous instead of serious, by not insisting on wartime tax rates, Because it is really really serious.

 

[danielpalos]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

 

[Howard Roark]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

Incorrect. Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut. See the last year if you doubt me. Employers hire people when they can't meet current demand. When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend, the employers you speak of will be making more money than before.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

Incorrect. Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut. See the last year if you doubt me. Employers hire people when they can't meet current demand. When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend, the employers you speak of will be making more money than before.

Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut.

Okay. So what?

When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend,

That "extra money" the employees get, reduces the amount of money the employer has.
Now they buy less raw materials, hire fewer workers, produce fewer goods.
That's a recipe for making less money than before.

If you ever took an Econ class, you might sound less confused.

 

[Howard Roark]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

Incorrect. Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut. See the last year if you doubt me. Employers hire people when they can't meet current demand. When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend, the employers you speak of will be making more money than before.

Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut.

Okay. So what?

When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend,

That "extra money" the employees get, reduces the amount of money the employer has.
Now they buy less raw materials, hire fewer workers, produce fewer goods.
That's a recipe for making less money than before.

If you ever took an Econ class, you might sound less confused.

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has. It increases his/her sales, thus increasing profits. If you ever took an Econ class, you would understand supply/demand.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring, while arguing that less money doesn't increase hiring.

No business ever buys more raw materials unless they have demand for their product(s)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

Incorrect. Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut. See the last year if you doubt me. Employers hire people when they can't meet current demand. When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend, the employers you speak of will be making more money than before.

Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut.

Okay. So what?

When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend,

That "extra money" the employees get, reduces the amount of money the employer has.
Now they buy less raw materials, hire fewer workers, produce fewer goods.
That's a recipe for making less money than before.

If you ever took an Econ class, you might sound less confused.

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has. It increases his/her sales, thus increasing profits. If you ever took an Econ class, you would understand supply/demand.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring, while arguing that less money doesn't increase hiring.

No business ever buys more raw materials unless they have demand for their product(s)

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has

An employer spends $100,000 a month on salaries. The Federal government mandates
a higher minimum wage. Now the monthly salary expense is $120,000.

That's not a reduction in the amount of money the employer has to spend on other things?

Tell me more!!!

It increases his/her sales

How does spending $20,000 more on salaries increase his/her sales?

thus increasing profits.

If sales increased by $20,000, how much does profit increase?
Show your work.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

Obviously reducing the amount sent to the government increases the amount the employer has.
Who argued otherwise? Where?

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring,

You'd have to be a moron to argue that.
Besides you, who else is making that stupid claim?

 

[hadit]

The minimum wage subject is a difficult
one especially for anyone who works hourly
For a living.

It's probably impossible to quantify with any measure of accuracy the exact capabilities of the American economy. Suffice it to say that even the American economy has finite limits.

Sometimes the only way to find out is to try something and see how it works on the measure of what is present.

It would seem to make some sense however that if you decrease productivity per dollar you're going to stifle the ability of the employers and producers to create more jobs. Additionally you will create a smaller pool of qualified employees leaving the others to languish on unemployment.

Jo

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?