What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[danielpalos]

haven't actually read the law? it is about employment, at-will.

All employment is employment at will yet as far as UI is concerned there are specific conditions that must be met before one is eligible to collect and being a lazy fuck who refuses to work isn't one of them

those conditions are extra-lawful. only the right, never gets it.

It has nothing to do with right or left.
You are responsible for getting a ob to pay your own bills
You are not entitled to a job
No one is under mandate to hire employees
You control how much you make and how much your skill set is worth

what you want to do is blame employers because you can't pay your bills when the responsibility and blame for that is all yours

equal protection of the law is in our Constitution. Only the right, never gets it in our First World economy which even provides Corporate Welfare.

You know you really have to get out of the 2 dimensional thinking rut

I am not a democrat nor am I a republican. I do not belong to the right or the left.
I know that pigeonholing others makes it easier for you to understand the world around you but you're not doing yourself any favors by being so deliberately obtuse

I do not believe in governemnt interference in business that includes bail outs, cronyism or the MW.

WHat you refuse to acknowledge is that you and only you are responsible for how much money you earn. It is not anyone else's responsibility to pay your bills or wipe your ass which is what you seem to want

you Only seem to the propaganda and rhetoric, of the fantastical, right wing. corporate welfare is the law of the land. why balk the most, when it helps the least wealthy.

 

[danielpalos]

You say that, just like the right claims to abhor the drug war. But, are all talk and no action on that front.

I'm not in Congress, so there is literally nothing I can do. You were talking about complaining, that's just talk, no action.

I am advocating for equal protection of the law, every chance i get.

We already have it. Everyone who gets laid off can collect unemployment. Everyone who quits a job cannot. That's equal.

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

 

[danielpalos]

You say that, just like the right claims to abhor the drug war. But, are all talk and no action on that front.

I'm not in Congress, so there is literally nothing I can do. You were talking about complaining, that's just talk, no action.

I am advocating for equal protection of the law, every chance i get.

We already have it. Everyone who gets laid off can collect unemployment. Everyone who quits a job cannot. That's equal.

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

the employer owns the job it is his to offer and for you to either accept or refuse you cannot tell an employer to give you a job.
If you want to own the job then work for yourself

why not? especially in "Right to Work States". is there no, real, right to work in the US?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Baloney.
That would be a moronic reason to raise wages.
I can see why you believe it.

read it for yourself; it was one reason. the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.

the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.

Yeah, like I said, he did it to make more money.

of course; he doubled autoworker wages not minimum wage to provide incentive to make more money. it is called, long run full employment and an economic stimulus to achieve that end.

Yes, it made economic sense for him to increase wages.
Hiking the minimum wage to $15 does not make economic sense.

yes, it does; it makes the same sense. only the right, never gets it.

yes, it does; it makes the same sense.

It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.

You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.

 

[danielpalos]

he wanted his workers to make more so they could buy more cars.

Baloney.
That would be a moronic reason to raise wages.
I can see why you believe it.

read it for yourself; it was one reason. the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.

And again, the only reason he could do that was that he was making enough money to do it. Most companies are not in that situation.

he had to face competition; he did not start out as one of the one percent with business.

Ford had very little competition.
And most businesses are not started by the 1% but by people in the middle class

12 Facts About Entrepreneurs That Will Likely Surprise You

Ford was competing with every other automaker. Did you know, it is appeals to ignorance that, that cause some on the left, to question the sincerity of the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

read it for yourself; it was one reason. the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.

the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.

Yeah, like I said, he did it to make more money.

of course; he doubled autoworker wages not minimum wage to provide incentive to make more money. it is called, long run full employment and an economic stimulus to achieve that end.

Yes, it made economic sense for him to increase wages.
Hiking the minimum wage to $15 does not make economic sense.

yes, it does; it makes the same sense. only the right, never gets it.

yes, it does; it makes the same sense.

It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.

You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.

Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not in Congress, so there is literally nothing I can do. You were talking about complaining, that's just talk, no action.

I am advocating for equal protection of the law, every chance i get.

We already have it. Everyone who gets laid off can collect unemployment. Everyone who quits a job cannot. That's equal.

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

 

[hadit]

I am advocating for equal protection of the law, every chance i get.

We already have it. Everyone who gets laid off can collect unemployment. Everyone who quits a job cannot. That's equal.

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

It's right after the section on your right to have your condoms paid for by the taxpayer. You know, in the section written in crayon.

 

[danielpalos]

I am advocating for equal protection of the law, every chance i get.

We already have it. Everyone who gets laid off can collect unemployment. Everyone who quits a job cannot. That's equal.

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.

 

[danielpalos]

We already have it. Everyone who gets laid off can collect unemployment. Everyone who quits a job cannot. That's equal.

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

It's right after the section on your right to have your condoms paid for by the taxpayer. You know, in the section written in crayon.

nothing but diversion while claiming equality for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, gentlemen?

it is about, equal protection of the law.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We already have it. Everyone who gets laid off can collect unemployment. Everyone who quits a job cannot. That's equal.

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.

Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.

 

[hadit]

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

It's right after the section on your right to have your condoms paid for by the taxpayer. You know, in the section written in crayon.

nothing but diversion while claiming equality for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, gentlemen?

it is about, equal protection of the law.

Which we have. You don't have a right to a job, and if you voluntarily leave a job, you don't have the right to force someone else to continue paying you. It's equal.

I guess we could give you what you want and eliminate UI altogether.

 

[hadit]

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.

Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.

This is true. At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it. When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.

 

[danielpalos]

that is not equal. employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

that is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.

Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.

so what; why so much litigation about for-cause and at-will, if it is so simple?

only the right wing, never gets it. and, they wonder why it costs so much to do business.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

It's right after the section on your right to have your condoms paid for by the taxpayer. You know, in the section written in crayon.

nothing but diversion while claiming equality for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, gentlemen?

it is about, equal protection of the law.

Which we have. You don't have a right to a job, and if you voluntarily leave a job, you don't have the right to force someone else to continue paying you. It's equal.

I guess we could give you what you want and eliminate UI altogether.

do you always argue in a vacuum of special pleading?

we have paying paying for War on Poverty for over a generation, with no end in sight.

we could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis, but for right wing fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.

Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.

This is true. At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it. When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.

but for unemployment compensation.

it is more cost effective than means tested welfare. we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".

 

[hadit]

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

It's right after the section on your right to have your condoms paid for by the taxpayer. You know, in the section written in crayon.

nothing but diversion while claiming equality for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, gentlemen?

it is about, equal protection of the law.

Which we have. You don't have a right to a job, and if you voluntarily leave a job, you don't have the right to force someone else to continue paying you. It's equal.

I guess we could give you what you want and eliminate UI altogether.

do you always argue in a vacuum of special pleading?

we have paying paying for War on Poverty for over a generation, with no end in sight.

we could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis, but for right wing fantasy.

The bottom line remains, you do not have the Constitutional right to insist on getting paid after you quit a job and all your ranting to the contrary means nothing.

 

[hadit]

you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it. it is inalienable. that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.

Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.

This is true. At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it. When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.

but for unemployment compensation.

it is more cost effective than means tested welfare. we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".

UI is means tested welfare. It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one. If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation. You can't avoid it.

 

[danielpalos]

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

It's right after the section on your right to have your condoms paid for by the taxpayer. You know, in the section written in crayon.

nothing but diversion while claiming equality for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, gentlemen?

it is about, equal protection of the law.

Which we have. You don't have a right to a job, and if you voluntarily leave a job, you don't have the right to force someone else to continue paying you. It's equal.

I guess we could give you what you want and eliminate UI altogether.

do you always argue in a vacuum of special pleading?

we have paying paying for War on Poverty for over a generation, with no end in sight.

we could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis, but for right wing fantasy.

The bottom line remains, you do not have the Constitutional right to insist on getting paid after you quit a job and all your ranting to the contrary means nothing.

it is merely a matter of law. laws can be changed. why object to solving simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis; does the fantastical right wing prefer to keep paying for a War on Poverty, forever?

 

[danielpalos]

show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job

dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.

Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.

This is true. At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it. When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.

but for unemployment compensation.

it is more cost effective than means tested welfare. we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".

UI is means tested welfare. It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one. If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation. You can't avoid it.

no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.

Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse. The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.