$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,250
Reaction score
6,655
Points
280
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
Within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
Respectfully, Supposn
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.
Does anyone other than you EVER say that UC law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,889
Reaction score
3,410
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
Within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
Respectfully, Supposn
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.
Does anyone other than you EVER say that UC law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?
Right wingers don't care about the law; they just like to practice bigotry upon the less fortunate. The law is employment at the will of either party. Be legal to the law right wingers.
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
873
Points
170
Without lies and distortions the right couldn't and wouldn't exist and without taking away massive amounts of votes from the left , they wouldn't exist also and as we watch they are proving that point as we speak. I think democrats are nuts if they let this hate group sit in the background sniping at our democracy to destroy it, so they can implant their dictator. We can get rid of them in the next two years by exactly what they would do and are doing as we speak. Anyone who Supports Trump are simply traitors to this country and should be treated as such. Dump them all. Let them screen themselves out into something that isn't hate driven and works for more then just the golden few, if they turn again, get rid of them again.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,480
Reaction score
13,506
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
Within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
Respectfully, Supposn
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.
Does anyone other than you EVER say that UC law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?
Right wingers don't care about the law; they just like to practice bigotry upon the less fortunate. The law is employment at the will of either party. Be legal to the law right wingers.
Be employed, or not, all you want.
Still no bum payments for you.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,250
Reaction score
6,655
Points
280
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
Within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
Respectfully, Supposn
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.
Does anyone other than you EVER say that UC law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?
Right wingers don't care about the law; they just like to practice bigotry upon the less fortunate. The law is employment at the will of either party. Be legal to the law right wingers.
So the answer is no, no legal scholar agrees with you. If you could have found one, you would have already linked to him, but you can't. You're simply wrong, unable to admit you're wrong, and continue with the most fallacies. You are correct only in your fantasy world, not in the real world.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,889
Reaction score
3,410
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
Within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
Respectfully, Supposn
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.
Does anyone other than you EVER say that UC law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?
Right wingers don't care about the law; they just like to practice bigotry upon the less fortunate. The law is employment at the will of either party. Be legal to the law right wingers.
Be employed, or not, all you want.
Still no bum payments for you.
Proof, the law means nothing to right wingers.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,889
Reaction score
3,410
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
Within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
Respectfully, Supposn
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.
Does anyone other than you EVER say that UC law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?
Right wingers don't care about the law; they just like to practice bigotry upon the less fortunate. The law is employment at the will of either party. Be legal to the law right wingers.
So the answer is no, no legal scholar agrees with you. If you could have found one, you would have already linked to him, but you can't. You're simply wrong, unable to admit you're wrong, and continue with the most fallacies. You are correct only in your fantasy world, not in the real world.
No legal scholar disagrees with me or You would have linked to one. Right wingers having nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law and right wing fantasy is literally, incredible.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,250
Reaction score
6,655
Points
280
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
Within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
Respectfully, Supposn
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.
Does anyone other than you EVER say that UC law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?
Right wingers don't care about the law; they just like to practice bigotry upon the less fortunate. The law is employment at the will of either party. Be legal to the law right wingers.
So the answer is no, no legal scholar agrees with you. If you could have found one, you would have already linked to him, but you can't. You're simply wrong, unable to admit you're wrong, and continue with the most fallacies. You are correct only in your fantasy world, not in the real world.
No legal scholar disagrees with me or You would have linked to one. Right wingers having nothing but appeals to ignorance of the law and right wing fantasy is literally, incredible.
You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.

The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
Does anyone other than you, [i.e. Daniel Palos] EVER say that UC, [i.e. unemployment compensation] law covers those who have never held a job and never intend to?
Hadit, Daniel Palos continues advocating his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I’m unaware of any government, or credible government official, or economist that are or are not credible, ever having been in concurrence with Daniel Palos’s unique concept.
If it exists, it’s must only be rarely found among those within lunatic fringes of political or economic opinion spectrums’ left or right ends.

When I can no longer tolerate that nonsense, I set my group membership account to ignore all Daniel Palos’s posts.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,889
Reaction score
3,410
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.

The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
Means nothing (since the right wing also had no problem with unConstitutional black codes.)

The is employment at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by a State for the general welfare of the people.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,889
Reaction score
3,410
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Proof, the law means nothing to right wingers.
You literally are making all that up in your head. UC law applies only to employees let go from a job through no fault of their own, that's fact.
How is that equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Since that is the case, how can any Agency of a State deny or disparage equal protection of that right under the law?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,480
Reaction score
13,506
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.

The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
Means nothing (since the right wing also had no problem with unConstitutional black codes.)

The is employment at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by a State for the general welfare of the people.
The is employment at the will of either party

Yup, no one can force you to work.....obviously.

Still no bum payments.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,250
Reaction score
6,655
Points
280
You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.

The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
Means nothing (since the right wing also had no problem with unConstitutional black codes.)

The is employment at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by a State for the general welfare of the people.
You're the only one who thinks that.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,250
Reaction score
6,655
Points
280
Proof, the law means nothing to right wingers.
You literally are making all that up in your head. UC law applies only to employees let go from a job through no fault of their own, that's fact.
How is that equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Since that is the case, how can any Agency of a State deny or disparage equal protection of that right under the law?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You're the only one who thinks that.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top