$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[Wyatt earp]

While the arguments for wage-push inflation are appealing, the empirical evidence is not so solid. In fact, looking back at the history of minimum wage increases has only a very weak association with inflationary pressures on prices in an economy.--https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp

Bwahaha, minimum wage used to be 25 cents an hour.

So what. The minimum wage was not adjusted for around a decade and inflation still happened.

So in your mind inflation wouldn't of happened if we raised minimum wage?

However did you reach that conclusion? I am saying inflation happens anyway. It should not be a problem if wages outpace inflation.

How can minimum wage ever outpace inflation when minimum wage is one of the reasons for inflation?

It helps if you understand micro or macroeconomics. Only a fraction of the labor force makes the minimum wage; thus, even the dollar menu at a fast food place won't double even if the minimum wage does.

No shit sherlock but your weekly budget will go up 20% for people making $15 an hour

Shouldn't be a problem for labor whose income went up by 100%

We already established they will lose hours

There is no law requiring it. Those employers can simply pass on costs to their consumers to remain profitable.

So you want me to pay more, and why?

You pay more anyway, the minimum wage used to be twenty-five cents, remember. Why do you "hate on the Poor"?

You miss the point, I could live on 25cents an hour, if this was the 1930s

 

[jbander]

Instead of bettering one-self to be worthy of higher wages, what we did is legislate incompetence. Pay them $15 an hour for work a blind toddler can do better and quicker than what is out there. Do you think that there will be high inflation and higher unemployment? Great, then we can pay them unemployment.

It is a cost of living adjustment, it really is that simple. It has nothing to do with microeconomics.

An $8.00 cost of living adjustment? Nope.

funny!

 

[Supposn]

We've never doubled it, [i.e. the federal minimum wage rate] overnight and effected 50% of the work force, which is what you want to do.

Hadit, federal minimum wage rate increases have always been enacted in gradual increments rather than in a sudden manner. There’s always been sufficient notice for labor markets’ adjustments; Congress never “shocked” the labor markets.

Are you contending the Congressional House has now passed other than a gradual minimum rate increase? Please provide a link to the text of the House’s passed minimum rate bill that so offends you. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Instead of bettering one-self to be worthy of higher wages, what we did is legislate incompetence. Pay them $15 an hour for work a blind toddler can do better and quicker than what is out there. Do you think that there will be high inflation and higher unemployment? Great, then we can pay them unemployment.

It is a cost of living adjustment, it really is that simple. It has nothing to do with microeconomics.

An $8.00 cost of living adjustment? Nope.

The minimum wage was not raised for around a decade while inflation still happened. We should not be subsidizing the Rich with cheap labor or we will only get more of it at the expense of the People and their tax money.

 

[danielpalos]

While the arguments for wage-push inflation are appealing, the empirical evidence is not so solid. In fact, looking back at the history of minimum wage increases has only a very weak association with inflationary pressures on prices in an economy.--https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp

Bwahaha, minimum wage used to be 25 cents an hour.

So what. The minimum wage was not adjusted for around a decade and inflation still happened.

So in your mind inflation wouldn't of happened if we raised minimum wage?

However did you reach that conclusion? I am saying inflation happens anyway. It should not be a problem if wages outpace inflation.

How can minimum wage ever outpace inflation when minimum wage is one of the reasons for inflation?

It helps if you understand micro or macroeconomics. Only a fraction of the labor force makes the minimum wage; thus, even the dollar menu at a fast food place won't double even if the minimum wage does.

No shit sherlock but your weekly budget will go up 20% for people making $15 an hour

Shouldn't be a problem for labor whose income went up by 100%

We already established they will lose hours

There is no law requiring it. Those employers can simply pass on costs to their consumers to remain profitable.

So you want me to pay more, and why?

You pay more anyway, the minimum wage used to be twenty-five cents, remember. Why do you "hate on the Poor"?

You miss the point, I could live on 25cents an hour, if this was the 1930s

The point was about Inflation still happening anyway even if the minimum wage was not raised for around a decade. No one but right wingers are implying the minimum wage should be that low in modern times.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The minimum wage was not raised for around a decade while inflation still happened.

Inflation adjusted, it would be less than $9.

 

[danielpalos]

The minimum wage was not raised for around a decade while inflation still happened.

Inflation adjusted, it would be less than $9.

Only inflation is not the whole story. Wages would be much higher if they had also kept up with productivity not just inflation. The value or valuation of labor is worth more due to greater productivity.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wages would be much higher if they had also kept up with productivity not just inflation. The value or valuation of labor is worth more due to greater productivity.

Why do you feel a minimum wage worker has much greater productivity today compared to 2009?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

No it didn't.
Compensation for the CEOs of the 350 largest, by revenue, corporations grew that much.
Why ignore the compensation of the other 200,000 CEOs in the US?

 

[jbander]

The minimum wage was not raised for around a decade while inflation still happened.

Inflation adjusted, it would be less than $9.

Only inflation is not the whole story. Wages would be much higher if they had also kept up with productivity not just inflation. The value or valuation of labor is worth more due to greater productivity.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

During the Obama administration, the right wangers wined endlessly because he did reach GDP numbers that they perceived as being so important, Which was a ignorant joke. During Obama's presidency he had the highest profits in history, the fastest rate of profit increase in history and the gold standard of the highest percentage of growth that was profit in history. making the lame weak minded right wing a laughing stock, Tell me what company in the history of business would complain about increased profits without increased production that then needs no increase in jobs. Or increase of any other expenses.

 

[danielpalos]

Wages would be much higher if they had also kept up with productivity not just inflation. The value or valuation of labor is worth more due to greater productivity.

Why do you feel a minimum wage worker has much greater productivity today compared to 2009?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

No it didn't.
Compensation for the CEOs of the 350 largest, by revenue, corporations grew that much.
Why ignore the compensation of the other 200,000 CEOs in the US?

Because it can and has been measured by the discipline of Economics.

Workforce productivity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And, the point about CEO compensation is that valuation increase could not have happened without increased workforce productivity.

While the national minimum wage did rise roughly in step with productivity growth from its inception in 1938 until 1968, in the more than five decades since then, it has not even kept pace with inflation. However, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968 it would be over $24 an hour today, as shown in the Figure below.[1]--https://cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/

 

[danielpalos]

The minimum wage was not raised for around a decade while inflation still happened.

Inflation adjusted, it would be less than $9.

Only inflation is not the whole story. Wages would be much higher if they had also kept up with productivity not just inflation. The value or valuation of labor is worth more due to greater productivity.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

During the Obama administration, the right wangers wined endlessly because he did reach GDP numbers that they perceived as being so important, Which was a ignorant joke. During Obama's presidency he had the highest profits in history, the fastest rate of profit increase in history and the gold standard of the highest percentage of growth that was profit in history. making the lame weak minded right wing a laughing stock, Tell me what company in the history of business would complain about increased profits without increased production that then needs no increase in jobs. Or increase of any other expenses.

The republicans also had nothing but obstruction for the shovel ready jobs that administration was trying to create; and, then they complained about the weak GDP growth like typical right wingers.

 

[hadit]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

 

[hadit]

We've never doubled it, [i.e. the federal minimum wage rate] overnight and effected 50% of the work force, which is what you want to do.

Hadit, federal minimum wage rate increases have always been enacted in gradual increments rather than in a sudden manner. There’s always been sufficient notice for labor markets’ adjustments; Congress never “shocked” the labor markets.

Are you contending the Congressional House has now passed other than a gradual minimum rate increase? Please provide a link to the text of the House’s passed minimum rate bill that so offends you. Respectfully, Supposn

Note carefully that I referenced the poster's desire to immediately double the MW, not Congress doing so. The poster has stated to me that he wishes to do that.

 

[danielpalos]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

 

[jbander]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

There is no longer a republican party , they are the hate party now and have been for years. They exist for only one reason, to increase the wealth of the golden few. Their tool HATE!

 

[hadit]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

The express law states that you cannot collect UC except for a period of time after you've been laid off from a job. What part of that is unclear in your mind? At-will employment is not about UC, no matter how many times you repeat that it is. You are the only one who believes it.

 

[hadit]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

There is no longer a republican party , they are the hate party now and have been for years. They exist for only one reason, to increase the wealth of the golden few. Their tool HATE!

Awww, look at you. Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The minimum wage was not raised for around a decade while inflation still happened.

Inflation adjusted, it would be less than $9.

Only inflation is not the whole story. Wages would be much higher if they had also kept up with productivity not just inflation. The value or valuation of labor is worth more due to greater productivity.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

During the Obama administration, the right wangers wined endlessly because he did reach GDP numbers that they perceived as being so important, Which was a ignorant joke. During Obama's presidency he had the highest profits in history, the fastest rate of profit increase in history and the gold standard of the highest percentage of growth that was profit in history. making the lame weak minded right wing a laughing stock, Tell me what company in the history of business would complain about increased profits without increased production that then needs no increase in jobs. Or increase of any other expenses.

Thank QE1,2,3

 

[Supposn]

Hadit, I don’t know if Daniel Palos did or didn’t advocate doubling the federal minimum wage rate overnight. If he did so, why are you responding to another of his more outrageous opinions?
Responding to him lends credence to others falsely contending any credible participants of political or economic discussions are seriously advocating other than gradual increases of the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully, Supposn

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]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

The express law states that you cannot collect UC except for a period of time after you've been laid off from a job. What part of that is unclear in your mind? At-will employment is not about UC, no matter how many times you repeat that it is. You are the only one who believes it.

The express unequal protection of our at-will employment laws does that. It is unConstitutional on its face.