Chick-fil-A restaurant in CA will pay employees $17 an hour

[danielpalos]

The impact is monopsony until they reach the minimum wage, and Only then, do mostly normal market forces apply.

The right wing still can't explain why their claims are just plain Wrong.

Seattle and San Francisco should have higher unemployment rates not lower unemployment rates for their higher minimum wage. The right wing, really is, Clueless and Causeless on this one.

The impact is monopsony until they reach the minimum wage,

Everyone earning under minimum wage has their wages suppressed by monopsony?

Wait, what? Dude!!!!

Yes; that analogous effect via the "mechanism of the law".

Or, socialism of the law, if you prefer that.

Or, the command economics of "moving the goal posts for Capitalism", if you prefer that.

I can be flexible.

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

 

[hadit]

The impact is monopsony until they reach the minimum wage,

Everyone earning under minimum wage has their wages suppressed by monopsony?

Wait, what? Dude!!!!

Yes; that analogous effect via the "mechanism of the law".

Or, socialism of the law, if you prefer that.

Or, the command economics of "moving the goal posts for Capitalism", if you prefer that.

I can be flexible.

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

 

[Slyhunter]

Yes; that analogous effect via the "mechanism of the law".

Or, socialism of the law, if you prefer that.

Or, the command economics of "moving the goal posts for Capitalism", if you prefer that.

I can be flexible.

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

1992 I made $10.00 an hour.
2018 I make $10.00 an hour. Stuff didn't stay the same price. I had to learn to live with less stuff.
1970 My father could afford to provide for the family on his income 60 hours a week.
2018 we have 3 adults working to provide for a family of 5 and we don't eat out anymore. No discretionary income. Yes we have prettier stuff like the internet and flat screen tv, but we have less on the necessity's of life like Pizza and McDonalds.

So those who want to force the MW to go up to catch up with Inflation have valid arguments for doing so.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes; that analogous effect via the "mechanism of the law".

Or, socialism of the law, if you prefer that.

Or, the command economics of "moving the goal posts for Capitalism", if you prefer that.

I can be flexible.

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

 

[danielpalos]

How about this compromise. Unemployment compensation that meets or beats the equivalent hourly cost of social services; and, no more statutory minimum wage laws.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes; that analogous effect via the "mechanism of the law".

Or, socialism of the law, if you prefer that.

Or, the command economics of "moving the goal posts for Capitalism", if you prefer that.

I can be flexible.

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

I love that he keeps using monopsony in exactly the opposite of its definition.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena.

If they both raised their minimum wage to $20/hour would that result in more jobs or fewer? Why?

 

[hadit]

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

1992 I made $10.00 an hour.
2018 I make $10.00 an hour. Stuff didn't stay the same price. I had to learn to live with less stuff.
1970 My father could afford to provide for the family on his income 60 hours a week.
2018 we have 3 adults working to provide for a family of 5 and we don't eat out anymore. No discretionary income. Yes we have prettier stuff like the internet and flat screen tv, but we have less on the necessity's of life like Pizza and McDonalds.

So those who want to force the MW to go up to catch up with Inflation have valid arguments for doing so.

1992 - $10/hr was higher than MW.
1970 - Guarantee your father made more than MW.
2018 is 26 years after 1992. The salary should be significantly higher. What happened? Do all three adults work for near or at the MW?

The MW is not intended to provide sufficient income to raise a family. Now if you want to have it keep up with inflation, you can't expect to double it overnight without impact on jobs. More than 60% of Americans earn less than $20/hr. Jack the MW to $15/hr and all of those and more will demand raises as well. It's not as simple as "make them pay more".

 

[danielpalos]

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

I love that he keeps using monopsony in exactly the opposite of its definition.

dear, it is just Your lousy reading comprehension.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena.

If they both raised their minimum wage to $20/hour would that result in more jobs or fewer? Why?

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work. There would still be no market below the minimum wage.

You could say, anyone who wants to work, gets a million dollar salary and anyone who doesn't want to work gets fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[hadit]

Not really. You're dogmatic to the extreme and never learn anything.

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

 

[Slyhunter]

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

1992 I made $10.00 an hour.
2018 I make $10.00 an hour. Stuff didn't stay the same price. I had to learn to live with less stuff.
1970 My father could afford to provide for the family on his income 60 hours a week.
2018 we have 3 adults working to provide for a family of 5 and we don't eat out anymore. No discretionary income. Yes we have prettier stuff like the internet and flat screen tv, but we have less on the necessity's of life like Pizza and McDonalds.

So those who want to force the MW to go up to catch up with Inflation have valid arguments for doing so.

1992 - $10/hr was higher than MW.
1970 - Guarantee your father made more than MW.
2018 is 26 years after 1992. The salary should be significantly higher. What happened? Do all three adults work for near or at the MW?

The MW is not intended to provide sufficient income to raise a family. Now if you want to have it keep up with inflation, you can't expect to double it overnight without impact on jobs. More than 60% of Americans earn less than $20/hr. Jack the MW to $15/hr and all of those and more will demand raises as well. It's not as simple as "make them pay more".

I saw a map that showed minimum income required to live in a two bedroom home and Florida was listed as $20.35 an hour.

google found this -->

MW needs to be set and needs to be linked directly to cost of living so that when cost of living goes up so does mw.

Actually 2 bedroom home is for two people so when asked what the MW should be pull this map up and divide by 2.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

It is your understanding that is fallacious. Fallacy is all you have.

 

[Slyhunter]

Why does Seattle, gainsay your right wing mythos?

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

Raising the MW to $100 won't work unless we cap capital gains and max income. MW needs to be directly linked to Cost of Living. That way they don't inflate their way out of paying a decent wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

Raising the MW to $100 won't work unless we cap capital gains and max income. MW needs to be directly linked to Cost of Living. That way they don't inflate their way out of paying a decent wage.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work. There would still be no market below the minimum wage.

You could say, anyone who wants to work, gets a million dollar salary and anyone who doesn't want to work gets fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[hadit]

Because you have it backwards. Seattle can afford to pay higher wages because there is more wealth concentrated there. Remember, they were wealthy long before they raised the MW, not the other way around. If a high MW really created a lot of wealth, far more cities and states would be raising it, but people far smarter than you are not doing it.

Now I've educated you, but I fully expect you to learn as much from it as you have in the past, that is to say, nothing at all.

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

It is your understanding that is fallacious. Fallacy is all you have.

Correction: fallacy is all I see in your posts. See, once again, you're just going to keep insisting that you're right with no effort to back up anything you say. So, try real hard to convince me that we can eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. Try.

 

[hadit]

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

Raising the MW to $100 won't work unless we cap capital gains and max income. MW needs to be directly linked to Cost of Living. That way they don't inflate their way out of paying a decent wage.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work. There would still be no market below the minimum wage.

You could say, anyone who wants to work, gets a million dollar salary and anyone who doesn't want to work gets fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

IOW, welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

The minimum wage was raised, by law, not by markets. That is the difference. It is literally unlawful to purchase labor for less than the minimum wage; a de jure monopsony. Market forces apply once wages are open market operations.

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

It is your understanding that is fallacious. Fallacy is all you have.

Correction: fallacy is all I see in your posts. See, once again, you're just going to keep insisting that you're right with no effort to back up anything you say. So, try real hard to convince me that we can eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. Try.

Are you claiming that the unemployment rate is lower because it conforms to Your mythos?

Monopsony explains it. Government is the single agency responsible.

 

[danielpalos]

And without the wealth in the area, it would not be possible to go that high that fast. Like I've said multiple times, if raising the MW had no negative effect on jobs, we could just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty.

We can't, thus raising the MW does have a negative effect on jobs. It is then only a question of how much effect and if any positives might outweigh the negatives. You, however, are so extremely dogmatic that you will not acknowledge this but will continue pretending the rest of the country is as wealthy as Seattle and will continue spouting your nonsense. Surprise me, and post something rational.

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

Raising the MW to $100 won't work unless we cap capital gains and max income. MW needs to be directly linked to Cost of Living. That way they don't inflate their way out of paying a decent wage.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work. There would still be no market below the minimum wage.

You could say, anyone who wants to work, gets a million dollar salary and anyone who doesn't want to work gets fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

IOW, welfare.

In other words, a Social solution where Capitalism only has failure and excuses.

 

[hadit]

Not true. Seattle and San Francisco both experienced the same phenomena. That phenomena must happen, due to the monopsony effect of statutory wage laws.

If you maintain what I said is not true, then you must believe we could eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr. And you think you don't post fallacies. Once again, your dogmatism has painted you into the same corner you end up in every time you try to talk about the MW and jobs. Next up is a series of mumbles about a few favorite meaningless phrases then you disappear for a while, only to start all over again in a few weeks.

Raising the MW to $100 won't work unless we cap capital gains and max income. MW needs to be directly linked to Cost of Living. That way they don't inflate their way out of paying a decent wage.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work. There would still be no market below the minimum wage.

You could say, anyone who wants to work, gets a million dollar salary and anyone who doesn't want to work gets fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

IOW, welfare.

In other words, a Social solution where Capitalism only has failure and excuses.

Be consistent and call it welfare. Stop pretending it's unemployment.