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

[hadit]

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.

Come on, try. You're not trying yet. Convince me.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Means tested welfare is for those for whom merely solving for a poverty of money, may not be enough.

Unemployment compensation is not welfare, but compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Come on, try. You're not trying yet. Convince me.

I don't have to convince You. I merely need to be able to prove, You have nothing but fallacy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work.

Why would more people be looking for work?
Please explain further.

 

[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.

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.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work.

Why would more people be looking for work?
Please explain further.

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work.

Why would more people be looking for work?
Please explain further.

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

So you won't answer because you don't know? Or because you're afraid?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work.

Why would more people be looking for work?
Please explain further.

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

So you won't answer because you don't know? Or because you're afraid?

don't understand Capitalism?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work.

Why would more people be looking for work?
Please explain further.

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

So you won't answer because you don't know? Or because you're afraid?

don't understand Capitalism?

Can't back up your claim with economics?

I asked, if they both raised their minimum wage to $20/hour would that result in more jobs or fewer?

Instead of answering,
a) there would be more jobs
b) there would be fewer jobs
c) there would be no change
d) there isn't enough information to answer

You said, More people would be looking for work.

Without more context, your answer makes no sense.
Would more people be looking for work because so many would be fired under such a hike?
Would more be looking for work because a higher wage calls out more supply of potential workers?

Or is it just more of your nonsensical gibberish to cover your lack of economic knowledge?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work.

Why would more people be looking for work?
Please explain further.

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

So you won't answer because you don't know? Or because you're afraid?

don't understand Capitalism?

Can't back up your claim with economics?

I asked, if they both raised their minimum wage to $20/hour would that result in more jobs or fewer?

Instead of answering,
a) there would be more jobs
b) there would be fewer jobs
c) there would be no change
d) there isn't enough information to answer

You said, More people would be looking for work.

Without more context, your answer makes no sense.
Would more people be looking for work because so many would be fired under such a hike?
Would more be looking for work because a higher wage calls out more supply of potential workers?

Or is it just more of your nonsensical gibberish to cover your lack of economic knowledge?

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment. It is the Reason why more people will look for work at the higher wage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work.

Why would more people be looking for work?
Please explain further.

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

So you won't answer because you don't know? Or because you're afraid?

don't understand Capitalism?

Can't back up your claim with economics?

I asked, if they both raised their minimum wage to $20/hour would that result in more jobs or fewer?

Instead of answering,
a) there would be more jobs
b) there would be fewer jobs
c) there would be no change
d) there isn't enough information to answer

You said, More people would be looking for work.

Without more context, your answer makes no sense.
Would more people be looking for work because so many would be fired under such a hike?
Would more be looking for work because a higher wage calls out more supply of potential workers?

Or is it just more of your nonsensical gibberish to cover your lack of economic knowledge?

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment. It is the Reason why more people will look for work at the higher wage.

It is the Reason why more people will look for work at the higher wage.

More people want to work at $20/hour than at $7.25/hour?

 

[hadit]

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.

Come on, try. You're not trying yet. Convince me.

I don't have to convince You. I merely need to be able to prove, You have nothing but fallacy.

You haven't done that either.

 

[hadit]

The result would be the same. More people would be looking for work.

Why would more people be looking for work?
Please explain further.

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

So you won't answer because you don't know? Or because you're afraid?

don't understand Capitalism?

Can't back up your claim with economics?

I asked, if they both raised their minimum wage to $20/hour would that result in more jobs or fewer?

Instead of answering,
a) there would be more jobs
b) there would be fewer jobs
c) there would be no change
d) there isn't enough information to answer

You said, More people would be looking for work.

Without more context, your answer makes no sense.
Would more people be looking for work because so many would be fired under such a hike?
Would more be looking for work because a higher wage calls out more supply of potential workers?

Or is it just more of your nonsensical gibberish to cover your lack of economic knowledge?

Capitalism. There is no unemployment, only underpayment. It is the Reason why more people will look for work at the higher wage.

And there are some of the nonsense phrases you mumble over and over.