Does AOC know $15 minimum wage in states like Mississippi will put people out of work?

[danielpalos]

Full-time?

It being McDonald's, one assumes they offer both full- and part-time . . . that is, one assumes it if one has actually been employed and knows something about having a job. I have no idea what YOU assume.

Unless the jobs being listed are full-time (40 hours per-week) the end result is questionable as to how much that employer adds to the economy.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. You got caught in a lie and are trying to backpedal your way out. Again, pathetic!

How can part-time jobs contribute as much as full-time jobs in the economy?

We don't know, ask the democrats who raised the minimum wage and hours got cut.


.

there is no unemployment only underpayment under true capitalism.

 

[hadit]

IOW, you want to take money OUT of the economy, use some of it to feed the government bureaucracy, then put a little of it back INTO the economy and hope it doesn't just disappear into the pocket of the nearest pot dealer?

You might as well try to fill a swimming pool by dipping water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end. You really need to learn about opportunity cost, because that money has to come from someone who no longer has it to do something he wants.

If someone is working, they deserve to be paid what their work is worth. If they can work but won't, why should they be compensated?

what are you talking about? compensation for simply being unemployed is market friendly.

How? I've already outlined how you're taking money out of the economy and putting some of it back in, and you've completely failed to deal with the opportunity cost. That money you took out is no longer there to be used. Deal with it.

How did you reach your conclusion? The Poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Most of that money will be circulating in local economies and engendering a positive multiplier effect in a market friendly manner.

You're still not dealing with the opportunity cost. Every dollar you take out of the economy represents a dollar less that is available to the person who earned it.

You haven't explained how that money is allegedly being taken out of the economy. The Poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Local economies will benefit from that three trillion in additional circulation.

Uhhh, dude, where do you think that money is going to come from? It will be taxed from the people that earned it. Every dollar taxed will be fewer dollars available to that person who earned it, fewer dollars available to them for spending in their local economies. Fewer dollars to invest.

You're saying three trillion in additional circulation, but you're failing to account for the loss of three trillion to pay for it. That money doesn't just magically appear, you know.

 

[hadit]

If I'm laid off, I can get unemployment compensation. The employer pays into it and it's there to be used. That's completely different from what you're talking about, which is paying someone for nothing more than existing.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. it is termed and styled, unemployment compensation.

No, what you want certainly is not unemployment compensation. It is welfare.

you simply appeal to emotion instead of reason. it is merely a correction for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; there is no reason for the Poor bear that onus.

I appeal to logic and reason. Unemployment Compensation means something specific, insurance that employers purchase so laid off employees have income while they're looking for another job. You're trying to give it a completely different meaning.

dear, Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. it is natural for capitalism to be that inefficient. correcting for that inefficiency promotes the general welfare, it really is that simple.

Translation to English: in any free economy, there will be those who refuse to work, even when jobs are available to them. Your solution is to pretend they're working and pay them as if they were.

 

[rightwinger]

AOC talks about about wanting to be like Britain, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark, only Britain has a minimum wage. Universal income? Finland experimented and they just ended the program because it wasn’t sustainable.

It seems she doesn’t know how those countries operate.

Since when is opening dialog a bad thing?

Why open a dialog when they are like you and AOC with room temperature IQs at best? Why do you deflect every statement when it blows your whole concept of how the world works?

I believe that the American Worker needs a raise. You can either agree or continue your Putin-communist manifesto.

Today’s workers don’t make much more than I made 20 years ago and have fewer benefits

 

[rightwinger]

anyone who is simply unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem due to a simply lack of income due to unemployment in our at-will employment States.

You keep changing your parameters. Earlier you claimed that welfare costs $14 per hour yet you don’t want to give those on welfare $14 per hour, why not?

because compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, better promotes the general welfare.

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

 

[protectionist]

Sucker

Explain why/how. And then explain how those voting for the mass murderer Hillary C. would not be a sucker.

 

[rightwinger]

Sucker

Explain why/how. And then explain how those voting for the mass murderer Hillary C. would not be a sucker.

History will look at the election of Donald J Trump and ask WTF?

How could the population be suckered in by the false promises and taunts of a snake oil salesman

 

[protectionist]

History will look at the election of Donald J Trump and ask WTF?

How could the population be suckered in by the false promises and taunts of a snake oil salesman

Looks like you've been watching CNN. Trump made promises - has kept them as we all benefit

 

[protectionist]

[QUOTE="rightwinger, post: 22529825, member: 20321"
Today’s workers don’t make muchmore than I made 20 years ago and have fewer benefits[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous

 

[Papageorgio]

You keep changing your parameters. Earlier you claimed that welfare costs $14 per hour yet you don’t want to give those on welfare $14 per hour, why not?

because compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, better promotes the general welfare.

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

 

[rightwinger]

History will look at the election of Donald J Trump and ask WTF?

How could the population be suckered in by the false promises and taunts of a snake oil salesman

Looks like you've been watching CNN. Trump made promises - has kept them as we all benefit

Where is that Healthplan he claimed to have?

 

[rightwinger]

because compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, better promotes the general welfare.

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

[Papageorgio]

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Well pass the law and I will quit my job, between my pension, SSI, I could use an extra $2000 a month.

 

[boedicca]

In 1968, most McD's workers were teenagers. Entry level jobs were great training for teenagers to learn a good work ethic. These jobs were never meant to enable someone to support a family.

Most, not all.

Uh, I said most. There are management employees who can make quite a good salary. (In-N-Out Burger pays their managers over $160K per year!) The point is that either the teenagers learn a work ethic which serves them well during the rest of their working life, or if they are motivated to do so, they have the opportunity for a career path into higher paying positions at McD's.

The issue was supervisors, not managers.

Supervisors are step in the ladder, bub.

Supervisors aren't managers.

So? Very few people start their working lives in high level management positions. Moving from crew member to supervisor is a step up.

 

[boedicca]

Oooh! A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside a phony persona.

Well played, sirruh!

 

[boedicca]

Amazon is raising its minimum wage to $15 following pressure from Bernie Sanders

Amazon is raising its minimum wage to $15 following pressure from Bernie Sanders

Yeah, and they also cut stock option grants for those employees, so they won't really be any better off.

 

[Mr Natural]

Where is that Healthplan he claimed to have?

A good quality family healthcare plan can be easily paid for with all that extra take home pay from the recent tax cuts.

 

[boedicca]

You keep changing your parameters. Earlier you claimed that welfare costs $14 per hour yet you don’t want to give those on welfare $14 per hour, why not?

because compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, better promotes the general welfare.

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

It also doesn't mean we should yearn for the days of Stalin or Mao.

Just sayin'.

 

[boedicca]

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That doesn't say that the taxes should be used for redistribution from productive people to lazy ones, bub.

 

[dblack]

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That doesn't say that the taxes should be used for redistribution from productive people to lazy ones, bub.

It sure doesn't. In particular, the Article 1, Section 8 says the taxes should be used for the general welfare. They were opposed to using to taxation to reward specific interests.