Jobless claims at a 49 year low...

[danielpalos]

Have to pay off the quantitative easing interest from Obama, what you thought that 85 billion a month was free?


.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand; we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Great plan, take away all incentive to better one's self

we have a First World economy not a Third World economy;

manna from the public sector for Original Sinners who are not moral enough,

for a God.

Yes, we have a First World economy, which means there is a job for everyone that wants one.

Here is a little holy scripture for you...For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

I am beginning to like the Gator.

you would.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand; we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Great plan, take away all incentive to better one's self

we have a First World economy not a Third World economy;

manna from the public sector for Original Sinners who are not moral enough,

for a God.

Yes, we have a First World economy, which means there is a job for everyone that wants one.

Here is a little holy scripture for you...For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

I am beginning to like the Gator.

you would.

Unlike you he is logical. I like logical people.

 

[danielpalos]

Great plan, take away all incentive to better one's self

we have a First World economy not a Third World economy;

manna from the public sector for Original Sinners who are not moral enough,

for a God.

Yes, we have a First World economy, which means there is a job for everyone that wants one.

Here is a little holy scripture for you...For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

I am beginning to like the Gator.

you would.

Unlike you he is logical. I like logical people.

lol. you have nothing but fallacies.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Have to pay off the quantitative easing interest from Obama, what you thought that 85 billion a month was free?


.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand; we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Great plan, take away all incentive to better one's self

we have a First World economy not a Third World economy;

manna from the public sector for Original Sinners who are not moral enough,

for a God.

Yes, we have a First World economy, which means there is a job for everyone that wants one.

Here is a little holy scripture for you...For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

We have a First Amendment, original sinners.

What does that have to do with paying people for not doing anything?

 

[danielpalos]

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand; we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Great plan, take away all incentive to better one's self

we have a First World economy not a Third World economy;

manna from the public sector for Original Sinners who are not moral enough,

for a God.

Yes, we have a First World economy, which means there is a job for everyone that wants one.

Here is a little holy scripture for you...For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

We have a First Amendment, original sinners.

What does that have to do with paying people for not doing anything?

it is more cost effective than having to lie for means tested welfare.

a cost savings.

and, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

what part of the laws of the demand and supply, do you right wingers, not get?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

it is more cost effective than having to lie for means tested welfare.

a cost savings.

A cost savings at the price of a segment of society never becoming productive members of said society. Seems a bad payoff.

and, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

what part of the laws of the demand and supply, do you right wingers, not get?

I assume this part is about the minimum wage. It is you that does not understand supply and demand, if you did you would know that supply and demand sets wages where the market will absorb them, no higher, no lower. If there is a lower supply of labor, wages for in demand jobs go up.

To try and game the system with an artificial minimum wage merely means that the employers have to raise the cost of their goods/services and thus those using them, to include the employees themselves, are paying more and there is no change in demand at all, unless demand goes down as people do not wish to pay more for the same product/service.

 

[danielpalos]

it is more cost effective than having to lie for means tested welfare.

a cost savings.

A cost savings at the price of a segment of society never becoming productive members of said society. Seems a bad payoff.

and, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

what part of the laws of the demand and supply, do you right wingers, not get?

I assume this part is about the minimum wage. It is you that does not understand supply and demand, if you did you would know that supply and demand sets wages where the market will absorb them, no higher, no lower. If there is a lower supply of labor, wages for in demand jobs go up.

To try and game the system with an artificial minimum wage merely means that the employers have to raise the cost of their goods/services and thus those using them, to include the employees themselves, are paying more and there is no change in demand at all, unless demand goes down as people do not wish to pay more for the same product/service.

don't know what you mean; that is what we have now. an income means potential labor can "retrain and retool", regardless of employment status. it is a form of automatic stabilization for our economy.

a cost of living adjustment, so labor can afford to create more demand and pay more in taxes.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

don't know what you mean; that is what we have now. an income means potential labor can "retrain and retool", regardless of employment status. it is a form of automatic stabilization for our economy.

Then pay for them to retrain and retool, do not just give them money and say "here, do good things". Perhaps you have heard the old saying about giving a man a fish...

a cost of living adjustment, so labor can afford to create more demand and pay more in taxes.

Any rise in pay needs to be a result of higher demand, increasing pay to try and create more demand is like putting your parachute on after you jump out of the plane.

 

[danielpalos]

don't know what you mean; that is what we have now. an income means potential labor can "retrain and retool", regardless of employment status. it is a form of automatic stabilization for our economy.

Then pay for them to retrain and retool, do not just give them money and say "here, do good things". Perhaps you have heard the old saying about giving a man a fish...

a cost of living adjustment, so labor can afford to create more demand and pay more in taxes.

Any rise in pay needs to be a result of higher demand, increasing pay to try and create more demand is like putting your parachute on after you jump out of the plane.

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am referring to. Solving simple poverty is the result. Automatic stabilization of our economy is the goal.

What are you talking about?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

don't know what you mean; that is what we have now. an income means potential labor can "retrain and retool", regardless of employment status. it is a form of automatic stabilization for our economy.

Then pay for them to retrain and retool, do not just give them money and say "here, do good things". Perhaps you have heard the old saying about giving a man a fish...

a cost of living adjustment, so labor can afford to create more demand and pay more in taxes.

Any rise in pay needs to be a result of higher demand, increasing pay to try and create more demand is like putting your parachute on after you jump out of the plane.

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am referring to. Solving simple poverty is the result. Automatic stabilization of our economy is the goal.

What are you talking about?

There is no need to compensate for a good and useful mechanism like a natural level of unemployment. The natural level of unemployment is the churning of the workforce, it is vital to keeping a fresh and productive workforce.

If people are paid to sit on their asses and watch TV, then there is no churning, there is no incentive to be a productive member of the workforce.

 

[danielpalos]

don't know what you mean; that is what we have now. an income means potential labor can "retrain and retool", regardless of employment status. it is a form of automatic stabilization for our economy.

Then pay for them to retrain and retool, do not just give them money and say "here, do good things". Perhaps you have heard the old saying about giving a man a fish...

a cost of living adjustment, so labor can afford to create more demand and pay more in taxes.

Any rise in pay needs to be a result of higher demand, increasing pay to try and create more demand is like putting your parachute on after you jump out of the plane.

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am referring to. Solving simple poverty is the result. Automatic stabilization of our economy is the goal.

What are you talking about?

There is no need to compensate for a good and useful mechanism like a natural level of unemployment. The natural level of unemployment is the churning of the workforce, it is vital to keeping a fresh and productive workforce.

If people are paid to sit on their asses and watch TV, then there is no churning, there is no incentive to be a productive member of the workforce.

only in right wing fantasy. capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is for the bottom line of capitalists, not Labor.

Why complain about the cost of social services, since you get a natural rate of unemployment, for it, right wingers.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

don't know what you mean; that is what we have now. an income means potential labor can "retrain and retool", regardless of employment status. it is a form of automatic stabilization for our economy.

Then pay for them to retrain and retool, do not just give them money and say "here, do good things". Perhaps you have heard the old saying about giving a man a fish...

a cost of living adjustment, so labor can afford to create more demand and pay more in taxes.

Any rise in pay needs to be a result of higher demand, increasing pay to try and create more demand is like putting your parachute on after you jump out of the plane.

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am referring to. Solving simple poverty is the result. Automatic stabilization of our economy is the goal.

What are you talking about?

There is no need to compensate for a good and useful mechanism like a natural level of unemployment. The natural level of unemployment is the churning of the workforce, it is vital to keeping a fresh and productive workforce.

If people are paid to sit on their asses and watch TV, then there is no churning, there is no incentive to be a productive member of the workforce.

only in right wing fantasy. capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is for the bottom line of capitalists, not Labor.

Why complain about the cost of social services, since you get a natural rate of unemployment, for it, right wingers.

Your plan encourages people to sit on their ass and do nothing, that is never a good plan.

 

[danielpalos]

don't know what you mean; that is what we have now. an income means potential labor can "retrain and retool", regardless of employment status. it is a form of automatic stabilization for our economy.

Then pay for them to retrain and retool, do not just give them money and say "here, do good things". Perhaps you have heard the old saying about giving a man a fish...

a cost of living adjustment, so labor can afford to create more demand and pay more in taxes.

Any rise in pay needs to be a result of higher demand, increasing pay to try and create more demand is like putting your parachute on after you jump out of the plane.

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am referring to. Solving simple poverty is the result. Automatic stabilization of our economy is the goal.

What are you talking about?

There is no need to compensate for a good and useful mechanism like a natural level of unemployment. The natural level of unemployment is the churning of the workforce, it is vital to keeping a fresh and productive workforce.

If people are paid to sit on their asses and watch TV, then there is no churning, there is no incentive to be a productive member of the workforce.

only in right wing fantasy. capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is for the bottom line of capitalists, not Labor.

Why complain about the cost of social services, since you get a natural rate of unemployment, for it, right wingers.

Your plan encourages people to sit on their ass and do nothing, that is never a good plan.

You don't seem to believe in Capitalism.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then pay for them to retrain and retool, do not just give them money and say "here, do good things". Perhaps you have heard the old saying about giving a man a fish...


Any rise in pay needs to be a result of higher demand, increasing pay to try and create more demand is like putting your parachute on after you jump out of the plane.

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am referring to. Solving simple poverty is the result. Automatic stabilization of our economy is the goal.

What are you talking about?

There is no need to compensate for a good and useful mechanism like a natural level of unemployment. The natural level of unemployment is the churning of the workforce, it is vital to keeping a fresh and productive workforce.

If people are paid to sit on their asses and watch TV, then there is no churning, there is no incentive to be a productive member of the workforce.

only in right wing fantasy. capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is for the bottom line of capitalists, not Labor.

Why complain about the cost of social services, since you get a natural rate of unemployment, for it, right wingers.

Your plan encourages people to sit on their ass and do nothing, that is never a good plan.

You don't seem to believe in Capitalism.

I do actually, 100%. Capitalism does not pay people to sit on their asses and do nothing unless they have earned the right to do so

 

[danielpalos]

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am referring to. Solving simple poverty is the result. Automatic stabilization of our economy is the goal.

What are you talking about?

There is no need to compensate for a good and useful mechanism like a natural level of unemployment. The natural level of unemployment is the churning of the workforce, it is vital to keeping a fresh and productive workforce.

If people are paid to sit on their asses and watch TV, then there is no churning, there is no incentive to be a productive member of the workforce.

only in right wing fantasy. capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is for the bottom line of capitalists, not Labor.

Why complain about the cost of social services, since you get a natural rate of unemployment, for it, right wingers.

Your plan encourages people to sit on their ass and do nothing, that is never a good plan.

You don't seem to believe in Capitalism.

I do actually, 100%. Capitalism does not pay people to sit on their asses and do nothing unless they have earned the right to do so

A natural rate of unemployment for the benefit of Capitalists and Their bottom line, is public policy; compensation for that public policy, is earned to the same extent.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A natural rate of unemployment for the benefit of Capitalists and Their bottom line, is public policy; compensation for that public policy, is earned to the same extent.

In a capitalist system, what benefits the Capitalists, benefits all. When my boss makes more money, that is good not just for him but for me as it can provide me with increased salary and job security. The natural rate of unemployment is a benefit to all involved, if both sides use it wisely. About 7 years ago, I spent 4.5 months unemployed due to no fault of my own. It was a wake up call for me and drove me to get my Masters. The natural rate of unemployment is, as its name implies, a natural part of the system.

You want to artificially change that natural part of the system, doing so messes with the whole system.

 

[danielpalos]

A natural rate of unemployment for the benefit of Capitalists and Their bottom line, is public policy; compensation for that public policy, is earned to the same extent.

In a capitalist system, what benefits the Capitalists, benefits all. When my boss makes more money, that is good not just for him but for me as it can provide me with increased salary and job security. The natural rate of unemployment is a benefit to all involved, if both sides use it wisely. About 7 years ago, I spent 4.5 months unemployed due to no fault of my own. It was a wake up call for me and drove me to get my Masters. The natural rate of unemployment is, as its name implies, a natural part of the system.

You want to artificially change that natural part of the system, doing so messes with the whole system.

No, it doesn't. Wealth disparity is a social dilemma in our republic.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy. Equal protection of the law is all that is necessary.

 

[sealybobo]

i thought that had more to do with the funding requirement by the right wing, for the postal service.

There's more than one reason the Postal Service is losing money

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, it doesn't. Wealth disparity is a social dilemma in our republic.

No it is not. Wealth disparity exist within every economic system, it is the nature of things. Some are more driven, some are luckier, some are lazy and do not care, some have bad luck. Life is never fair and nature does not provide equality.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Yes, we have been over this 10 times now, it does, and that is a good thing. Capitalism could not survive without it. And you want to artificially remove it. You wish to destroy capitalism

It is public policy Equal protection of the law is all that is necessary.

Equal protection of the law is what we have, if you work you earn unemployment, if you do not then you do not. It is the same for everyone.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Wealth disparity is a social dilemma in our republic.

No it is not. Wealth disparity exist within every economic system, it is the nature of things. Some are more driven, some are luckier, some are lazy and do not care, some have bad luck. Life is never fair and nature does not provide equality.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Yes, we have been over this 10 times now, it does, and that is a good thing. Capitalism could not survive without it. And you want to artificially remove it. You wish to destroy capitalism

It is public policy Equal protection of the law is all that is necessary.

Equal protection of the law is what we have, if you work you earn unemployment, if you do not then you do not. It is the same for everyone.

Yes, it is a social dilemma. The proof is, the right wing whines about the cost the cost of social services. That means, You must be Wrong, even though you are on the Right, Wing.

Simply coming up with obsolete dogma, ten times, is still, worthless. You don't know what you are talking about; nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. You don't know what a natural rate of unemployment is. The proof is, socialism calls it a natural rate of failure or inefficiency.

The law is, employment at the will of either party. You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law.