Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
70% of the American economy is consumer demand.
Trickle down doesn't work.
Are you seriously this retarded?See there's your problem with understanding nuance. Job killing would depend on how high you raised it. If you raised the federal to 10.10, the ONLY businesses that would go under are some tiny mom and pop shops who were never very profitable to begin with. So what? This is about giving people wages they can live off of. Tell me if you had a wage that was less than 10 an hour could you live off of it? What if you had a kid? I know you cons have a deficit with empathy, but just try to imagine it will you?Not only would it kill "some jobs", but it would put a lot of "job providers" out of business.I really don't understand why Rightwingers have no appreciation for demand side economics. If you raised the minimum wage to a reasonable level, you are going to see economic growth. This is economics 101. If wages are higher, people are going to spend more money. Yes, initially it may kill some jobs, but it would regain that number and more with a stimulation to business. The reason why most (not all) CEO's are against raising the wage because it is easier for them to just keep their ridiculous amount of money rather than investing in a stronger labor force that would fair for anyone.
You want higher wages, stimulate the economy- not Wall Street.
Obama prints about $80 billion per month of paper dollars then dumps them. The value of the dollar is in the shitter, interest rates are near zero, and the only investment refuge is... Wall Street.
NOT Main Street.
God damnit man, get your ass to the Bitch-Slap thread.
If it was raised to that much the job loss would be less than 500,000 jobs.
70% of the American economy is consumer demand.
Trickle down doesn't work.
You simply aren't a very bright person are you. You sure do like distributing cake though!Pretty sure you don't understand history let alone the nuances of qoutes from the time.Based on the RWs posts on this board, I'd say their philosophy exemplifies the "let them eat cake' concept.States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
RWs prefer that people be on welfare.
Better yet, let them starve.
"Let them eat cake" was a totalitarian government structure that was taking other people's earnings in order that they themselves never had to eat cake but thought that was good enough for everyone else.
The cake was welfare you two simple minded idiot's. It was deemed good enough for the peasantry by the holder's of power. Indeed it was good enough and more than should be expected from the democratic party...I'm sorry I jumped ahead in history. Welfare is the best you can hope for under democrat rule. Be happy with your cake and keep voting democrat.
No hope for the future, no hope for your work just be happy with the fucking cake! That's the democrat way of trapping people in poverty. No worries though, you're in good hands with the government...eat your fucking cake and be happy.
Only 1.7% of Americans get more than 50% of their income from welfare.
States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
People will work if you pay them more? What a bunch of mule fritters.
The POINT is, employers will not be able to afford the higher labor costs, and will obviously either not hire more people, or will lay off current employees, or in any event pass on the higher costs of doing business to consumers. Either way, not good.
Advocates of increased minimum wages have NEVER run a business. Margins are tight. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
OMFG This is hilarious!!Pretty sure you don't understand history let alone the nuances of qoutes from the time.Based on the RWs posts on this board, I'd say their philosophy exemplifies the "let them eat cake' concept.States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
RWs prefer that people be on welfare.
Better yet, let them starve.
"Let them eat cake" was a totalitarian government structure that was taking other people's earnings in order that they themselves never had to eat cake but thought that was good enough for everyone else.
The cake was welfare you two simple minded idiot's. It was deemed good enough for the peasantry by the holder's of power. Indeed it was good enough and more than should be expected from the democratic party...I'm sorry I jumped ahead in history. Welfare is the best you can hope for under democrat rule. Be happy with your cake and keep voting democrat.
No hope for the future, no hope for your work just be happy with the fucking cake! That's the democrat way of trapping people in poverty. No worries though, you're in good hands with the government...eat your fucking cake and be happy.
LMAO Pot calling kettle.You simply aren't a very bright person are you. You sure do like distributing cake though!Pretty sure you don't understand history let alone the nuances of qoutes from the time.Based on the RWs posts on this board, I'd say their philosophy exemplifies the "let them eat cake' concept.States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
RWs prefer that people be on welfare.
Better yet, let them starve.
"Let them eat cake" was a totalitarian government structure that was taking other people's earnings in order that they themselves never had to eat cake but thought that was good enough for everyone else.
The cake was welfare you two simple minded idiot's. It was deemed good enough for the peasantry by the holder's of power. Indeed it was good enough and more than should be expected from the democratic party...I'm sorry I jumped ahead in history. Welfare is the best you can hope for under democrat rule. Be happy with your cake and keep voting democrat.
No hope for the future, no hope for your work just be happy with the fucking cake! That's the democrat way of trapping people in poverty. No worries though, you're in good hands with the government...eat your fucking cake and be happy.
Only 1.7% of Americans get more than 50% of their income from welfare.
Again, pot calling kettle.70% of the American economy is consumer demand.
Trickle down doesn't work.Are you seriously this retarded?See there's your problem with understanding nuance. Job killing would depend on how high you raised it. If you raised the federal to 10.10, the ONLY businesses that would go under are some tiny mom and pop shops who were never very profitable to begin with. So what? This is about giving people wages they can live off of. Tell me if you had a wage that was less than 10 an hour could you live off of it? What if you had a kid? I know you cons have a deficit with empathy, but just try to imagine it will you?Not only would it kill "some jobs", but it would put a lot of "job providers" out of business.I really don't understand why Rightwingers have no appreciation for demand side economics. If you raised the minimum wage to a reasonable level, you are going to see economic growth. This is economics 101. If wages are higher, people are going to spend more money. Yes, initially it may kill some jobs, but it would regain that number and more with a stimulation to business. The reason why most (not all) CEO's are against raising the wage because it is easier for them to just keep their ridiculous amount of money rather than investing in a stronger labor force that would fair for anyone.
You want higher wages, stimulate the economy- not Wall Street.
Obama prints about $80 billion per month of paper dollars then dumps them. The value of the dollar is in the shitter, interest rates are near zero, and the only investment refuge is... Wall Street.
NOT Main Street.
God damnit man, get your ass to the Bitch-Slap thread.
If it was raised to that much the job loss would be less than 500,000 jobs.
It's a perfect aphorism whenever Esmie tries to insult anyone.Again, pot calling kettle.70% of the American economy is consumer demand.
Trickle down doesn't work.Are you seriously this retarded?See there's your problem with understanding nuance. Job killing would depend on how high you raised it. If you raised the federal to 10.10, the ONLY businesses that would go under are some tiny mom and pop shops who were never very profitable to begin with. So what? This is about giving people wages they can live off of. Tell me if you had a wage that was less than 10 an hour could you live off of it? What if you had a kid? I know you cons have a deficit with empathy, but just try to imagine it will you?Not only would it kill "some jobs", but it would put a lot of "job providers" out of business.I really don't understand why Rightwingers have no appreciation for demand side economics. If you raised the minimum wage to a reasonable level, you are going to see economic growth. This is economics 101. If wages are higher, people are going to spend more money. Yes, initially it may kill some jobs, but it would regain that number and more with a stimulation to business. The reason why most (not all) CEO's are against raising the wage because it is easier for them to just keep their ridiculous amount of money rather than investing in a stronger labor force that would fair for anyone.
You want higher wages, stimulate the economy- not Wall Street.
Obama prints about $80 billion per month of paper dollars then dumps them. The value of the dollar is in the shitter, interest rates are near zero, and the only investment refuge is... Wall Street.
NOT Main Street.
God damnit man, get your ass to the Bitch-Slap thread.
If it was raised to that much the job loss would be less than 500,000 jobs.
LOL In fact, I'll bet he comes up with some other meaning for the pot calling the kettle aphorism. LOL This guy's a laugh a minute.
70% of the American economy is consumer demand.
Trickle down doesn't work.
I'm going to name my post satellite it went so far over your head.OMFG This is hilarious!!Pretty sure you don't understand history let alone the nuances of qoutes from the time.Based on the RWs posts on this board, I'd say their philosophy exemplifies the "let them eat cake' concept.States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
RWs prefer that people be on welfare.
Better yet, let them starve.
"Let them eat cake" was a totalitarian government structure that was taking other people's earnings in order that they themselves never had to eat cake but thought that was good enough for everyone else.
The cake was welfare you two simple minded idiot's. It was deemed good enough for the peasantry by the holder's of power. Indeed it was good enough and more than should be expected from the democratic party...I'm sorry I jumped ahead in history. Welfare is the best you can hope for under democrat rule. Be happy with your cake and keep voting democrat.
No hope for the future, no hope for your work just be happy with the fucking cake! That's the democrat way of trapping people in poverty. No worries though, you're in good hands with the government...eat your fucking cake and be happy.
You are an idiot. Where did you get all this so called 'factual' information. It is a statement attributed to Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution. She never said it, in fact, but it is meant to suggest a simple thing: that the rich have no compassion for the poor. All this other BS you are espousing about it is nonsense and fabricated long, long after the fact. You apparently think you are educated because you've read this BS somewhere. You illustrate you are so simple minded, you'll believe whatever your read and think yourself educated and informed. LMAO
70% of the American economy is consumer demand.
Trickle down doesn't work.
Maybe it is just me, and I am confused . But can you connect the dots between those two statements for me? I do not know whether I agree or disagree with you. Thanks
.
LOL. You should be on TV! Funny stuff. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer because the rich are expanding their income base and profits are up. Jobs going offshores is one reason for that but it's not the rich's fault, it's too costly here, the regs are too tough and like you mentioned...healthcare.The Chinese have a famous symbol of a dragon devouring its own tail. It is the perfect allegory for malignant capitalism that thinks it lives in a bubble. When the top 1% depend upon a 70% demographic that makes them wealthy, when that 70% becomes impoverished waiting for that 1% to "trickle down" any money to them, particularly in a strapped economy where the 1% is hoarding their wealth and not trickling any down [banks are only loaning to people with enough liquid assets to not need the loan in the first place], then consumption slows to a death crawl. At which point the 1% begin to notice a drop in their portfolio's net worth.
Their reaction, as it is now, is to punish the poor for "all those entitlements you don't need!"...[in a blind panic trying to figure out why their assets are diminishing rapidly]. Since the powerful are always the rich and the rich always get their way with internal policy, entitlements will be stripped even further to the poor. Whereupon even more of the rich's assets begin to disappear because even less consuming may now happen from the 70% they depend on.
And our country will remain in this downward spiral until the rich realize it is because they have not given back to the system that made them that way. Let's just hope that happens before Putin and pals bleed this raging bull to its knees.
A quick solution to the problem where all would profit and win would be immediate across the board universal healthcare. Jobs would return because employers would suddenly have that monthly outlay evaporated for their insured workers. They could immediately hire more people. The equivalent of a second mortgage in premiums and deductables monthly for folks that insure themselves currrently would suddenly flood back into consuming for that 70%. Banks would begin loaning again and the economy would receive the CPR it needs.
Right now though what's going on is the paramedics [who are the rich sitting on all that stimulation wealth are running around in a panic...or temporarily giddied by random spikes in the DOW...alternately...] are running around either being too complacent or screaming hysterically "What do we do??!!" while the patient lies on the ground in cardiac arrest.
I suggest breaking out the paddles and doing some jolts to the chest. It's called universal healthcare...
States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
repupublicans want to take from the workers what the worker should make for their hard work .. no liberal expects something for nothing ... republicans think just because they own a business that they can take all the profet and not share it for their hard work ... what they are finding out is losers like you bite into their they are entitled to have someting for nothing rant ...a fair wage is all they ask for ...its moron like you who doesn't get it ... its morons like you who fight against their own best interest...States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
LMAO you're conclusion is all wrong, go peddle your socialism on some street corner with a bullhorn.
Wow another republican who doesn't know the meaning of words in the english language.
Socialism isn't private money being paid to workers. That's capitalism.
This has nothing to do with public tax dollars. This is private dollars from private business paying their workers a wage that's enough to live on without having to run to the government for money just to be able to sustain themselves.
What you republicans want is socialism. You want wages for private business to be very low and for tax dollars to make up the difference.
If you really hated socialism you would support a higher minimum wage so that people wouldn't qualify for government assistance.
You've got that conservative projection down to an art form.
Liberals want to take from those who have more and give to those who have less for no other reason than "fairness" and "fair share". They tell their dumb ass base they are entitled to a share. I say when the bunch of gutless lazy liberals grow a pair, start their own business, risk their own money and future, make the personal sacrifices required to start and grow a business then they can feel free to give part of the business to their employees if they choose. I seriously doubt that will happen. Employees here's your paycheck, that's it now get back to work until next payday or feel free to go work some other job.
Learn to write before you rant. People might have some idea of what you're whining about.repupublicans want to take from the workers what the worker should make for their hard work .. no liberal expects something for nothing ... republicans think just because they own a business that they can take all the profet and not share it for their hard work ... what they are finding out is losers like you bite into their they are entitled to have someting for nothing rant ...a fair wage is all they ask for ...its moron like you who doesn't get it ... its morons like you who fight against their own best interest...States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
LMAO you're conclusion is all wrong, go peddle your socialism on some street corner with a bullhorn.
Wow another republican who doesn't know the meaning of words in the english language.
Socialism isn't private money being paid to workers. That's capitalism.
This has nothing to do with public tax dollars. This is private dollars from private business paying their workers a wage that's enough to live on without having to run to the government for money just to be able to sustain themselves.
What you republicans want is socialism. You want wages for private business to be very low and for tax dollars to make up the difference.
If you really hated socialism you would support a higher minimum wage so that people wouldn't qualify for government assistance.
You've got that conservative projection down to an art form.
Liberals want to take from those who have more and give to those who have less for no other reason than "fairness" and "fair share". They tell their dumb ass base they are entitled to a share. I say when the bunch of gutless lazy liberals grow a pair, start their own business, risk their own money and future, make the personal sacrifices required to start and grow a business then they can feel free to give part of the business to their employees if they choose. I seriously doubt that will happen. Employees here's your paycheck, that's it now get back to work until next payday or feel free to go work some other job.
repupublicans want to take from the workers what the worker should make for their hard work .. no liberal expects something for nothing ... republicans think just because they own a business that they can take all the profet and not share it for their hard work ... what they are finding out is losers like you bite into their they are entitled to have someting for nothing rant ...a fair wage is all they ask for ...its moron like you who doesn't get it ... its morons like you who fight against their own best interest...
LOL. You should be on TV! Funny stuff. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer because the rich are expanding their income base and profits are up. Jobs going offshores is one reason for that but it's not the rich's fault, it's too costly here, the regs are too tough and like you mentioned...healthcare.The Chinese have a famous symbol of a dragon devouring its own tail. It is the perfect allegory for malignant capitalism that thinks it lives in a bubble. When the top 1% depend upon a 70% demographic that makes them wealthy, when that 70% becomes impoverished waiting for that 1% to "trickle down" any money to them, particularly in a strapped economy where the 1% is hoarding their wealth and not trickling any down [banks are only loaning to people with enough liquid assets to not need the loan in the first place], then consumption slows to a death crawl. At which point the 1% begin to notice a drop in their portfolio's net worth.
Their reaction, as it is now, is to punish the poor for "all those entitlements you don't need!"...[in a blind panic trying to figure out why their assets are diminishing rapidly]. Since the powerful are always the rich and the rich always get their way with internal policy, entitlements will be stripped even further to the poor. Whereupon even more of the rich's assets begin to disappear because even less consuming may now happen from the 70% they depend on.
And our country will remain in this downward spiral until the rich realize it is because they have not given back to the system that made them that way. Let's just hope that happens before Putin and pals bleed this raging bull to its knees.
A quick solution to the problem where all would profit and win would be immediate across the board universal healthcare. Jobs would return because employers would suddenly have that monthly outlay evaporated for their insured workers. They could immediately hire more people. The equivalent of a second mortgage in premiums and deductables monthly for folks that insure themselves currrently would suddenly flood back into consuming for that 70%. Banks would begin loaning again and the economy would receive the CPR it needs.
Right now though what's going on is the paramedics [who are the rich sitting on all that stimulation wealth are running around in a panic...or temporarily giddied by random spikes in the DOW...alternately...] are running around either being too complacent or screaming hysterically "What do we do??!!" while the patient lies on the ground in cardiac arrest.
I suggest breaking out the paddles and doing some jolts to the chest. It's called universal healthcare...
The poor get poorer because there are less opportunity, not because someone took money they didn't have to begin with. So the gap widens and does to this day since liberal policies are taking us in the wrong direction. Punishing the rich has never increased an economy that I know of but you must have an example?
Apparently you can't read. Plus you have it ass backwards, the poor live off the rich and don't even contribute to federal income taxes. Liberals hurt the economy then complain that the economy isn't sustaining the poor. It's senseless.So you're in favor of universal healthcare too? Glad we're on the same page.
The French Aristocracy also thought anyone pointing out their dependance upon the lower classes was hilarious [or seditious]. No doubt the gilded halls rang with great guffaws of laughter just before the Bastille was stormed..and heads began to fall...
Those same assholes were saying yesterday that reduced taxes don't increase spending...I guess only free shit and EBT cards increase spending. Who knew?States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
Many business groups argue that raising the minimum wage discourages job growth by increasing the cost of hiring. A Congressional Budget Office report earlier this year lent some support for that view. It found that a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, as President Obama supports, could cost 500,000 jobs nationwide.
But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
learn to comprehend what is written before putting your foot into your mouth....Learn to write before you rant. People might have some idea of what you're whining about.repupublicans want to take from the workers what the worker should make for their hard work .. no liberal expects something for nothing ... republicans think just because they own a business that they can take all the profet and not share it for their hard work ... what they are finding out is losers like you bite into their they are entitled to have someting for nothing rant ...a fair wage is all they ask for ...its moron like you who doesn't get it ... its morons like you who fight against their own best interest...States with higher minimum wage gain more jobs
People will work if you pay them more. More money means bills are paid, less debt, and more put back into the economy.
LMAO you're conclusion is all wrong, go peddle your socialism on some street corner with a bullhorn.
Wow another republican who doesn't know the meaning of words in the english language.
Socialism isn't private money being paid to workers. That's capitalism.
This has nothing to do with public tax dollars. This is private dollars from private business paying their workers a wage that's enough to live on without having to run to the government for money just to be able to sustain themselves.
What you republicans want is socialism. You want wages for private business to be very low and for tax dollars to make up the difference.
If you really hated socialism you would support a higher minimum wage so that people wouldn't qualify for government assistance.
You've got that conservative projection down to an art form.
Liberals want to take from those who have more and give to those who have less for no other reason than "fairness" and "fair share". They tell their dumb ass base they are entitled to a share. I say when the bunch of gutless lazy liberals grow a pair, start their own business, risk their own money and future, make the personal sacrifices required to start and grow a business then they can feel free to give part of the business to their employees if they choose. I seriously doubt that will happen. Employees here's your paycheck, that's it now get back to work until next payday or feel free to go work some other job.
