Unemployment benefits aren't causing a labor shortage. Low wages are. What if, and this may sound wild, businesses paid low wage workers more

[Anathema]

These jobs are meant to be after school jobs not career choices

I won’t go quite so far as to claim these are after school jobs only, but I do agree they should not be career choices for people who are trying to support a family.

These are not “breadwinner” jobs. They should not be the primary income for a family, or even a healthy adult living in their own. They are useful secondary incomes for families, or part time “extra cash” jobs for housewives and mothers at times.

 

[jbrownson0831]

To answer your question, if pay went up prices would go up making pay insufficient again which would make pay go up there by raising prices, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

I just don't understand why all you people think companies sit around and run equations that track fixed costs, variable costs, and marginal revenue and then set prices based on cost. That is a damn fantasy. I have told this story before but it bears repeating. Marketing class, a top ten university, visiting speaker, Phd in business, VP with Procter Gamble. He holds up a can of Arid Extra Dry deodorant and asks, how to we determine how much to charge for this? My hot shot ass with my big Economics degree shoot my hand up and get recognized, I start waxing about MRC and maximizing profit and he cuts me off laughing. "Son" he says, "we charge whatever the hell we can get".

Price is based on supply and demand. Do you see "cost" in there anywhere? Produce something that costs more than the market clearing price and watch that company sell it at a loss and stop producing. Well guess what, labor works the exact same way. First, companies pay as little as they can get by with. In fact, people are not paid what they are worth. People are paid just enough to keep them from taking their skills and their knowledge to the competition. In fact, if minimum wage was based on productivity it would be north of twenty bucks an hour right now. People have learned to get by with less, and getting them back into the labor force is going to cost companies money. I mean I am sorry, but if Bank of America can implement a minimum wage of $25 an hour by 2025 for bank tellers, retailers are going to have to cough up more than $15.

Thats funny. Companies are already and will continue to send their jobs offshore to the greatest extent possible, or automate. And as long as Pinochijoe pays dregs to sit home and allows illegals into the country nothing will change.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Inflation happens anyway. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy, regardless therefore wages should outpace inflation.

Inflation doesn't happen anyways---we are entering hyper inflation and it thanks to Biden and his croonies spend spend print print tax payer money....are throughly fucked and those on the bottom will be hurt the worst.

Yes, it does. Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics. Their bigotry provides all answers for them.

You are delusional Daniel...

 

[jbrownson0831]

To answer your question, if pay went up prices would go up making pay insufficient again which would make pay go up there by raising prices, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

I just don't understand why all you people think companies sit around and run equations that track fixed costs, variable costs, and marginal revenue and then set prices based on cost. That is a damn fantasy. I have told this story before but it bears repeating. Marketing class, a top ten university, visiting speaker, Phd in business, VP with Procter Gamble. He holds up a can of Arid Extra Dry deodorant and asks, how to we determine how much to charge for this? My hot shot ass with my big Economics degree shoot my hand up and get recognized, I start waxing about MRC and maximizing profit and he cuts me off laughing. "Son" he says, "we charge whatever the hell we can get".

Price is based on supply and demand. Do you see "cost" in there anywhere? Produce something that costs more than the market clearing price and watch that company sell it at a loss and stop producing. Well guess what, labor works the exact same way. First, companies pay as little as they can get by with. In fact, people are not paid what they are worth. People are paid just enough to keep them from taking their skills and their knowledge to the competition. In fact, if minimum wage was based on productivity it would be north of twenty bucks an hour right now. People have learned to get by with less, and getting them back into the labor force is going to cost companies money. I mean I am sorry, but if Bank of America can implement a minimum wage of $25 an hour by 2025 for bank tellers, retailers are going to have to cough up more than $15.

...and who needs a bank teller anymore?

 

[danielpalos]

Inflation happens anyway. Labor must be able to afford our first world economy, regardless therefore wages should outpace inflation.

Inflation doesn't happen anyways---we are entering hyper inflation and it thanks to Biden and his croonies spend spend print print tax payer money....are throughly fucked and those on the bottom will be hurt the worst.

Yes, it does. Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about economics. Their bigotry provides all answers for them.

You are delusional Daniel...

Thank Goodness You have no valid argument to support your gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.

 

[WinterBorn]

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

That is exactly right. Both the employer and the employee can end the relationship at will.

But UC is in place to provide temporary assistance for individuals who have lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not meant to be an open-ended paycheck for those who choose not to work and provide for themselves.

So what. The law is the law. Why do right-wingers have any problems being Legal to the law?

You would have to ask a right-winger.

I have no problem being "Legal to the Law". But there is no law that says you can voluntarily quit your job and still get paid.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And nothing in any of that says that you should continue to be paid if you voluntarily quit your job.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the express law. Only illegals do that, Right-Wingers.

I have not appealed to ignorance of anything. Nothing in the description you posted indicates you will (or should) be paid when you quit a job.

Yes, you have; do you not realize it, Right-Winger? It is implied by the law. If employers don't need good Cause then neither does Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Neither side needs good cause to terminate the relationship. That still does not mean you get paid for quitting a job.

 

[danielpalos]

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

That is exactly right. Both the employer and the employee can end the relationship at will.

But UC is in place to provide temporary assistance for individuals who have lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not meant to be an open-ended paycheck for those who choose not to work and provide for themselves.

So what. The law is the law. Why do right-wingers have any problems being Legal to the law?

You would have to ask a right-winger.

I have no problem being "Legal to the Law". But there is no law that says you can voluntarily quit your job and still get paid.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And nothing in any of that says that you should continue to be paid if you voluntarily quit your job.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the express law. Only illegals do that, Right-Wingers.

I have not appealed to ignorance of anything. Nothing in the description you posted indicates you will (or should) be paid when you quit a job.

Yes, you have; do you not realize it, Right-Winger? It is implied by the law. If employers don't need good Cause then neither does Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Neither side needs good cause to terminate the relationship. That still does not mean you get paid for quitting a job.

How is that equality? All an employer needs is a profit motive.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[WinterBorn]

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

That is exactly right. Both the employer and the employee can end the relationship at will.

But UC is in place to provide temporary assistance for individuals who have lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not meant to be an open-ended paycheck for those who choose not to work and provide for themselves.

So what. The law is the law. Why do right-wingers have any problems being Legal to the law?

You would have to ask a right-winger.

I have no problem being "Legal to the Law". But there is no law that says you can voluntarily quit your job and still get paid.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And nothing in any of that says that you should continue to be paid if you voluntarily quit your job.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the express law. Only illegals do that, Right-Wingers.

I have not appealed to ignorance of anything. Nothing in the description you posted indicates you will (or should) be paid when you quit a job.

Yes, you have; do you not realize it, Right-Winger? It is implied by the law. If employers don't need good Cause then neither does Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Neither side needs good cause to terminate the relationship. That still does not mean you get paid for quitting a job.

How is that equality? All an employer needs is a profit motive.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

It is total equality. All the employer needs is a profit motive? The same can be said of the employee.

You have whined about it not being equal, and yet you have never said what the inequality would be.

 

[danielpalos]

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

That is exactly right. Both the employer and the employee can end the relationship at will.

But UC is in place to provide temporary assistance for individuals who have lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not meant to be an open-ended paycheck for those who choose not to work and provide for themselves.

So what. The law is the law. Why do right-wingers have any problems being Legal to the law?

You would have to ask a right-winger.

I have no problem being "Legal to the Law". But there is no law that says you can voluntarily quit your job and still get paid.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And nothing in any of that says that you should continue to be paid if you voluntarily quit your job.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the express law. Only illegals do that, Right-Wingers.

I have not appealed to ignorance of anything. Nothing in the description you posted indicates you will (or should) be paid when you quit a job.

Yes, you have; do you not realize it, Right-Winger? It is implied by the law. If employers don't need good Cause then neither does Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Neither side needs good cause to terminate the relationship. That still does not mean you get paid for quitting a job.

How is that equality? All an employer needs is a profit motive.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

It is total equality. All the employer needs is a profit motive? The same can be said of the employee.

You have whined about it not being equal, and yet you have never said what the inequality would be.

Not for unemployment compensation. Yet, corporate downsizing is done merely for the bottom line.

 

[WinterBorn]

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

That is exactly right. Both the employer and the employee can end the relationship at will.

But UC is in place to provide temporary assistance for individuals who have lost their job through no fault of their own. It is not meant to be an open-ended paycheck for those who choose not to work and provide for themselves.

So what. The law is the law. Why do right-wingers have any problems being Legal to the law?

You would have to ask a right-winger.

I have no problem being "Legal to the Law". But there is no law that says you can voluntarily quit your job and still get paid.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And nothing in any of that says that you should continue to be paid if you voluntarily quit your job.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the express law. Only illegals do that, Right-Wingers.

I have not appealed to ignorance of anything. Nothing in the description you posted indicates you will (or should) be paid when you quit a job.

Yes, you have; do you not realize it, Right-Winger? It is implied by the law. If employers don't need good Cause then neither does Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Neither side needs good cause to terminate the relationship. That still does not mean you get paid for quitting a job.

How is that equality? All an employer needs is a profit motive.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

It is total equality. All the employer needs is a profit motive? The same can be said of the employee.

You have whined about it not being equal, and yet you have never said what the inequality would be.

Not for unemployment compensation. Yet, corporate downsizing is done merely for the bottom line.

If an employer gets rid of an employee and it increases profits in the long term, they were over staffed.

Corporations typically downsize when they are in trouble. It is not just done on a whim. If they are selling less of what they produce, or their competition is taking a bigger portion of the business, they downsize. That also means they usually produce less of their product or provide an inferior product.

If you are offered more money to work somewhere else, but they want you now and will not wait for you to work out a notice, you are doing the same thing the company is doing. You are terminating the relationship for profit.

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

 

[hadit]

See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....

That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.

 

[hadit]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.

 

[hadit]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.

He's still trying to claim that not getting paid imposes an unfair burden on those who don't want to work. He also claims to have a case open in Sacramento Superior Court on the subject.

 

[danielpalos]

See, that wasn't so hard. Paying high wages to low-value contributors IS a recipe for inflation. Displacing those contributors with automation does keep inflation at bay. From a humanist view, it's both cruel and demeaning - no argument there. It is, however, an economic fact - even higher skilled jobs will displaced as automation advances. In the year 2525.....

That is your special pleading. And, you are mistaken; The cruel and demeaning part is a lack of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

No it isn't. No matter how much you plead, you don't get paid if you won't work an available job.

Why do right-wingers have a problem being legal to our own laws? Only illegals should have that problem.

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

That's not what the law says.

What does employment at-will mean, right wingers?

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.

Why do tax payers pay corporate welfare when corporations don't need Good cause to fire anyone?

 

[danielpalos]

Still no inequality. Still no UC for quitting your job.

Of course there is. Labor as the least wealthy also has the right to quit on an at-will basis merely for a profit motive. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage that right.

If you can increase your profit by quitting, then do so. But do not expect the tax payer to pay you for quitting.

And yes, there is a legal basis for denying UC to an employee who quit. It is part of the laws governing UC. UC is only to be used as temporary assistance for employees who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.

He's still trying to claim that not getting paid imposes an unfair burden on those who don't want to work. He also claims to have a case open in Sacramento Superior Court on the subject.

Right-wingers keep alleging they believe in being legal to the law in border threads.

 

[danielpalos]

The right-wing analogy here is that State laws regarding gun control must be valid regardless of anything in our Constituition.