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.
Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offsother options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7Of course it does. It’s called minimum wageThat’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.Who determines what the value of labor is?
The buyer and the seller.
Almost...
Tell me what additional determinant I missed.
A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.
Of course it doesn't.
Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.
If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.
$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.
Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.
other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,
That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.
make their processes more efficient
It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.
Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.
Dear danielpalosYou miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.How old are you?I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.
But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?
Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offsother options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7Of course it does. It’s called minimum wageThat’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.Who determines what the value of labor is?
The buyer and the seller.
Almost...
Tell me what additional determinant I missed.
A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.
Of course it doesn't.
Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.
If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.
$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.
Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.
other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,
That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.
make their processes more efficient
It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.
Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.
ACA mandates discriminated against and penalized people who do not believe in govt mandated health care and insurance as the only choice but believe in providing better more cost effective health care by free enterprise alternatives such as cooperative medical associations.The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?
I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
What law have the states enacted that have the effect of unequal portection?
No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offsother options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7Of course it does. It’s called minimum wageThat’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.Who determines what the value of labor is?
The buyer and the seller.
Almost...
Tell me what additional determinant I missed.
A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.
Of course it doesn't.
Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.
If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.
$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.
Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.
other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,
That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.
make their processes more efficient
It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.
Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.
Your example isn’t realistic
No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?
businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.
Not for very long.
Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs
Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?
Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offsother options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7Of course it does. It’s called minimum wageThat’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.Who determines what the value of labor is?
The buyer and the seller.
Almost...
Tell me what additional determinant I missed.
A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.
Of course it doesn't.
Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.
If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.
$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.
Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.
other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,
That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.
make their processes more efficient
It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.
Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.
Your example isn’t realistic
No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?
businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.
Not for very long.
Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs
Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?
No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offsother options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7Of course it does. It’s called minimum wageThat’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.Who determines what the value of labor is?
The buyer and the seller.
Almost...
Tell me what additional determinant I missed.
A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.
Of course it doesn't.
Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.
If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.
$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.
Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.
other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,
That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.
make their processes more efficient
It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.
Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.
Your example isn’t realistic
No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?
businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.
Not for very long.
Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs
Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?
Nobody running a successful business would do that, not with $7 in labor
Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offsother options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7Of course it does. It’s called minimum wageThat’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.Who determines what the value of labor is?
The buyer and the seller.
Almost...
Tell me what additional determinant I missed.
A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.
Of course it doesn't.
Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.
If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.
$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.
Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.
other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,
That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.
make their processes more efficient
It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.
Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.
Your example isn’t realistic
No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?
businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.
Not for very long.
Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs
Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?
I never said hiking the minimum wage never causes layoffs
Way to leap in from out of the blue to personally assault the OP, "Moderator"Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.How old are you?I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.
But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?
Way to leap in from out of the blue to personally assault the OP, "Moderator"Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.How old are you?I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.
But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?
Bang up job of leading by example! No sense of shame indeed!
Funny, I would believe you if you could quote him saying so himself. Without the quote it's just personal attack. Pretty basic stuff.Way to leap in from out of the blue to personally assault the OP, "Moderator"Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.How old are you?I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.
But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?
Bang up job of leading by example! No sense of shame indeed!
I am also a poster in these forums. If you think what I posted is a personal assault on the OP, you haven't been here long.
The OP wants tax dollars to support him while he makes no effort to work. There should be shame in such an attitude.
It is your misunderstanding. It is still limited to a subset of people. The employed would not need it and those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough would not want it. Not regular welfare at all. Not means tested. Only the unemployed would need it.That is a FALLACY. The program works the way it does because it is limited to only a subset of people with a specific set of circumstances. Opening it up to everybody would introduce means testing and make it another welfare program. You don't like means testing, but that's what would happen. You would fundamentally change the nature of the program and it wouldn't work the way it does now. You can't avoid that, and STOP calling it "unequal protection of the laws", because it is NOT.You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.
If you mean right now or in the past, regular UC and extended UC due to the previous recession did what you claim and what was found was that UC generated a multiplier of two. That means that for every dollar spent on UC, two dollars of economic activity was generated. UC is a known Automatic stabilizer and much better than Congress having to come up with seemingly arbitrary and capricious, one time "solutions".At the same time you have fewer jobs you want the government to spend more. Who else sees the BIG problem with that?Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed makes that a moot, right wing point.It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.
Why not? Or, should I take your word for it simply because you are on the right wing.That meant nothing at all.The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?
I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?
Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.
Not at all. It the private sector would still be optimizing for their bottom line and unemployed labor would have a better and more stable opportunity to go to school to improve their skills. And, those persons would circulating capital and contributing to multiplier. And, no homeless problem as we do now, nor as many people risking eviction.Yes, paying more and more people to produce less and less is very efficient.
That is just You claiming a complete revamping. Nothing much would change. Unemployed persons would still apply for UC like usual. And, any "revamping" would mean employers don't have to keep track of unemployment benefits issues and become simpler for employers. UC is a State issue not an employer issue. So, if by revamping, you mean simplification, then yes it would be a revamping.Why completely revamp a program that works, when there is already one that provides what you say will cure simple poverty? Welfare already provides money to live on and job training.
That is your misunderstanding under any form of free market Capitalism. Employers could simply raise wages to attract employees. There is no unemployment under Capitalism only underpayment.And again you fail to acknowledge the truth that you will be incentivizing people to not work, even when they have jobs they can do.
Show us the link, don't merely imply you must be Right merely because you are on the right wing.That has not been the case with QE.
No inflation under QE? DURR.
I await the proof of your claim.
No one is requiring a good reason to fire employees for corporate downsizing. Any other silly questions?You miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.How old are you?I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.
But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?
You continue to whine about equal protection.
What protection does the employer get that the employee does not get?
How does all of that enable an end to our endless War on Poverty? Capitalism is still about boom and bust.Dear danielpalosI am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.
Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.
Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.
1. As even Sanders lobbies for worker owned cooperatives, the cooperative system of economic empowerment and equality is superior in allowing all persons equal access, training and ownership by free enterprise. This is superior to state mandated changes because people can make the same beneficial decisions directly WITHOUT relying on politics. Your statement also blamed the malware on politics, so this would be removed.
2. As Obama advocates for Microlending and training to replace welfare handouts, again the longterm solution to poverty is teaching self reliance and management of ownership. Not depending on outside help.
We can still have govt assist with the process of ensuring all districts have proportional access to financing and cooperative jobs and sites to set up sustainable education, health care and other services. It has to be set up to invest in local ownership, NOT reliance on govt and handouts, for people to be empowered equally and communities and economy to be self sustainable.
But there is no substitute for teaching people to build this themselves, to own and manage their own businesses, schools and community run cooperative government administrations.
The govt can help set up sites and paid mentorships and internships so everyone can have equal access to develop their own self governing democratic cooperatives.
But for people to be equal financially and legally, the ownership and control of resources are best managed locally not dictated or controlled by top down govt.
As long as central govt is put in charge, some people will have more power or access than others and continue politics to be abused to favor one group over others.
But everyone running their own cooperative health care and business networks by party or by district, then people can have all the same benefits you argue for but managed directly for themselves without relying on outside govt that just provides external facilities and maybe federal grants to support research and development jobs and training that can be used to replicate programs for sustainable self government to stop financial dependence on govt, political oppression and corporate abuses.
