What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[Wyatt earp]

Baloney. You might as well try to eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr overnight. We will never do that because it is beyond obvious that most jobs would disappear. Thus, there is a limit beyond which you can't impose an artificial wage increase without negative impact.

So what if most jobs disappear. The left has a solution not merely a fossil plan from the fossil record, like the right with their insistence on sinking more costs into fossil fuels, instead of advancing fusion (an energy with a future).

A more efficient economy can simply compensate unemployed labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So what if most jobs disappear.

LOL!
Excellent!!!

you make it seem like you could not pursue some hobby or entrepreneurial venture, on unemployment. you could stay poor as long as you want, as long as you don't complain about how rich the rich can get, by solving simple poverty in our republic.

Raising the MW will never ever solve poverty...I never know why you dont comprehend that..you are a another one that dont have a clue what wealth is.

If you make MW you will always be poor no mater what the number is .


.

reading comprehension issues as well? it is about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation that is one dollar an hour less, for rational choice purposes.

Again you have a reading comprehension problem? Who made it $14 an hour for social services? God?


Republicans?


Or liberals?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

I can tell by your post now, this is not about $15 an hour minimum wage..thats a ruse to you


You really want socialism where 90% of workers make around the same..


Admit it.


.

 

[danielpalos]

it is not arbitrary or capricious, like charity.

A minimum wage that competes favorably with the cost of social services is simply, more rational for rational choice theory purposes.

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

 

[danielpalos]

So what if most jobs disappear. The left has a solution not merely a fossil plan from the fossil record, like the right with their insistence on sinking more costs into fossil fuels, instead of advancing fusion (an energy with a future).

A more efficient economy can simply compensate unemployed labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So what if most jobs disappear.

LOL!
Excellent!!!

you make it seem like you could not pursue some hobby or entrepreneurial venture, on unemployment. you could stay poor as long as you want, as long as you don't complain about how rich the rich can get, by solving simple poverty in our republic.

Raising the MW will never ever solve poverty...I never know why you dont comprehend that..you are a another one that dont have a clue what wealth is.

If you make MW you will always be poor no mater what the number is .


.

reading comprehension issues as well? it is about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation that is one dollar an hour less, for rational choice purposes.

Again you have a reading comprehension problem? Who made it $14 an hour for social services? God?


Republicans?


Or liberals?


.

that is what social services cost, approximately. we have a First World standard of living to consider.

is the right really advocating to help the rich get richer, by lowering our Standard of living?

 

[danielpalos]

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

I can tell by your post now, this is not about $15 an hour minimum wage..thats a ruse to you


You really want socialism where 90% of workers make around the same..


Admit it.


.

nothing but diversion?

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

that has to do with rational choice theory.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

 

[hadit]

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

 

[hadit]

Arbitrary salary increases will not do that.

All that will happen is that costs across the board will go up while most people's incomes will not thereby resulting in a decrease in purchasing power, less demand for products and services produced by lower paying industries and less demand for those industries means less employment in those industries

it is not arbitrary or capricious, like charity.

A minimum wage that competes favorably with the cost of social services is simply, more rational for rational choice theory purposes.

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No. Not "compete", "compliment". If society deems a standard of living to be necessary, society makes up the difference. If you make $3/hr less than the standard, you get welfare benefits of $3/hr. Let's be honest and make it welfare instead of forcing business to do it for us.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So what if most jobs disappear.

LOL!
Excellent!!!

you make it seem like you could not pursue some hobby or entrepreneurial venture, on unemployment. you could stay poor as long as you want, as long as you don't complain about how rich the rich can get, by solving simple poverty in our republic.

Raising the MW will never ever solve poverty...I never know why you dont comprehend that..you are a another one that dont have a clue what wealth is.

If you make MW you will always be poor no mater what the number is .


.

reading comprehension issues as well? it is about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation that is one dollar an hour less, for rational choice purposes.

Again you have a reading comprehension problem? Who made it $14 an hour for social services? God?


Republicans?


Or liberals?


.

that is what social services cost, approximately. we have a First World standard of living to consider.

is the right really advocating to help the rich get richer, by lowering our Standard of living?

Whos standard of living? I can live on $20 bucks a week in food because I have venison in my freezer and some pork from my farmer neighbor..


Yea we know people need kit katt bars and soda pop to survive..


.so again who made it $14 an hour?



Since you dont want to answer that question..



It was the democrats paying off the poor for votes and to not riot..


Nothing more nothing less



Quit trying to bullshit me K? you are starting to post like a propaganda tool.

 

[hadit]

Baloney. You might as well try to eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr overnight. We will never do that because it is beyond obvious that most jobs would disappear. Thus, there is a limit beyond which you can't impose an artificial wage increase without negative impact.

So what if most jobs disappear. The left has a solution not merely a fossil plan from the fossil record, like the right with their insistence on sinking more costs into fossil fuels, instead of advancing fusion (an energy with a future).

A "solution" in which most jobs disappear is not a solution, unless you want to call it a "final solution". Tell us straight, do you honestly think raising the MW to $100/hr tomorrow would eliminate poverty in the US?

no, it wont. the left is learning how to use Capitalism, for all of its worth. we still have Capitalism's "natural rate of inefficiency" that can Only be "bailed out" by Socialism's, "true love" for free.

we simply need equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.

Yes, you can quit at any time for any reason or be fired at any time for any reason. Anything beyond that should require a contract.

yes, you can quit; but try collecting unemployment compensation. edd should have to prove, for-Cause employment to deny benefits.

If you voluntarily leave a job, why should society continue to pay your wage?

 

[danielpalos]

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

 

[Wyatt earp]

it is not arbitrary or capricious, like charity.

A minimum wage that competes favorably with the cost of social services is simply, more rational for rational choice theory purposes.

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No. Not "compete", "compliment". If society deems a standard of living to be necessary, society makes up the difference. If you make $3/hr less than the standard, you get welfare benefits of $3/hr. Let's be honest and make it welfare instead of forcing business to do it for us.

Yea I made a thread about it


Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

 

[danielpalos]

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

Not national



Again why dont you admit you want socialism?


You know, because I told you a million times 50% of workers make $15 or less.

So just admit it already


.

 

[danielpalos]

it is not arbitrary or capricious, like charity.

A minimum wage that competes favorably with the cost of social services is simply, more rational for rational choice theory purposes.

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No. Not "compete", "compliment". If society deems a standard of living to be necessary, society makes up the difference. If you make $3/hr less than the standard, you get welfare benefits of $3/hr. Let's be honest and make it welfare instead of forcing business to do it for us.

it is about privatizing costs. it really is that simple.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Its trickle up poor and you dont have a clue about economics..thats a fact, you dont know shit about profit margins, you dont have a clue that over 80% of bussiness are small..


Your so fucking dumb on economics that you dont even know how stupid you really are.


.

 

[danielpalos]

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

Not national



Again why dont you admit you want socialism?


You know, because I told you a million times 50% of workers make $15 or less.

So just admit it already


.

according to one estimate, it varies by region, actually.

we already have socialism. capitalism died in 1929. socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

 

[hadit]

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

 

[Skull Pilot]

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

 

[danielpalos]

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Its trickle up poor and you dont have a clue about economics..thats a fact, you dont know shit about profit margins, you dont have a clue that over 80% of bussiness are small..


Your so fucking dumb on economics that you dont even know how stupid you really are.


.

so what; Henry Ford doubled wages and did not whine about regulations or taxes; only corporate welfare addicts, do that.