Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[kaz]

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

But you know what did happen every time they raised the MW in the past 20 years?

They are still FUCKING poor

Actually unemployment goes up every time the minimum wage does. Brain is vacuous. He must be the brain of a blond

No actually it never has, please show proof. Seattle is doing great right now.

It's an easy Google search, you can do it yourself. But I have a policy of not answering questions for people who don't answer questions, you know, you. Well, unless I feel like it

 

[Brain357]

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

When danger reared it's ugly head, brain turned his tail and fled...

I like the source.

No running, I just don't buy the scare tactic. It doesn't happen.

 

[kaz]

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

Do whatever you want. But don't pretend that's what would happen in a noticeable scale. We have lots of history to look at and it never happens.

What a coward, answer the question

 

[Brain357]

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

But you know what did happen every time they raised the MW in the past 20 years?

They are still FUCKING poor

Actually unemployment goes up every time the minimum wage does. Brain is vacuous. He must be the brain of a blond

No actually it never has, please show proof. Seattle is doing great right now.

It's an easy Google search, you can do it yourself. But I have a policy of not answering questions for people who don't answer questions, you know, you. Well, unless I feel like it

I've already shown proof it doesnt.

 

[Brain357]

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

Do whatever you want. But don't pretend that's what would happen in a noticeable scale. We have lots of history to look at and it never happens.

What a coward, answer the question

Coward? He can do whatever he wants, what do I care?

 

[kaz]

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

When danger reared it's ugly head, brain turned his tail and fled...

I like the source.

No running, I just don't buy the scare tactic. It doesn't happen.

WTF are you talking about? What "scare tactic?" I asked you your opinion about a real life situation

 

[kaz]

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

But you know what did happen every time they raised the MW in the past 20 years?

They are still FUCKING poor

Actually unemployment goes up every time the minimum wage does. Brain is vacuous. He must be the brain of a blond

No actually it never has, please show proof. Seattle is doing great right now.

It's an easy Google search, you can do it yourself. But I have a policy of not answering questions for people who don't answer questions, you know, you. Well, unless I feel like it

I've already shown proof it doesnt.

Well, since you didn't use economists since even liberal once unemployment goes up with the minimum wage, did you use tea leaves in this "proof?"

 

[Brain357]

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

When danger reared it's ugly head, brain turned his tail and fled...

I like the source.

No running, I just don't buy the scare tactic. It doesn't happen.

WTF are you talking about? What "scare tactic?" I asked you your opinion about a real life situation

Stop playing games. The scare tactic is that increasing wages will increase unemployment. Fact is that doesn't happen.

 

[kaz]

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

Do whatever you want. But don't pretend that's what would happen in a noticeable scale. We have lots of history to look at and it never happens.

What a coward, answer the question

Coward? He can do whatever he wants, what do I care?

Who is he? I own the company, Holmes, they are my employees. I am letting them stay, I pay a market rate, they accept it.

The question is what you would do. I'm not paying them more, they aren't worth more. But you say I'm taking welfare from government, so should I fire them? What is your counsel?

 

[Brain357]

But you know what did happen every time they raised the MW in the past 20 years?

They are still FUCKING poor

Actually unemployment goes up every time the minimum wage does. Brain is vacuous. He must be the brain of a blond

No actually it never has, please show proof. Seattle is doing great right now.

It's an easy Google search, you can do it yourself. But I have a policy of not answering questions for people who don't answer questions, you know, you. Well, unless I feel like it

I've already shown proof it doesnt.

Well, since you didn't use economists since even liberal once unemployment goes up with the minimum wage, did you use tea leaves in this "proof?"

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

 

[kaz]

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

When danger reared it's ugly head, brain turned his tail and fled...

I like the source.

No running, I just don't buy the scare tactic. It doesn't happen.

WTF are you talking about? What "scare tactic?" I asked you your opinion about a real life situation

Stop playing games. The scare tactic is that increasing wages will increase unemployment. Fact is that doesn't happen.

And you know how the field of economics is wrong how exactly?

And again, I asked you about one situation. You said it's not right to let government pay part of their wages. So are you advocating that I should fire them now since you say I should not be allowed to do that? I will replace them if I do, but with different people worth the higher wages, not them since they are not.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

Do whatever you want. But don't pretend that's what would happen in a noticeable scale. We have lots of history to look at and it never happens.

What a coward, answer the question

Coward? He can do whatever he wants, what do I care?

Who is he? I own the company, Holmes, they are my employees. I am letting them stay, I pay a market rate, they accept it.

The question is what you would do. I'm not paying them more, they aren't worth more. But you say I'm taking welfare from government, so should I fire them? What is your counsel?

Do whatever you want, what do I care? Fire them and take the time to hire and train new people who might not be better. Why do you need my councel?

 

[Brain357]

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

When danger reared it's ugly head, brain turned his tail and fled...

I like the source.

No running, I just don't buy the scare tactic. It doesn't happen.

WTF are you talking about? What "scare tactic?" I asked you your opinion about a real life situation

Stop playing games. The scare tactic is that increasing wages will increase unemployment. Fact is that doesn't happen.

And you know how the field of economics is wrong how exactly?

And again, I asked you about one situation. You said it's not right to let government pay part of their wages. So are you advocating that I should fire them now since you say I should not be allowed to do that? I will replace them if I do, but with different people worth the higher wages, not them since they are not.

Economists say it doesn't increase unemployment as I have shown. You have shown nothing.

You hired these two you don't like, good luck finding better.

 

[kaz]

Actually unemployment goes up every time the minimum wage does. Brain is vacuous. He must be the brain of a blond

No actually it never has, please show proof. Seattle is doing great right now.

It's an easy Google search, you can do it yourself. But I have a policy of not answering questions for people who don't answer questions, you know, you. Well, unless I feel like it

I've already shown proof it doesnt.

Well, since you didn't use economists since even liberal once unemployment goes up with the minimum wage, did you use tea leaves in this "proof?"

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

So I gave you a great example of that. They both make above minimum wage. One makes $9.50, the other $12 an hour. I just know they get welfare, which you say is actually me getting welfare.

However, if I have to pay say $15, I will fire them both, and I will replace them. In that case, unemployment stayed the same, but they still got fired. Unemployment does go up, but many of the workers jobs don't go away. See the distinction? So still the question, should I fire the two employees and replace them with better workers for more pay?

 

[kaz]

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

Do whatever you want. But don't pretend that's what would happen in a noticeable scale. We have lots of history to look at and it never happens.

What a coward, answer the question

Coward? He can do whatever he wants, what do I care?

Who is he? I own the company, Holmes, they are my employees. I am letting them stay, I pay a market rate, they accept it.

The question is what you would do. I'm not paying them more, they aren't worth more. But you say I'm taking welfare from government, so should I fire them? What is your counsel?

Do whatever you want, what do I care? Fire them and take the time to hire and train new people who might not be better. Why do you need my councel?

Exactly you don't care about people. Exactly

 

[Brain357]

No actually it never has, please show proof. Seattle is doing great right now.

It's an easy Google search, you can do it yourself. But I have a policy of not answering questions for people who don't answer questions, you know, you. Well, unless I feel like it

I've already shown proof it doesnt.

Well, since you didn't use economists since even liberal once unemployment goes up with the minimum wage, did you use tea leaves in this "proof?"

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

So I gave you a great example of that. They both make above minimum wage. One makes $9.50, the other $12 an hour. I just know they get welfare, which you say is actually me getting welfare.

However, if I have to pay say $15, I will fire them both, and I will replace them. In that case, unemployment stayed the same, but they still got fired. Unemployment does go up, but many of the workers jobs don't go away. See the distinction? So still the question, should I fire the two employees and replace them with better workers for more pay?

Yes and all the businesses in Seattle were going to close with the min wage increase. Oh wait that didn't happen. Take your scare tactics to somebody else, they are bull.

 

[kaz]

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

Do whatever you want. But don't pretend that's what would happen in a noticeable scale. We have lots of history to look at and it never happens.

What a coward, answer the question

Coward? He can do whatever he wants, what do I care?

Who is he? I own the company, Holmes, they are my employees. I am letting them stay, I pay a market rate, they accept it.

The question is what you would do. I'm not paying them more, they aren't worth more. But you say I'm taking welfare from government, so should I fire them? What is your counsel?

Do whatever you want, what do I care? Fire them and take the time to hire and train new people who might not be better. Why do you need my councel?

As for why I need your "counsel," I don't, stop being an idiot. I said that repeatedly, I want to know what your values are, I am not going to do it. I said that what, five times?

 

[Brain357]

Do whatever you want. But don't pretend that's what would happen in a noticeable scale. We have lots of history to look at and it never happens.

What a coward, answer the question

Coward? He can do whatever he wants, what do I care?

Who is he? I own the company, Holmes, they are my employees. I am letting them stay, I pay a market rate, they accept it.

The question is what you would do. I'm not paying them more, they aren't worth more. But you say I'm taking welfare from government, so should I fire them? What is your counsel?

Do whatever you want, what do I care? Fire them and take the time to hire and train new people who might not be better. Why do you need my councel?

As for why I need your "counsel," I don't, stop being an idiot. I said that repeatedly, I want to know what your values are, I am not going to do it. I said that what, five times?

Yes you keep repeating yourself like a moron. I don't buy the scare tactics and neither do economists.

 

[kaz]

What a coward, answer the question

Coward? He can do whatever he wants, what do I care?

Who is he? I own the company, Holmes, they are my employees. I am letting them stay, I pay a market rate, they accept it.

The question is what you would do. I'm not paying them more, they aren't worth more. But you say I'm taking welfare from government, so should I fire them? What is your counsel?

Do whatever you want, what do I care? Fire them and take the time to hire and train new people who might not be better. Why do you need my councel?

As for why I need your "counsel," I don't, stop being an idiot. I said that repeatedly, I want to know what your values are, I am not going to do it. I said that what, five times?

Yes you keep repeating yourself like a moron. I don't buy the scare tactics and neither do economists.

Sorry, your kool-aid was gurgling too loudly, what did you say?

 

[Brain357]

Coward? He can do whatever he wants, what do I care?

Who is he? I own the company, Holmes, they are my employees. I am letting them stay, I pay a market rate, they accept it.

The question is what you would do. I'm not paying them more, they aren't worth more. But you say I'm taking welfare from government, so should I fire them? What is your counsel?

Do whatever you want, what do I care? Fire them and take the time to hire and train new people who might not be better. Why do you need my councel?

As for why I need your "counsel," I don't, stop being an idiot. I said that repeatedly, I want to know what your values are, I am not going to do it. I said that what, five times?

Yes you keep repeating yourself like a moron. I don't buy the scare tactics and neither do economists.

Sorry, your kool-aid was gurgling too loudly, what did you say?

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."