Chick-fil-A restaurant in CA will pay employees $17 an hour

[hadit]

Labor is inflation..

Labor is a cost of doing business.

Simply spending money, could be "inflation".

You can't distinguish between artificial and natural? Or is it that you can but don't?

We have a mixed market economy. Congress, commands fiscal policy and our Central Bank, commands monetary policy.

You were trying to make some artificial or natural point?

You're not addressing the flaws in your argument. Now you're going to once again mumble some of your favorite go to phrases and wander off into the sunset, only to pop up again in a few weeks saying the exact same things.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Dude, you've been shown those flaws so many times (and ignored it every single time) that it doesn't do any good to do it all over again. You're impervious to learning.

 

[danielpalos]

Labor is a cost of doing business.

Simply spending money, could be "inflation".

You can't distinguish between artificial and natural? Or is it that you can but don't?

We have a mixed market economy. Congress, commands fiscal policy and our Central Bank, commands monetary policy.

You were trying to make some artificial or natural point?

You're not addressing the flaws in your argument. Now you're going to once again mumble some of your favorite go to phrases and wander off into the sunset, only to pop up again in a few weeks saying the exact same things.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Dude, you've been shown those flaws so many times (and ignored it every single time) that it doesn't do any good to do it all over again. You're impervious to learning.

all Talk, right wingers. nothing but Continuance, Diversion, and Other forms of fallacies.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Monopsony applies.

Monopsony applies when the only company in town drives down wages.
Who is this single company in San Francisco and Seattle?

While you're Googling for your answer...…..

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?
What about at $20/hour? $30/hour?​

Government. It happens by Jurisdiction. A statutory Minimum Wage functions the same by analogy.

Government simply "criminalizes" any wage below the minimum wage. In effect, Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage. There can be No market below that wage, by law.

A statutory Minimum Wage functions the same by analogy.

A minimum wage drives down wages like a monopsony?

Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

How much did government spend? How much labor did they get for it?

There is no wage lower than the minimum. You could say, Government "purchased labor below the minimum wage and it is no longer available under penalty of law."

The law is command economics.

There is no wage lower than the minimum.

So when you said the following:

Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.
Were you lying? Stupid? Stoned?​

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

There is no wage lower than the minimum wage, Because government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

Only the right wing prefers fallacy.

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

procure: to obtain or acquire; secure

How many below minimum wage workers did the government hire?
Was it zero?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The chick operator increase wages to get ahead of the minimum wage curve.

Get ahead? So you agree he wasn't forced. That shouldn't have taken you this long to realize.

Staying ahead of the minimum wage curve is forced? As it should be.

You said no raises without force.
What was the government force between May 2017 and May 2018?

social services cost fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, regardless.

Cut that to $7.

sure; after we cut taxes to zero, to grow our economy.

Sounds good to me.

 

[danielpalos]

Government. It happens by Jurisdiction. A statutory Minimum Wage functions the same by analogy.

Government simply "criminalizes" any wage below the minimum wage. In effect, Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage. There can be No market below that wage, by law.

A statutory Minimum Wage functions the same by analogy.

A minimum wage drives down wages like a monopsony?

Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

How much did government spend? How much labor did they get for it?

There is no wage lower than the minimum. You could say, Government "purchased labor below the minimum wage and it is no longer available under penalty of law."

The law is command economics.

There is no wage lower than the minimum.

So when you said the following:

Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.
Were you lying? Stupid? Stoned?​

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

There is no wage lower than the minimum wage, Because government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

Only the right wing prefers fallacy.

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

procure: to obtain or acquire; secure

How many below minimum wage workers did the government hire?
Was it zero?

De Jure; means, by law. It is illegal to hire anyone below the statutory minimum wage. Only, illegals, do that.

 

[hadit]

You can't distinguish between artificial and natural? Or is it that you can but don't?

We have a mixed market economy. Congress, commands fiscal policy and our Central Bank, commands monetary policy.

You were trying to make some artificial or natural point?

You're not addressing the flaws in your argument. Now you're going to once again mumble some of your favorite go to phrases and wander off into the sunset, only to pop up again in a few weeks saying the exact same things.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Dude, you've been shown those flaws so many times (and ignored it every single time) that it doesn't do any good to do it all over again. You're impervious to learning.

all Talk, right wingers. nothing but Continuance, Diversion, and Other forms of fallacies.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Read any exchange you've had with me and you will see many corrections. You ignored them then, and you'll ignore them now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A statutory Minimum Wage functions the same by analogy.

A minimum wage drives down wages like a monopsony?

Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

How much did government spend? How much labor did they get for it?

There is no wage lower than the minimum. You could say, Government "purchased labor below the minimum wage and it is no longer available under penalty of law."

The law is command economics.

There is no wage lower than the minimum.

So when you said the following:

Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.
Were you lying? Stupid? Stoned?​

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

There is no wage lower than the minimum wage, Because government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

Only the right wing prefers fallacy.

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

procure: to obtain or acquire; secure

How many below minimum wage workers did the government hire?
Was it zero?

De Jure; means, by law. It is illegal to hire anyone below the statutory minimum wage. Only, illegals, do that.

That's why it was stupid for you to claim the government hired at below minimum.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no wage lower than the minimum. You could say, Government "purchased labor below the minimum wage and it is no longer available under penalty of law."

The law is command economics.

There is no wage lower than the minimum.

So when you said the following:

Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.
Were you lying? Stupid? Stoned?​

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

There is no wage lower than the minimum wage, Because government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

Only the right wing prefers fallacy.

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

procure: to obtain or acquire; secure

How many below minimum wage workers did the government hire?
Was it zero?

De Jure; means, by law. It is illegal to hire anyone below the statutory minimum wage. Only, illegals, do that.

That's why it was stupid for you to claim the government hired at below minimum.

The Effect is the same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no wage lower than the minimum.

So when you said the following:

Government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.
Were you lying? Stupid? Stoned?​

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

There is no wage lower than the minimum wage, Because government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

Only the right wing prefers fallacy.

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

procure: to obtain or acquire; secure

How many below minimum wage workers did the government hire?
Was it zero?

De Jure; means, by law. It is illegal to hire anyone below the statutory minimum wage. Only, illegals, do that.

That's why it was stupid for you to claim the government hired at below minimum.

The Effect is the same.

No. The effect of hiring is jobs and income.
The effect of banning hiring is fewer jobs and less income.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

 

[hadit]

You're not addressing the flaws in your argument. Now you're going to once again mumble some of your favorite go to phrases and wander off into the sunset, only to pop up again in a few weeks saying the exact same things.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Dude, you've been shown those flaws so many times (and ignored it every single time) that it doesn't do any good to do it all over again. You're impervious to learning.

all Talk, right wingers. nothing but Continuance, Diversion, and Other forms of fallacies.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Read any exchange you've had with me and you will see many corrections. You ignored them then, and you'll ignore them now.

i thought you had a valid argument, not just talk.

I have, many times. You choose to ignore them. I can't help you if you do that.

 

[danielpalos]

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

There is no wage lower than the minimum wage, Because government is the procurer of labor below the minimum wage.

Only the right wing prefers fallacy.

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

procure: to obtain or acquire; secure

How many below minimum wage workers did the government hire?
Was it zero?

De Jure; means, by law. It is illegal to hire anyone below the statutory minimum wage. Only, illegals, do that.

That's why it was stupid for you to claim the government hired at below minimum.

The Effect is the same.

No. The effect of hiring is jobs and income.
The effect of banning hiring is fewer jobs and less income.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

not in Seattle or San Francisco. You can't explain it, so why should I indulge Your special pleading, in a vacuum.

 

[danielpalos]

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Dude, you've been shown those flaws so many times (and ignored it every single time) that it doesn't do any good to do it all over again. You're impervious to learning.

all Talk, right wingers. nothing but Continuance, Diversion, and Other forms of fallacies.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Read any exchange you've had with me and you will see many corrections. You ignored them then, and you'll ignore them now.

i thought you had a valid argument, not just talk.

I have, many times. You choose to ignore them. I can't help you if you do that.

nothing but Talk not Any form of Valid Argument. Why not restate your alleged argument so that it is more cogent and more concise.

 

[hadit]

Dude, you've been shown those flaws so many times (and ignored it every single time) that it doesn't do any good to do it all over again. You're impervious to learning.

all Talk, right wingers. nothing but Continuance, Diversion, and Other forms of fallacies.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Read any exchange you've had with me and you will see many corrections. You ignored them then, and you'll ignore them now.

i thought you had a valid argument, not just talk.

I have, many times. You choose to ignore them. I can't help you if you do that.

nothing but Talk not Any form of Valid Argument. Why not restate your alleged argument so that it is more cogent and more concise.

I've done it many times and you've chosen to ignore it. No need to do it again.

 

[danielpalos]

all Talk, right wingers. nothing but Continuance, Diversion, and Other forms of fallacies.

Which flaws were those? You have nothing but rejection, not a valid rebuttal.

Read any exchange you've had with me and you will see many corrections. You ignored them then, and you'll ignore them now.

i thought you had a valid argument, not just talk.

I have, many times. You choose to ignore them. I can't help you if you do that.

nothing but Talk not Any form of Valid Argument. Why not restate your alleged argument so that it is more cogent and more concise.

I've done it many times and you've chosen to ignore it. No need to do it again.

i resorted to the fewest fallacies, the whole time. No need to do it again.

 

[hadit]

Read any exchange you've had with me and you will see many corrections. You ignored them then, and you'll ignore them now.

i thought you had a valid argument, not just talk.

I have, many times. You choose to ignore them. I can't help you if you do that.

nothing but Talk not Any form of Valid Argument. Why not restate your alleged argument so that it is more cogent and more concise.

I've done it many times and you've chosen to ignore it. No need to do it again.

i resorted to the fewest fallacies, the whole time. No need to do it again.

Have you gone back over the education I've given you yet?

 

[danielpalos]

i thought you had a valid argument, not just talk.

I have, many times. You choose to ignore them. I can't help you if you do that.

nothing but Talk not Any form of Valid Argument. Why not restate your alleged argument so that it is more cogent and more concise.

I've done it many times and you've chosen to ignore it. No need to do it again.

i resorted to the fewest fallacies, the whole time. No need to do it again.

Have you gone back over the education I've given you yet?

i resorted to the fewest fallacies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How was it "stupid"? And how am I lying?

procure: to obtain or acquire; secure

How many below minimum wage workers did the government hire?
Was it zero?

De Jure; means, by law. It is illegal to hire anyone below the statutory minimum wage. Only, illegals, do that.

That's why it was stupid for you to claim the government hired at below minimum.

The Effect is the same.

No. The effect of hiring is jobs and income.
The effect of banning hiring is fewer jobs and less income.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

not in Seattle or San Francisco. You can't explain it, so why should I indulge Your special pleading, in a vacuum.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

 

[danielpalos]

De Jure; means, by law. It is illegal to hire anyone below the statutory minimum wage. Only, illegals, do that.

That's why it was stupid for you to claim the government hired at below minimum.

The Effect is the same.

No. The effect of hiring is jobs and income.
The effect of banning hiring is fewer jobs and less income.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

not in Seattle or San Francisco. You can't explain it, so why should I indulge Your special pleading, in a vacuum.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

Is there a statutory minimum wage or a market based minimum wage in question?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's why it was stupid for you to claim the government hired at below minimum.

The Effect is the same.

No. The effect of hiring is jobs and income.
The effect of banning hiring is fewer jobs and less income.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

not in Seattle or San Francisco. You can't explain it, so why should I indulge Your special pleading, in a vacuum.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

Is there a statutory minimum wage or a market based minimum wage in question?

Why don't you answer for either scenario?

 

[danielpalos]

The Effect is the same.

No. The effect of hiring is jobs and income.
The effect of banning hiring is fewer jobs and less income.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

not in Seattle or San Francisco. You can't explain it, so why should I indulge Your special pleading, in a vacuum.

Is there more demand for unskilled labor at $7.25/hour or at $15/hour?

Is there a statutory minimum wage or a market based minimum wage in question?

Why don't you answer for either scenario?

apples and oranges. under True Capitalism, there is no unemployment only underpayment.

A natural rate of unemployment, is an artificial construct that explains why the right wing is Capitally Useless.