Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
- While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
- Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.
The point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.Historically, His pay will also increaseSay the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?
What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?
Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.
How is my post "in a vacuum"?
If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?
.walter e. williams:
- While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
- Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.
The point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
dude; Congress Fixes the Standard of Values in our Republic. The right wing has nothing but fallacy, in that regard.The point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Well, I dunno daniel. They sure shouldn't be subsidized. We should do something about that. But it's an entirely separate issue than what wages should be for low-value labor. We've got to start getting rid of stupid policies, rather than just piling on more stupid policies to patch them up.
dude; Congress Fixes the Standard of Values in our Republic. The right wing has nothing but fallacy, in that regard.The point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Well, I dunno daniel. They sure shouldn't be subsidized. We should do something about that. But it's an entirely separate issue than what wages should be for low-value labor. We've got to start getting rid of stupid policies, rather than just piling on more stupid policies to patch them up.
The Standard of weights and measures.dude; Congress Fixes the Standard of Values in our Republic. The right wing has nothing but fallacy, in that regard.The point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Well, I dunno daniel. They sure shouldn't be subsidized. We should do something about that. But it's an entirely separate issue than what wages should be for low-value labor. We've got to start getting rid of stupid policies, rather than just piling on more stupid policies to patch them up.
? is the Standard OF vAlues of our rEpubliC BROKEN? OMG!!
The value of weights and measures. Only the right wing has nothing but fallacy, but believe they are for the "gospel Truth". lol.dude; Congress Fixes the Standard of Values in our Republic. The right wing has nothing but fallacy, in that regard.The point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Well, I dunno daniel. They sure shouldn't be subsidized. We should do something about that. But it's an entirely separate issue than what wages should be for low-value labor. We've got to start getting rid of stupid policies, rather than just piling on more stupid policies to patch them up.
? is the Standard OF vAlues of our rEpubliC BROKEN? OMG!!
I actually read our Constitution. the right wing just makes stuff up.The value of weights and measures. Only the right wing has nothing but fallacy, but believe they are for the "gospel Truth". lol.dude; Congress Fixes the Standard of Values in our Republic. The right wing has nothing but fallacy, in that regard.The point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Well, I dunno daniel. They sure shouldn't be subsidized. We should do something about that. But it's an entirely separate issue than what wages should be for low-value labor. We've got to start getting rid of stupid policies, rather than just piling on more stupid policies to patch them up.
? is the Standard OF vAlues of our rEpubliC BROKEN? OMG!!
Uh.. yeah. Maybe it's obvious by now, but I really don't try to parse your cryptic posts, with all the capitalized "essences" and made-up terms. I just figure you're stoned again and move on.
ArchiveThe point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.Historically, His pay will also increase
Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.
How is my post "in a vacuum"?
If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?
.walter e. williams:
- While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
- Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
New Cities!Yeah.
Bring back "the projects".
America needs to breed more perpetual poverty and criminals.
Oh, you forgot about why this was done?
View attachment 206397
Higher paid labor, pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. And, recent studies on quality of life put California at the bottom due to cost of living issues. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage merely adjusts that ratio, to help improve our standing in that study.ArchiveThe point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.
How is my post "in a vacuum"?
If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?
.walter e. williams:
- While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
- Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Implications for California
About 98% of the crop workers on California farms, and 58% of crop workers on farms outside California, were born abroad. Table 1 shows that the share of foreign-born crop workers who are unauthorized, 68%, is similar in California and the rest of the United States; however, since 98% of California's crop workers are foreign-born, California has a higher-than-average share of unauthorized workers than most other states.
California crop workers had lower average hourly earnings and fewer days of farm work in the past year than crop workers outside California. U.S.-born workers earned more than foreign-born workers, but the premium for U.S.-born workers was almost $2 an hour in California and less than $1 an hour in the rest of the United States. A full-time worker employed 5 days a week for 50 weeks has 250 days of work; the average crop worker had almost 200 days of farm work in the year before being interviewed.
People making 50k a year are living in tents...........That's not the problem.Higher paid labor, pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. And, recent studies on quality of life put California at the bottom due to cost of living issues. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage merely adjusts that ratio, to help improve our standing in that study.ArchiveThe point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.
How is my post "in a vacuum"?
If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?
.walter e. williams:
- While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
- Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Implications for California
About 98% of the crop workers on California farms, and 58% of crop workers on farms outside California, were born abroad. Table 1 shows that the share of foreign-born crop workers who are unauthorized, 68%, is similar in California and the rest of the United States; however, since 98% of California's crop workers are foreign-born, California has a higher-than-average share of unauthorized workers than most other states.
California crop workers had lower average hourly earnings and fewer days of farm work in the past year than crop workers outside California. U.S.-born workers earned more than foreign-born workers, but the premium for U.S.-born workers was almost $2 an hour in California and less than $1 an hour in the rest of the United States. A full-time worker employed 5 days a week for 50 weeks has 250 days of work; the average crop worker had almost 200 days of farm work in the year before being interviewed.
People making 50k a year are living in tents...........That's not the problem.Higher paid labor, pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. And, recent studies on quality of life put California at the bottom due to cost of living issues. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage merely adjusts that ratio, to help improve our standing in that study.ArchiveThe point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.How is my post "in a vacuum"?
If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?
.walter e. williams:
- While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
- Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Implications for California
About 98% of the crop workers on California farms, and 58% of crop workers on farms outside California, were born abroad. Table 1 shows that the share of foreign-born crop workers who are unauthorized, 68%, is similar in California and the rest of the United States; however, since 98% of California's crop workers are foreign-born, California has a higher-than-average share of unauthorized workers than most other states.
California crop workers had lower average hourly earnings and fewer days of farm work in the past year than crop workers outside California. U.S.-born workers earned more than foreign-born workers, but the premium for U.S.-born workers was almost $2 an hour in California and less than $1 an hour in the rest of the United States. A full-time worker employed 5 days a week for 50 weeks has 250 days of work; the average crop worker had almost 200 days of farm work in the year before being interviewed.
California sucks ........their people live in tents....high poverty........and number one with using illegal workers.
Their agriculture uses illegals for their large crops.......paying if your lucky $2 an hour.
I don't know anyone making fifty k a year, living in any tent.People making 50k a year are living in tents...........That's not the problem.Higher paid labor, pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. And, recent studies on quality of life put California at the bottom due to cost of living issues. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage merely adjusts that ratio, to help improve our standing in that study.ArchiveThe point is that Employers should be covering the cost of wages, simply because they get tax breaks for it.How is my post "in a vacuum"?
If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?
.walter e. williams:
- While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
- Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.
Anything less than fourteen dollars an hour is being subsidized by the public. Why do Employers who are in it for a Profit, get subsidized with "cheap labor"?
Implications for California
About 98% of the crop workers on California farms, and 58% of crop workers on farms outside California, were born abroad. Table 1 shows that the share of foreign-born crop workers who are unauthorized, 68%, is similar in California and the rest of the United States; however, since 98% of California's crop workers are foreign-born, California has a higher-than-average share of unauthorized workers than most other states.
California crop workers had lower average hourly earnings and fewer days of farm work in the past year than crop workers outside California. U.S.-born workers earned more than foreign-born workers, but the premium for U.S.-born workers was almost $2 an hour in California and less than $1 an hour in the rest of the United States. A full-time worker employed 5 days a week for 50 weeks has 250 days of work; the average crop worker had almost 200 days of farm work in the year before being interviewed.
They know the right wing doesn't care.
California sucks ........their people live in tents....high poverty........and number one with using illegal workers.
Their agriculture uses illegals for their large crops.......paying if your lucky $2 an hour.
And.....they vote Democrat.....for free!
Who is gonna pay for that? Doyathink?a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve this problem for us, via market friendly means. applied capitalism, what concept.‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents
Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.
Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.Who is gonna pay for that? Doyathink?a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve this problem for us, via market friendly means. applied capitalism, what concept.‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents
Dear Senate Democrats, good effort, but tax credits won’t solve this crisis. Working people need Housing-For-All: 10 million homes in 10 years.
