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.
Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?
Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?
What? Would you mind rewriting your thought so that the sentence is coherent. I'd like to know what you've asked, but I have no idea what you mean that sentence to say. I can't even tell if the thought of it belongs in one sentence.
Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?
What? Would you mind rewriting your thought so that the sentence is coherent. I'd like to know what you've asked, but I have no idea what you mean that sentence to say. I can't even tell if the thought of it belongs in one sentence.
maybe the typo "he" instead of "the" helps.
danielpalos keeps bringing up Henry Ford and doubling wages and efficiency claiming it's what capitalist employers should do.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?
What? Would you mind rewriting your thought so that the sentence is coherent. I'd like to know what you've asked, but I have no idea what you mean that sentence to say. I can't even tell if the thought of it belongs in one sentence.
maybe the typo "he" instead of "the" helps.
danielpalos keeps bringing up Henry Ford and doubling wages and efficiency claiming it's what capitalist employers should do.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The typo bit didn't help at all. The incoherence didn't derive from that.
The explanatory paragraph you provided does help, so much so that if you still can, it'd be worth replacing the original question with that paragraph.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?
What? Would you mind rewriting your thought so that the sentence is coherent. I'd like to know what you've asked, but I have no idea what you mean that sentence to say. I can't even tell if the thought of it belongs in one sentence.
maybe the typo "he" instead of "the" helps.
danielpalos keeps bringing up Henry Ford and doubling wages and efficiency claiming it's what capitalist employers should do.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The typo bit didn't help at all. The incoherence didn't derive from that.
The explanatory paragraph you provided does help, so much so that if you still can, it'd be worth replacing the original question with that paragraph.
Maybe the incoherence isn't the fault of what was said but the one reading it.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The answer to your question is found in considering monopsony.
Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?
What? Would you mind rewriting your thought so that the sentence is coherent. I'd like to know what you've asked, but I have no idea what you mean that sentence to say. I can't even tell if the thought of it belongs in one sentence.
maybe the typo "he" instead of "the" helps.
danielpalos keeps bringing up Henry Ford and doubling wages and efficiency claiming it's what capitalist employers should do.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The typo bit didn't help at all. The incoherence didn't derive from that.
The explanatory paragraph you provided does help, so much so that if you still can, it'd be worth replacing the original question with that paragraph.
Maybe the incoherence isn't the fault of what was said but the one reading it.
I can assure you it will not there be found.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The answer to your question is found in considering monopsony.
Then you have no answer. The is not a good answer to why you'd pay some low skilled worker doing a job a monkey could be trained to do twice what that job is worth.
What? Would you mind rewriting your thought so that the sentence is coherent. I'd like to know what you've asked, but I have no idea what you mean that sentence to say. I can't even tell if the thought of it belongs in one sentence.
maybe the typo "he" instead of "the" helps.
danielpalos keeps bringing up Henry Ford and doubling wages and efficiency claiming it's what capitalist employers should do.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The typo bit didn't help at all. The incoherence didn't derive from that.
The explanatory paragraph you provided does help, so much so that if you still can, it'd be worth replacing the original question with that paragraph.
Maybe the incoherence isn't the fault of what was said but the one reading it.
I can assure you it will not there be found.
I can assure that it was since you couldn't comprehend it.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The answer to your question is found in considering monopsony.
Then you have no answer. The is not a good answer to why you'd pay some low skilled worker doing a job a monkey could be trained to do twice what that job is worth.
Obviously you didn't consider the implications of monopsony on wages.
maybe the typo "he" instead of "the" helps.
danielpalos keeps bringing up Henry Ford and doubling wages and efficiency claiming it's what capitalist employers should do.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The typo bit didn't help at all. The incoherence didn't derive from that.
The explanatory paragraph you provided does help, so much so that if you still can, it'd be worth replacing the original question with that paragraph.
Maybe the incoherence isn't the fault of what was said but the one reading it.
I can assure you it will not there be found.
I can assure that it was since you couldn't comprehend it.
Look, you really don't want me to dissect the grammatical construction of that "sentence," even ignoring the typo you admitted to being present in the sentence. Trust me.
If I'm paying someone $7.25/hour because the government mandates that minimum, why would I double those wages if the $7.25 is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it? The only reason I pay $7.25 is because I have to not because the worker is doing a job worth that much.
The answer to your question is found in considering monopsony.
Then you have no answer. The is not a good answer to why you'd pay some low skilled worker doing a job a monkey could be trained to do twice what that job is worth.
Obviously you didn't consider the implications of monopsony on wages.
I only need consider the skills to do the job and know that people with those low level skills are a dime a dozen. If one doesn't want to work for the skill level equivalent wage, another one will. When the next one decides he doesn't like it, another one will be there.
Nor to pay farmers not to plantIt is not promoting the general welfare to pay people who can work but choose not to.just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".
You wouldn't last a day working on a farm. You have to actually do something and you want something for nothing.
Henry Ford chose to do better, why don't all captialists, emulate the example of Henry Ford, and realize gains from efficiency.how many capitalists can double wages and achieve gains from efficiency?too lazy to make like Henry Ford; but, "blame the poor" anyway. i got it.yes, that is the right wing solution. never mind that all capitalists cannot make like Henry Ford and double wages to realize gains from efficiency.
It's the explanation.
When the poor are the cause of their own bad situations, they deserve the blame. Got it?
why blame the poor, for not doing any better.
Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?
In most cases, the poor are poor because they choose not to do any better.
you seem too lazy to have valid arguments.you only have fallacy for your Cause; how lazy is that.too much work to acquire and posses a valid argument? why blame the poor for being lazy.How well did that work during the Great Depression?
Great. I wasn't alive then.
Because many that are poor are that way because they're lazy.
I'm not poor because I'm not lazy. See how that works.
you don't have any. it takes morals, to have moral forms of indignation. that is why, You need a valid argument, instead.let me know,when you get some morals.nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics because they Only seem to have moral arguments.a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation; solves our dilemma.
It solves nothing. It keeps low life like you thinking you're owed something for nothing.
For people unwilling to do for themselves and thinking something is owed to them, I'd let them starve. Now that solves the dilemma. They no longer around to bitch about being handed something for nothing.
dears, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.
My morals don't allow me to enable lazy people to be lazy while demand something for nothing. I have no problem letting a lazy piece of shit do without and have no concern about the results their laziness produces.
Since I don't promote laziness, sloth, and general freeloading, my morals are just fine.
Then Bill Gates should get food stamps.equal protection of the law is promoting the general welfare.It is not promoting the general welfare to pay people who can work but choose not to.just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".Ford could afford to double his workers' pay, and most companies cannot do that.
Unemployment compensation is only given under certain circumstances, and being paid to not work outside of those circumstances is welfare.
Got it?
Are you STILL going on about that, even after I've nuked it three ways to Sunday?Henry Ford chose to do better, why don't all captialists, emulate the example of Henry Ford, and realize gains from efficiency.how many capitalists can double wages and achieve gains from efficiency?too lazy to make like Henry Ford; but, "blame the poor" anyway. i got it.It's the explanation.
When the poor are the cause of their own bad situations, they deserve the blame. Got it?
why blame the poor, for not doing any better.
Why would someone double wages when he wagers they're already forced to pay for certain jobs is more than the job is worth based on the skills to do it?
In most cases, the poor are poor because they choose not to do any better.
it is means tested, so he won't qualify; any other diversions?Then Bill Gates should get food stamps.equal protection of the law is promoting the general welfare.It is not promoting the general welfare to pay people who can work but choose not to.just right wing fantasy; promoting the general welfare is in our Constitution.No, the right expects people to do their best, not to do less and expect society to make up the difference.in other words, not every capitalist can do what Henry Ford did; but, the right expects the poor to succeed better for free, merely through "hard work".
