Ocasio-Cortez Explains Unemployment

[kaz]

This girl should be running a hot dog cart in lower Manhattan and be grateful for it.

Another example of how all the racists on this forum are under the category of TRUMP SUPPORTERS.

What does that have to do with race? You really are a dick

 

[jc456]

I went back and update that previous post.

here's why

the funny piece is that you don't realize that money would run out and then there'd be none. and you've flushed progress, technology and life down the toilet. wow ain't you grand.

And why it has never worked. eveha!!!!

lol. Why would the money run out, right wingers?

why would anyone work? something for nothing leads to more nothing.

Again, I wish you fking leftists would understand humans and work ethics.

Capital. Capitalism works. Are you implying the right wing is all talk in public venues regarding the Importance of a Work Ethic from the Age Iron?

Not to be rude, but what?

Why do you believe solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be detrimental to our economy?

Solving for simple poverty Must promote and provide for the the General Welfare of the United States.

If solving poverty was easy, wouldn’t it have been solved by now? You have a misconception that people who work for a living want to bust their ass for lazy poor people

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Why would the money run out, right wingers?

why would anyone work? something for nothing leads to more nothing.

Again, I wish you fking leftists would understand humans and work ethics.

Capital. Capitalism works. Are you implying the right wing is all talk in public venues regarding the Importance of a Work Ethic from the Age Iron?

Not to be rude, but what?

Why do you believe solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be detrimental to our economy?

Solving for simple poverty Must promote and provide for the the General Welfare of the United States.

If solving poverty was easy, wouldn’t it have been solved by now? You have a misconception that people who work for a living want to bust their ass for lazy poor people

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

 

[jc456]

why would anyone work? something for nothing leads to more nothing.

Again, I wish you fking leftists would understand humans and work ethics.

Capital. Capitalism works. Are you implying the right wing is all talk in public venues regarding the Importance of a Work Ethic from the Age Iron?

Not to be rude, but what?

Why do you believe solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be detrimental to our economy?

Solving for simple poverty Must promote and provide for the the General Welfare of the United States.

If solving poverty was easy, wouldn’t it have been solved by now? You have a misconception that people who work for a living want to bust their ass for lazy poor people

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

I just told you

 

[danielpalos]

Capital. Capitalism works. Are you implying the right wing is all talk in public venues regarding the Importance of a Work Ethic from the Age Iron?

Not to be rude, but what?

Why do you believe solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be detrimental to our economy?

Solving for simple poverty Must promote and provide for the the General Welfare of the United States.

If solving poverty was easy, wouldn’t it have been solved by now? You have a misconception that people who work for a living want to bust their ass for lazy poor people

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

I just told you

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

 

[jc456]

Not to be rude, but what?

Why do you believe solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be detrimental to our economy?

Solving for simple poverty Must promote and provide for the the General Welfare of the United States.

If solving poverty was easy, wouldn’t it have been solved by now? You have a misconception that people who work for a living want to bust their ass for lazy poor people

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

I just told you

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

there can only be a story since it isn't implemented. And the reason it isn't implemented is because of the story I told. Now, you find me an economist that believes paying everyone a 15 dollar an hour living wage would be good for the country. I'll listen post it.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you believe solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be detrimental to our economy?

Solving for simple poverty Must promote and provide for the the General Welfare of the United States.

If solving poverty was easy, wouldn’t it have been solved by now? You have a misconception that people who work for a living want to bust their ass for lazy poor people

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

I just told you

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

there can only be a story since it isn't implemented. And the reason it isn't implemented is because of the story I told. Now, you find me an economist that believes paying everyone a 15 dollar an hour living wage would be good for the country. I'll listen post it.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages; not enough capitalists to go around on the right wing?

 

[francoHFW]

Why do you believe solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would be detrimental to our economy?

Solving for simple poverty Must promote and provide for the the General Welfare of the United States.

If solving poverty was easy, wouldn’t it have been solved by now? You have a misconception that people who work for a living want to bust their ass for lazy poor people

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

I just told you

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

there can only be a story since it isn't implemented. And the reason it isn't implemented is because of the story I told. Now, you find me an economist that believes paying everyone a 15 dollar an hour living wage would be good for the country. I'll listen post it.

Here you go...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2PRUHh2OSHmZhKIvS_fMoc

 

[jc456]

If solving poverty was easy, wouldn’t it have been solved by now? You have a misconception that people who work for a living want to bust their ass for lazy poor people

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

I just told you

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

there can only be a story since it isn't implemented. And the reason it isn't implemented is because of the story I told. Now, you find me an economist that believes paying everyone a 15 dollar an hour living wage would be good for the country. I'll listen post it.

Here you go...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2PRUHh2OSHmZhKIvS_fMoc

from one of the links embedded in your link:

CBO and the Minimum Wage, PT. 2 | CEPR Blog | CEPR

"In a major departure from earlier CBO analysis, the range of likely employment outcomes in the new CBO report includes zero.

Headlines have focused on CBO’s “central estimate” of the “change in employment” from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 –a loss of 500,000 jobs. But, the “likely range” in the CBO forecast runs from a “[v]ery slight decrease to -1.0 million workers.”

A mid-range estimate of 500,000 jobs lost, with a high-end estimate of one million jobs lost, is obviously bad optics for the proposed increase. Nevertheless, recognition in a CBO document that the “likely range” of employment effects effectively includes zero (a “very slight decrease”) is, as far as I can tell from reviewing several past CBO evaluations of the minimum wage, completely unprecedented.

CBO reports from the late 1990s, for example, assume that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would reduce employment of teenagers by between 0.5 percent and 2.0 percent, with a “smaller percentage reduction for young adults (ages 20 to 24).” (CBO, 1999, p. 4) A 2001 CBO report was not as explicit about its assumptions, but the estimated employment impact did not include zero (200,000 to 600,000 jobs lost).
Including zero in the range of plausible employment outcomes –for the first time ever– ought to feature more prominently in the discussion of the report and in the evaluation of the proposal on the table, especially considering that the proposal involves an increase in the minimum wage of almost 40 percent.

More than two decades of research that has questioned the negative employment impact of moderate increases in the minimum wage is slowly entering into standard analysis."

 

[danielpalos]

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

I just told you

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

there can only be a story since it isn't implemented. And the reason it isn't implemented is because of the story I told. Now, you find me an economist that believes paying everyone a 15 dollar an hour living wage would be good for the country. I'll listen post it.

Here you go...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2PRUHh2OSHmZhKIvS_fMoc

from one of the links embedded in your link:

CBO and the Minimum Wage, PT. 2 | CEPR Blog | CEPR

"In a major departure from earlier CBO analysis, the range of likely employment outcomes in the new CBO report includes zero.

Headlines have focused on CBO’s “central estimate” of the “change in employment” from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 –a loss of 500,000 jobs. But, the “likely range” in the CBO forecast runs from a “[v]ery slight decrease to -1.0 million workers.”

A mid-range estimate of 500,000 jobs lost, with a high-end estimate of one million jobs lost, is obviously bad optics for the proposed increase. Nevertheless, recognition in a CBO document that the “likely range” of employment effects effectively includes zero (a “very slight decrease”) is, as far as I can tell from reviewing several past CBO evaluations of the minimum wage, completely unprecedented.

CBO reports from the late 1990s, for example, assume that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would reduce employment of teenagers by between 0.5 percent and 2.0 percent, with a “smaller percentage reduction for young adults (ages 20 to 24).” (CBO, 1999, p. 4) A 2001 CBO report was not as explicit about its assumptions, but the estimated employment impact did not include zero (200,000 to 600,000 jobs lost).
Including zero in the range of plausible employment outcomes –for the first time ever– ought to feature more prominently in the discussion of the report and in the evaluation of the proposal on the table, especially considering that the proposal involves an increase in the minimum wage of almost 40 percent.

More than two decades of research that has questioned the negative employment impact of moderate increases in the minimum wage is slowly entering into standard analysis."

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves that problem.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[jc456]

I just told you

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

there can only be a story since it isn't implemented. And the reason it isn't implemented is because of the story I told. Now, you find me an economist that believes paying everyone a 15 dollar an hour living wage would be good for the country. I'll listen post it.

Here you go...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2PRUHh2OSHmZhKIvS_fMoc

from one of the links embedded in your link:

CBO and the Minimum Wage, PT. 2 | CEPR Blog | CEPR

"In a major departure from earlier CBO analysis, the range of likely employment outcomes in the new CBO report includes zero.

Headlines have focused on CBO’s “central estimate” of the “change in employment” from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 –a loss of 500,000 jobs. But, the “likely range” in the CBO forecast runs from a “[v]ery slight decrease to -1.0 million workers.”

A mid-range estimate of 500,000 jobs lost, with a high-end estimate of one million jobs lost, is obviously bad optics for the proposed increase. Nevertheless, recognition in a CBO document that the “likely range” of employment effects effectively includes zero (a “very slight decrease”) is, as far as I can tell from reviewing several past CBO evaluations of the minimum wage, completely unprecedented.

CBO reports from the late 1990s, for example, assume that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would reduce employment of teenagers by between 0.5 percent and 2.0 percent, with a “smaller percentage reduction for young adults (ages 20 to 24).” (CBO, 1999, p. 4) A 2001 CBO report was not as explicit about its assumptions, but the estimated employment impact did not include zero (200,000 to 600,000 jobs lost).
Including zero in the range of plausible employment outcomes –for the first time ever– ought to feature more prominently in the discussion of the report and in the evaluation of the proposal on the table, especially considering that the proposal involves an increase in the minimum wage of almost 40 percent.

More than two decades of research that has questioned the negative employment impact of moderate increases in the minimum wage is slowly entering into standard analysis."

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves that problem.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

it will ruin our country.

Why Seattle’s minimum wage law is now destroying wages

"The city of Seattle has the highest minimum wage in the United States. While economists and policy-makers continue to debate the issue, a recent working paper from researchers at the University of Washington (UW) raises serious questions about the effectiveness of minimum wage hikes. The paper – an official study commissioned by the city of Seattle itself – examines the second phase of the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance, which raised the city’s minimum from $11 to $13 per hour in 2016 with the eventual goal of $15 per hour.

In short, the study concludes that the “increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent.” The researchers explain, “The reduction in hours would cost the average employee $179 per month, while the wage increase would recoup only $54 of this loss, leaving a net loss of $125 per month (6.6%), which is sizable for a low-wage worker.” If this study holds up to scrutiny, it will show that, contrary to their intention, those who hoped to help workers at the bottom have actually made things worse."

 

[OnePercenter]

Doesn't matter how stupid she is....if enough stupid people vote for them, we become a Socialist country.

I'm just wondering how stupid Americans are?
When Communists start running for Senate seats and House seats, will they encounter as little resistance as the Socialists?

Put another way....are Americans really THAT fucking stupid to be tolerating this? wow!
This is against the Constitution and these people should be on trial...not on TV.

What's against the Constitution the Constitutionally challenged will ask.....

Well, Constitution 101......The US Constitution serves as a framework specifically to LIMIT government power. Socialism and Communism (yes one supposedly a social structure and one an economic structure (BullFNshit).....and both of these specifically empower government to extremes.

THAT, is un Constitutional i don't care what the Progs say.

Am I the ONLY one who sees a problem with this?

Meh, all she is is a cute Mexican colonist ( who really ain’t so cute). She is fizzling. Look for that seat to be filled by an independent. Bet the DNC even digs her opponents election for her opponent like they did Hillary.

You mean Puerto Rican? FYI, that's part of the United States.

 

[imawhosure]

Ocasio-Cortez who has a "degree" in Economics stated that the unemployment rate is low because most people have two jobs and working 60 hr. work weeks. This is the direction the Democratic Party is headed.

LOL, remember way back when, it was Confucsious say! Well now, it can be Ocasio-Cortez say, lolol!

I want to see the commercials for Repubs with what Ocassio says, Pelosi says, and Warren says, hehehehehehehehehehehe……...and then of course, to make it all fair, throw a little Chucky Shmucky Shumer in there too!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ocasio-Cortez who has a "degree" in Economics stated that the unemployment rate is low because most people have two jobs and working 60 hr. work weeks. This is the direction the Democratic Party is headed.

LOL, remember way back when, it was Confucsious say! Well now, it can be Ocasio-Cortez say, lolol!

I want to see the commercials for Repubs with what Ocassio says, Pelosi says, and Warren says, hehehehehehehehehehehe……...and then of course, to make it all fair, throw a little Chucky Shmucky Shumer in there too!

Confucius at least didn't have his head lodged in his colon like this chick does.

It is a damned shame she doesn't have a real opponent running against her. Just imagine the political hay that could be made with her bullshit. Literally the only places she couldn't be beaten like a drum is NY and California.

 

[francoHFW]

are you a story teller? you have a story, not an argument.

Why do you believe simple poverty would not be solved, by solving for capitalism's natural rate unemployment, with unemployment compensation?

I just told you

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

there can only be a story since it isn't implemented. And the reason it isn't implemented is because of the story I told. Now, you find me an economist that believes paying everyone a 15 dollar an hour living wage would be good for the country. I'll listen post it.

Here you go...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2PRUHh2OSHmZhKIvS_fMoc

from one of the links embedded in your link:

CBO and the Minimum Wage, PT. 2 | CEPR Blog | CEPR

"In a major departure from earlier CBO analysis, the range of likely employment outcomes in the new CBO report includes zero.

Headlines have focused on CBO’s “central estimate” of the “change in employment” from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 –a loss of 500,000 jobs. But, the “likely range” in the CBO forecast runs from a “[v]ery slight decrease to -1.0 million workers.”

A mid-range estimate of 500,000 jobs lost, with a high-end estimate of one million jobs lost, is obviously bad optics for the proposed increase. Nevertheless, recognition in a CBO document that the “likely range” of employment effects effectively includes zero (a “very slight decrease”) is, as far as I can tell from reviewing several past CBO evaluations of the minimum wage, completely unprecedented.

CBO reports from the late 1990s, for example, assume that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would reduce employment of teenagers by between 0.5 percent and 2.0 percent, with a “smaller percentage reduction for young adults (ages 20 to 24).” (CBO, 1999, p. 4) A 2001 CBO report was not as explicit about its assumptions, but the estimated employment impact did not include zero (200,000 to 600,000 jobs lost).
Including zero in the range of plausible employment outcomes –for the first time ever– ought to feature more prominently in the discussion of the report and in the evaluation of the proposal on the table, especially considering that the proposal involves an increase in the minimum wage of almost 40 percent.

More than two decades of research that has questioned the negative employment impact of moderate increases in the minimum wage is slowly entering into standard analysis."

The CBO absolutely sucks at using its imagination... Absolutely refuses to do it...

 

[francoHFW]

Ocasio-Cortez who has a "degree" in Economics stated that the unemployment rate is low because most people have two jobs and working 60 hr. work weeks. This is the direction the Democratic Party is headed.

LOL, remember way back when, it was Confucsious say! Well now, it can be Ocasio-Cortez say, lolol!

I want to see the commercials for Repubs with what Ocassio says, Pelosi says, and Warren says, hehehehehehehehehehehe……...and then of course, to make it all fair, throw a little Chucky Shmucky Shumer in there too!

Confucius at least didn't have his head lodged in his colon like this chick does.

It is a damned shame she doesn't have a real opponent running against her. Just imagine the political hay that could be made with her bullshit. Literally the only places she couldn't be beaten like a drum is NY and California.

And Massachusetts and New England and Oregon and Washington Minnesota Hawaii any big democratic City... Basically anywhere but rural Trump America...

 

[danielpalos]

You just told me an irrelevant story, story teller.

Where is your argument?

there can only be a story since it isn't implemented. And the reason it isn't implemented is because of the story I told. Now, you find me an economist that believes paying everyone a 15 dollar an hour living wage would be good for the country. I'll listen post it.

Here you go...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2PRUHh2OSHmZhKIvS_fMoc

from one of the links embedded in your link:

CBO and the Minimum Wage, PT. 2 | CEPR Blog | CEPR

"In a major departure from earlier CBO analysis, the range of likely employment outcomes in the new CBO report includes zero.

Headlines have focused on CBO’s “central estimate” of the “change in employment” from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 –a loss of 500,000 jobs. But, the “likely range” in the CBO forecast runs from a “[v]ery slight decrease to -1.0 million workers.”

A mid-range estimate of 500,000 jobs lost, with a high-end estimate of one million jobs lost, is obviously bad optics for the proposed increase. Nevertheless, recognition in a CBO document that the “likely range” of employment effects effectively includes zero (a “very slight decrease”) is, as far as I can tell from reviewing several past CBO evaluations of the minimum wage, completely unprecedented.

CBO reports from the late 1990s, for example, assume that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would reduce employment of teenagers by between 0.5 percent and 2.0 percent, with a “smaller percentage reduction for young adults (ages 20 to 24).” (CBO, 1999, p. 4) A 2001 CBO report was not as explicit about its assumptions, but the estimated employment impact did not include zero (200,000 to 600,000 jobs lost).
Including zero in the range of plausible employment outcomes –for the first time ever– ought to feature more prominently in the discussion of the report and in the evaluation of the proposal on the table, especially considering that the proposal involves an increase in the minimum wage of almost 40 percent.

More than two decades of research that has questioned the negative employment impact of moderate increases in the minimum wage is slowly entering into standard analysis."

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves that problem.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

it will ruin our country.

Why Seattle’s minimum wage law is now destroying wages

"The city of Seattle has the highest minimum wage in the United States. While economists and policy-makers continue to debate the issue, a recent working paper from researchers at the University of Washington (UW) raises serious questions about the effectiveness of minimum wage hikes. The paper – an official study commissioned by the city of Seattle itself – examines the second phase of the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance, which raised the city’s minimum from $11 to $13 per hour in 2016 with the eventual goal of $15 per hour.

In short, the study concludes that the “increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent.” The researchers explain, “The reduction in hours would cost the average employee $179 per month, while the wage increase would recoup only $54 of this loss, leaving a net loss of $125 per month (6.6%), which is sizable for a low-wage worker.” If this study holds up to scrutiny, it will show that, contrary to their intention, those who hoped to help workers at the bottom have actually made things worse."

a flawed study? why did the unemployment rate go down? and, since it did go down, why wouldn't Labor be able to get another part time job to make up for lost hours?

 

[Crixus]

Doesn't matter how stupid she is....if enough stupid people vote for them, we become a Socialist country.

I'm just wondering how stupid Americans are?
When Communists start running for Senate seats and House seats, will they encounter as little resistance as the Socialists?

Put another way....are Americans really THAT fucking stupid to be tolerating this? wow!
This is against the Constitution and these people should be on trial...not on TV.

What's against the Constitution the Constitutionally challenged will ask.....

Well, Constitution 101......The US Constitution serves as a framework specifically to LIMIT government power. Socialism and Communism (yes one supposedly a social structure and one an economic structure (BullFNshit).....and both of these specifically empower government to extremes.

THAT, is un Constitutional i don't care what the Progs say.

Am I the ONLY one who sees a problem with this?

Meh, all she is is a cute Mexican colonist ( who really ain’t so cute). She is fizzling. Look for that seat to be filled by an independent. Bet the DNC even digs her opponents election for her opponent like they did Hillary.

You mean Puerto Rican? FYI, that's part of the United States.

They are all the same.

 

[danielpalos]

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and giga-recycling factories to help with social costs.