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.
Yes, it is. You have nothing but fallacy; that is why you think the way you do; simply, erroneous.He paid an efficiency wage to achieve gains from efficiency. It really is that simple. He had a Plan, Stan; y'all on the right wing don't.Henry Ford doubled the wages of Persons engaged in auto work, not general labor.When are you going to back up your claim? You claimed Ford doubled wages more than once, I have asked for the time he did as you claimed for a second time and the reason he did so, all you have is fallacy, lies and avoidance.
Also no minimum wage in 1914, another lie the lefty needs to sell.
On Jan. 5, 1914, Henry Ford, head of the Ford Motor Company, introduced a minimum wage scale of $5 per day, more than doubling the wages for most employees.--https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/jan-5-1914-henry-ford-implements-5-a-day-wage/
Nobody takes the right wing seriously, but for fun and practice.
Idiot! I never said he didn't double wages, you claimed he did it TWICE! Now either back up your claim or continue with your dishonesty and lies. The reason he doubled the wages was because he could not keep employees at the $2.38 a day he was pay. When you have 14,000 and a turnover rate of 54,000 a year your business is going to suffer.
Now please tell me when he double his workers rates a second time, like you claim he did. My bet is you can't because you lied.
That is why, your red herrings are irrelevant.
That isn't a response to my questions, you have deliberately avoided the question, why? It's because Ford only doubled the wage once, not twice or more like you claim. So, again, answer the question. Or is it to far over your head.
You need a basic understanding on business to make a business move. So far you have shown no knowledge of running a business. All you have is lies and diversions.
He paid an efficiency wage to achieve gains from efficiency. It really is that simple. He had a Plan, Stan; y'all on the right wing don't.
If government is going to pay people a decent living then why should a store pay more? With that level of governmental interference the market can't work properly. We used to get roommates and live within our means back when I was young.When somebody is working full time and not earning enough to live on, they get food stamps, EBT Card, subsidized housing or child care, and emergency medical care. Benefits vary depending on where they live. THE GOVERNMET has to make up the difference!!!Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage
In a pair of affluent coastal California counties, the canary in the mineshaft has gotten splayed, spatchcocked and plated over a bed of unintended consequences, garnished with sprigs of locally sourced economic distortion and non-GMO, “What the heck were they thinking?”
The result of one early experiment in a citywide $15 minimum wage is an ominous sign for the state’s poorer inland counties as the statewide wage floor creeps toward the mark.
Consider San Francisco, an early adopter of the $15 wage. It’s now experiencing a restaurant die-off, minting jobless hash-slingers, cashiers, busboys, scullery engineers and line cooks as they get pink-slipped in increasing numbers. And the wage there hasn’t yet hit $15.
As the East Bay Times reported in January, at least 60 restaurants around the Bay Area had closed since September alone.
A recent study by Michael Luca at Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca at Mathematica Policy Research found that every $1 hike in the minimum wage brings a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of a 3.5-star restaurant on Yelp! closing.
Another telltale is San Diego, where voters approved increasing the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 per hour from $10.50, this after the minimum wage was increased from $8 an hour in 2015 – meaning hourly costs have risen 43 percent in two years.
The cost increases have pushed San Diego restaurants to the brink, Stephen Zolezzi, president of the Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, told the San Diego Business Journal. Watch for the next mass die-off there...
Luckily, I live in the central coast area between L.A. and San Francisco, so this area hasn't gone as extreme left as those parts of California.
That means that the Taxpayer is subsidizing McDonalds!!! If a business can't pay a living wage, then it should not be in business. I am not going to buy a Burger out of a vending machine (Kiosk).
When I owned a bar in California, some bars tried using machine mixed cocktails. It was a complete failure. When it comes to food, people want personal service.
You're not answering the question. Put the bong down.How about, extrapolation. The minimum wage was twenty-five cents in 1938. Are you claiming a market clearing minimum wage was higher, 1914?He doubled the going rate for autoworkers not minimum wage workers.Yes, he did. You cannot claim that the minimum wage enacted by statute later on, was not lower than no minimum wage by statute but only by the market.
When did he double wages again? Name the year and the reason.
Since there was no minimum wage that was pretty easy, wasn't it? Did he every double wages again? Name the year and the reason he doubled the wage again. That is your claim, back it up or again, you are a liar. Which you seem to be very good at.
Henry Ford doubled the wages of Persons engaged in auto work, not general labor.
When somebody is working full time and not earning enough to live on, they get food stamps, EBT Card, subsidized housing or child care, and emergency medical care. Benefits vary depending on where they live. THE GOVERNMET has to make up the difference!!!Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage
In a pair of affluent coastal California counties, the canary in the mineshaft has gotten splayed, spatchcocked and plated over a bed of unintended consequences, garnished with sprigs of locally sourced economic distortion and non-GMO, “What the heck were they thinking?”
The result of one early experiment in a citywide $15 minimum wage is an ominous sign for the state’s poorer inland counties as the statewide wage floor creeps toward the mark.
Consider San Francisco, an early adopter of the $15 wage. It’s now experiencing a restaurant die-off, minting jobless hash-slingers, cashiers, busboys, scullery engineers and line cooks as they get pink-slipped in increasing numbers. And the wage there hasn’t yet hit $15.
As the East Bay Times reported in January, at least 60 restaurants around the Bay Area had closed since September alone.
A recent study by Michael Luca at Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca at Mathematica Policy Research found that every $1 hike in the minimum wage brings a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of a 3.5-star restaurant on Yelp! closing.
Another telltale is San Diego, where voters approved increasing the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 per hour from $10.50, this after the minimum wage was increased from $8 an hour in 2015 – meaning hourly costs have risen 43 percent in two years.
The cost increases have pushed San Diego restaurants to the brink, Stephen Zolezzi, president of the Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, told the San Diego Business Journal. Watch for the next mass die-off there...
Luckily, I live in the central coast area between L.A. and San Francisco, so this area hasn't gone as extreme left as those parts of California.
That means that the Taxpayer is subsidizing McDonalds!!! If a business can't pay a living wage, then it should not be in business. I am not going to buy a Burger out of a vending machine (Kiosk).
When I owned a bar in California, some bars tried using machine mixed cocktails. It was a complete failure. When it comes to food, people want personal service.
California is an at-will employment State, it says so in the Labor Code at 2922.A Conflict of Laws, You Claim? Should we look up the "red tape" that covers, "conflicts of law"?Which law? We have a Labor Code that says, employment is at-will, with no restrictions but for notice.The law is employment at will; let's be Legal, to the law, right wingers.
The law is also, no UE benefits for quitters or never workers.
The law that says no UE benefits for you.
A Conflict of Laws,
It is?
Show me both, I'll be happy to point out your error.
He doubled autoworker wages not market clearing minimum wages, in 1914.Why is it relevant? You have, nothing but propaganda. Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not minimum wages.Henry Ford doubled the wages of Persons engaged in auto work, not general labor.You have to rebut it with a valid argument, not just your say so; because, You are not, Herr Say.
Henry Ford doubled the wages of Persons engaged in auto work, not general labor.
And you claim he did it twice and you won't back up your claim. You are dishonest and a liar.
On Jan. 5, 1914, Henry Ford, head of the Ford Motor Company, introduced a minimum wage scale of $5 per day, more than doubling the wages for most employees.--https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/jan-5-1914-henry-ford-implements-5-a-day-wage/
You are right he did it once. But you have still yet to prove he did it twice, like you claimed earlier. So it is up to you to either put up or shut up. So far you aren't bright enough to do either.
When did he double wages again? It is relevant because you brought it up as a counterpoint to my post. So I accept you are a liar.
Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages. He did not double minimum wages of the time.Yes, it is. You have nothing but fallacy; that is why you think the way you do; simply, erroneous.He paid an efficiency wage to achieve gains from efficiency. It really is that simple. He had a Plan, Stan; y'all on the right wing don't.Henry Ford doubled the wages of Persons engaged in auto work, not general labor.
Nobody takes the right wing seriously, but for fun and practice.
Idiot! I never said he didn't double wages, you claimed he did it TWICE! Now either back up your claim or continue with your dishonesty and lies. The reason he doubled the wages was because he could not keep employees at the $2.38 a day he was pay. When you have 14,000 and a turnover rate of 54,000 a year your business is going to suffer.
Now please tell me when he double his workers rates a second time, like you claim he did. My bet is you can't because you lied.
That is why, your red herrings are irrelevant.
That isn't a response to my questions, you have deliberately avoided the question, why? It's because Ford only doubled the wage once, not twice or more like you claim. So, again, answer the question. Or is it to far over your head.
You need a basic understanding on business to make a business move. So far you have shown no knowledge of running a business. All you have is lies and diversions.
He paid an efficiency wage to achieve gains from efficiency. It really is that simple. He had a Plan, Stan; y'all on the right wing don't.
So you admit to lying about doubling wages more than once? Because you can't link or quote where he did it twice. You have never ran a business and all you have is your experience as a temp because you can't get a job above minimum wage. Your inexperience and lack knowledge and understanding of a real business is very apparent and you are dishonest and a liar to try to make up for your lack of knowledge.
Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages. He did not double minimum wages of the time.Yes, it is. You have nothing but fallacy; that is why you think the way you do; simply, erroneous.He paid an efficiency wage to achieve gains from efficiency. It really is that simple. He had a Plan, Stan; y'all on the right wing don't.Idiot! I never said he didn't double wages, you claimed he did it TWICE! Now either back up your claim or continue with your dishonesty and lies. The reason he doubled the wages was because he could not keep employees at the $2.38 a day he was pay. When you have 14,000 and a turnover rate of 54,000 a year your business is going to suffer.
Now please tell me when he double his workers rates a second time, like you claim he did. My bet is you can't because you lied.
That is why, your red herrings are irrelevant.
That isn't a response to my questions, you have deliberately avoided the question, why? It's because Ford only doubled the wage once, not twice or more like you claim. So, again, answer the question. Or is it to far over your head.
You need a basic understanding on business to make a business move. So far you have shown no knowledge of running a business. All you have is lies and diversions.
He paid an efficiency wage to achieve gains from efficiency. It really is that simple. He had a Plan, Stan; y'all on the right wing don't.
So you admit to lying about doubling wages more than once? Because you can't link or quote where he did it twice. You have never ran a business and all you have is your experience as a temp because you can't get a job above minimum wage. Your inexperience and lack knowledge and understanding of a real business is very apparent and you are dishonest and a liar to try to make up for your lack of knowledge.
When somebody is working full time and not earning enough to live on, they get food stamps, EBT Card, subsidized housing or child care, and emergency medical care. Benefits vary depending on where they live. THE GOVERNMET has to make up the difference!!!Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage
In a pair of affluent coastal California counties, the canary in the mineshaft has gotten splayed, spatchcocked and plated over a bed of unintended consequences, garnished with sprigs of locally sourced economic distortion and non-GMO, “What the heck were they thinking?”
The result of one early experiment in a citywide $15 minimum wage is an ominous sign for the state’s poorer inland counties as the statewide wage floor creeps toward the mark.
Consider San Francisco, an early adopter of the $15 wage. It’s now experiencing a restaurant die-off, minting jobless hash-slingers, cashiers, busboys, scullery engineers and line cooks as they get pink-slipped in increasing numbers. And the wage there hasn’t yet hit $15.
As the East Bay Times reported in January, at least 60 restaurants around the Bay Area had closed since September alone.
A recent study by Michael Luca at Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca at Mathematica Policy Research found that every $1 hike in the minimum wage brings a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of a 3.5-star restaurant on Yelp! closing.
Another telltale is San Diego, where voters approved increasing the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 per hour from $10.50, this after the minimum wage was increased from $8 an hour in 2015 – meaning hourly costs have risen 43 percent in two years.
The cost increases have pushed San Diego restaurants to the brink, Stephen Zolezzi, president of the Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, told the San Diego Business Journal. Watch for the next mass die-off there...
Luckily, I live in the central coast area between L.A. and San Francisco, so this area hasn't gone as extreme left as those parts of California.
That means that the Taxpayer is subsidizing McDonalds!!! If a business can't pay a living wage, then it should not be in business. I am not going to buy a Burger out of a vending machine (Kiosk).
When I owned a bar in California, some bars tried using machine mixed cocktails. It was a complete failure. When it comes to food, people want personal service.
There is no error, just conflict. California is an at-will employment State, it says so in the Labor Code at 2922.California is an at-will employment State, it says so in the Labor Code at 2922.A Conflict of Laws, You Claim? Should we look up the "red tape" that covers, "conflicts of law"?The law that says no UE benefits for you.
A Conflict of Laws,
It is?
Show me both, I'll be happy to point out your error.
Show me both, I'll be happy to point out your error.
You are the one with that red herring. I am not the one, making an issue of it.Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages. He did not double minimum wages of the time.Yes, it is. You have nothing but fallacy; that is why you think the way you do; simply, erroneous.That isn't a response to my questions, you have deliberately avoided the question, why? It's because Ford only doubled the wage once, not twice or more like you claim. So, again, answer the question. Or is it to far over your head.
You need a basic understanding on business to make a business move. So far you have shown no knowledge of running a business. All you have is lies and diversions.
He paid an efficiency wage to achieve gains from efficiency. It really is that simple. He had a Plan, Stan; y'all on the right wing don't.
So you admit to lying about doubling wages more than once? Because you can't link or quote where he did it twice. You have never ran a business and all you have is your experience as a temp because you can't get a job above minimum wage. Your inexperience and lack knowledge and understanding of a real business is very apparent and you are dishonest and a liar to try to make up for your lack of knowledge.
I don't disagree with you on that point! Never had, I disagree with you claiming that Ford double wages more than once and you still have not proved he did. So please show us where he did so a second time.
Man you sure like to lie and distort. Very dishonest of you.
You are the one fishing for red herrings. How is that relevant. I have an actual argument, not just red herrings.You are the one with that red herring. I am not the one, making an issue of it.Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages. He did not double minimum wages of the time.So you admit to lying about doubling wages more than once? Because you can't link or quote where he did it twice. You have never ran a business and all you have is your experience as a temp because you can't get a job above minimum wage. Your inexperience and lack knowledge and understanding of a real business is very apparent and you are dishonest and a liar to try to make up for your lack of knowledge.
I don't disagree with you on that point! Never had, I disagree with you claiming that Ford double wages more than once and you still have not proved he did. So please show us where he did so a second time.
Man you sure like to lie and distort. Very dishonest of you.
You made the statement, can't you back up your lie?
Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not market clearing minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists, complain about wages being too high.
No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.There is no error, just conflict. California is an at-will employment State, it says so in the Labor Code at 2922.California is an at-will employment State, it says so in the Labor Code at 2922.A Conflict of Laws,
It is?
Show me both, I'll be happy to point out your error.
Show me both, I'll be happy to point out your error.
There is no error, just conflict.
Post the text of both laws that you feel are in conflict.
I'll show you your error.
It only works once. He needed a new, efficiency plan, Stan.You are the one fishing for red herrings. How is that relevant. I have an actual argument, not just red herrings.You are the one with that red herring. I am not the one, making an issue of it.I don't disagree with you on that point! Never had, I disagree with you claiming that Ford double wages more than once and you still have not proved he did. So please show us where he did so a second time.
Man you sure like to lie and distort. Very dishonest of you.
You made the statement, can't you back up your lie?
Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not market clearing minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists, complain about wages being too high.
And Ford NEVER did it again! Why didn't he? If it supposedly worked as well as you seem to believe, then why did he not do it again? That is why it is relevant, because your lie leads people to believe that it worked and he continued the practice.
He did it to save his company because workers would not stay. Your use of Ford proves that Ford responded to market forces no some minimum wage law. Companies will do the same today if you let them.
You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.There is no error, just conflict. California is an at-will employment State, it says so in the Labor Code at 2922.Show me both, I'll be happy to point out your error.
There is no error, just conflict.
Post the text of both laws that you feel are in conflict.
I'll show you your error.
Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.
California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.
California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
It is null and void, from Inception. Why should I post it.You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.There is no error, just conflict. California is an at-will employment State, it says so in the Labor Code at 2922.
There is no error, just conflict.
Post the text of both laws that you feel are in conflict.
I'll show you your error.
Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.
California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.
California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
You post the text since you have such a good argument
You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.
An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.
Or run away.....again. LOL!
It is your red herring, right winger; run with it. I am not claiming anything since it is irrelevant to My argument.It only works once. He needed a new, efficiency plan, Stan.You are the one fishing for red herrings. How is that relevant. I have an actual argument, not just red herrings.You made the statement, can't you back up your lie?
Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not market clearing minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists, complain about wages being too high.
And Ford NEVER did it again! Why didn't he? If it supposedly worked as well as you seem to believe, then why did he not do it again? That is why it is relevant, because your lie leads people to believe that it worked and he continued the practice.
He did it to save his company because workers would not stay. Your use of Ford proves that Ford responded to market forces no some minimum wage law. Companies will do the same today if you let them.
Then why did you claim he did it more than once? The market forces made Ford double the wages, the same would hold true today.
You post the text since you have such a good argument, slacker.No, you won't. California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.There is no error, just conflict. California is an at-will employment State, it says so in the Labor Code at 2922.
There is no error, just conflict.
Post the text of both laws that you feel are in conflict.
I'll show you your error.
Post the text, coward.
Your failure to do so is proof you know you lied.
California is an at-will employment State. EDD must show for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.
California Labor Code 2922: An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
You post the text since you have such a good argument
You made the argument that there is a conflict.
Now you won't post the text that would prove your claim.
An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
Awesome! Now post the text of the law/regulation that is in conflict with this.
Or run away.....again. LOL!
