Trump will leave office with a historically bad economic record

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

 

[Bobob]

Because one job working with machines can replace hundreds or thousands of manual labor job. There will be fewer jobs in total and a lot more on welfare. Stop calling it UC, because it's something completely different, as you know by now.

We don't need low wage service jobs and might as well automate them. Capitalism is about boom and bust; your job loss red herring is just that under free market Capitalism.

people won't hire unskilled labor for 15 dollars an hour

If they were paying a reasonable wage, $15 an hour would not be that much

Reasonable is a subjective term

I think it's perfectly reasonable to pay someone with ZERO skills way less than 15 an hour

I fully agree. The minimum wage is a learning wage and not an earning wage. If an unskilled worker is being paid a
wage of $15 per hour, then that person is approaching the wage of a skilled worker. The skilled worker will want to be paid much more than an unskilled worker, and rightly so. If skilled wage earners are making a wage within hailing distance of an unskilled worker, there will be turmoil in that business due to disgruntled employees which is not good for business.
Also, as employee overhead skyrockets, layoffs will result. Those who have never had to meet a payroll may not
understand that employee expense is 75% of business overhead. Also, the business has to deal with price increases due to the trade war and the combination may be decimating.

 

[Blues Man]

The people who are really going to get squeezed here are the ones making MW to about 12 dollars an hour and those are the people most easily replaced by technology.

So what. Some on the left are for actually solving for economic phenomena not just wasting money on alleged wars.

UC for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment easily solves that dilemma. Only the right wing has a problem mustering, goodwill toward men.

You are talking about welfare not unemployment compensation.

Since you obviously don't know this

All businesses pay State and Federal Unemployment taxes know as SUTA and FUTA the tax is calculated from the payroll of each business. If have never worked you have never been on a payroll therefore you have no claim on any of the money paid by businesses to fund unemployment.

You want to be a welfare bum

I am advocating optimizing for the new equilibrium. UC is a State obligation and an externality to the private sector.

Like i said welfare.

And Unemployment is both state and federal and it is funded by the private sector and not separate from it

 

[danielpalos]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

 

[danielpalos]

I fully agree. The minimum wage is a learning wage and not an earning wage. If an unskilled worker is being paid a
wage of $15 per hour, then that person is approaching the wage of a skilled worker.

So what; it means an upward pressure on wages for the more skilled not what right wingers would prefer.

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

 

[danielpalos]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

 

[Bobob]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

 

[Blues Man]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

 

[Bobob]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

Financial losses are never acceptable to business owners because the financial loss is their loss.

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

Financial losses are never acceptable to business owners because the financial loss is their loss.

Of course you're wrong.

There can be any number of reasons that a business shows zero or negative profit.

That doesn't necessarily mean the business owner lost money

 

[danielpalos]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

You miss the point. For-profit firms are expected to be profit oriented as their reason for existence.

 

[danielpalos]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

The point was, that the private sector is a price taker not a price maker when it comes to statutory wages. Those firms still have to operate on a for-profit basis regardless of the change in the "goalposts" by Government.

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

You miss the point. For-profit firms are expected to be profit oriented as their reason for existence.

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

 

[Bobob]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

 

[Bobob]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

Financial losses are never acceptable to business owners because the financial loss is their loss.

Of course you're wrong.

There can be any number of reasons that a business shows zero or negative profit.

That doesn't necessarily mean the business owner lost money

I am not wrong. Showing a loss and having a loss may be 2 different things.

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

Then you know that it can be acceptable to take a loss so as to offset the taxes from future earnings. Or that a business can show ZERO profit because it has aggressively reinvested profits and used depreciation schedules

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

Financial losses are never acceptable to business owners because the financial loss is their loss.

Of course you're wrong.

There can be any number of reasons that a business shows zero or negative profit.

That doesn't necessarily mean the business owner lost money

I am not wrong. Showing a loss and having a loss may be 2 different things.

No it's not.

A loss is a loss on paper.

 

[Harry Dresden]

hey danny why dont you tell us what makes you an expert on economics?...why are you dodging that question?....can it be you are just another full of shit poster here?...

Resorting to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers can't do it.

so you have nothing?....you are just another here giving their worthless opinions....