What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[Wyatt earp]

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

Not national



Again why dont you admit you want socialism?


You know, because I told you a million times 50% of workers make $15 or less.

So just admit it already


.

according to one estimate, it varies by region, actually.

we already have socialism. capitalism died in 1929. socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

Come on a little bit more of the truth from you...


Tell us the truth you want socialism



.

 

[danielpalos]

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

 

[hadit]

You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue

i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates. It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No. Not "compete", "compliment". If society deems a standard of living to be necessary, society makes up the difference. If you make $3/hr less than the standard, you get welfare benefits of $3/hr. Let's be honest and make it welfare instead of forcing business to do it for us.

it is about privatizing costs. it really is that simple.

No, what you are advocating is privatizing welfare, because you are adding on the cost of welfare to the wage. That's not honest, and just tries to camoflage what you're doing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Lower social services...


.

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

and it will never happen

 

[Skull Pilot]

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

so ow you want the government to regulate costs as well as wages?

 

[danielpalos]

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

 

[hadit]

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

Wrong again. If it costs me $10/unit to manufacture something, government forcing me to set the price at $8/unit doesn't change my cost, it eliminates my company.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor woth more so you can work less and still pay your bills

The only two reasons you would need $500a week to pay your bills if you only make $8 an hour is because


1. You live beyond your means

2. You are a dumb ass living in a blue city or state and vote for high tax Democrats



Thats it moron.



.

 

[danielpalos]

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

Not national



Again why dont you admit you want socialism?


You know, because I told you a million times 50% of workers make $15 or less.

So just admit it already


.

according to one estimate, it varies by region, actually.

we already have socialism. capitalism died in 1929. socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

Come on a little bit more of the truth from you...


Tell us the truth you want socialism



.

we already have socialism. capitalism died in 1929. socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

only the right wing subscribes to fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs".

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

 

[hadit]

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

Incorrect. That would be welfare, NOT unemployment compensation.

 

[HenryBHough]

The immediate effect would be a great clamour to double welfare benefits as the present payouts would be insufficient to cope with the rapid inflation that WILL follow an abrupt, overly large jump in minimum age. Worse, more people would need those benefits as they will be out on their tender little asses from any jobs they might have had.

 

[danielpalos]

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

so ow you want the government to regulate costs as well as wages?

only the right wing is that fantastical; minimum wages are already a form of regulation.

 

[hadit]

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Its trickle up poor and you dont have a clue about economics..thats a fact, you dont know shit about profit margins, you dont have a clue that over 80% of bussiness are small..


Your so fucking dumb on economics that you dont even know how stupid you really are.


.

so what; Henry Ford doubled wages and did not whine about regulations or taxes; only corporate welfare addicts, do that.

Ford was making enough money that he could afford to do that. Most companies do not have that luxury.

 

[Skull Pilot]

nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

If you quit or decline work you are not unemployed against your will which is what unemployment insurance is for
and you forget that employees don't own the business where they work so by definition they can have no pride of ownership.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

so ow you want the government to regulate costs as well as wages?

only the right wing is that fantastical; minimum wages are already a form of regulation.

Which is why MW should be done away with

 

[danielpalos]

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

Wrong again. If it costs me $10/unit to manufacture something, government forcing me to set the price at $8/unit doesn't change my cost, it eliminates my company.

Prohibition is worse.

In any Case, fixing Standards is a power delegated to our legislators.

 

[Wyatt earp]

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

Baloney. There are prices and there are costs. You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs. If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work. I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate. That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.

yes, costs can be regulated. only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.

so ow you want the government to regulate costs as well as wages?

I told you this $15 dollar an hour nonsense with this kid is all a ruse..


He just wants socialism



.

 

[danielpalos]

Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.

it is politics, not welfare. and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed. It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage". If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr. Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.

Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this. If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills. Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle

any third worlder can do that. have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.

Incorrect. That would be welfare, NOT unemployment compensation.

nope; it would be unemployment compensation and equal protection of the law.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.

social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1. you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.

Again who made it $14 an hour?



.

according to one estimate. does it really matter now? advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.

and it will never happen

it is already happening.

Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states