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

[danielpalos]

it is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. equal protection of the law should apply, to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Well it doesn't and it never will.
UI is meant for people who are forced out of employment against their will, or who were fired for insufficient cause not for lazy fucks who choose not to work

haven't actually read the law? it is about employment, at-will.

All employment is employment at will yet as far as UI is concerned there are specific conditions that must be met before one is eligible to collect and being a lazy fuck who refuses to work isn't one of them

those conditions are extra-lawful. only the right, never gets it.

It has nothing to do with right or left.
You are responsible for getting a ob to pay your own bills
You are not entitled to a job
No one is under mandate to hire employees
You control how much you make and how much your skill set is worth

what you want to do is blame employers because you can't pay your bills when the responsibility and blame for that is all yours

equal protection of the law is in our Constitution. Only the right, never gets it in our First World economy which even provides Corporate Welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

not at all; there will always be a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism.

solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis is simply more efficient.

And we can make it easier or harder for unskilled teenagers with no work history to break into the job market. I want to make it easier, you want to make it harder.

easier for what, to make less just so the rich can get richer faster?

having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means persons can go to school or vocational training for as long as they want. Only the right, never gets it.

if you don't want to make a rich person richer then don't work for a rich person. Work for the poorest guy you can find

with equal protection of the law; persons could go on unemployment compensation and go to school for as long as they want.

no. what you want is for everyone else to pay your bills so you can be a lazy shit

not at all; it is called, full employment of capital resources. it isn't my fault, capitalists are so useless when it comes to that. not even John Henry can "bail them out" of that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

And it was cheaper than training new workers.
Libs think he did it to be fair, he did it to make more money!!!

why can't modern capitalists do it now?

It took more training to build cars than it does to make fries.

doesn't make sense. training still costs as does turnover.

Yes they do. And?

 

[danielpalos]

no, i am not confusing anything. the right merely confuses Mickey Mouse jobs, to actually improving the efficiency of our economy.

Those "Mickey Mouse" jobs are vital for unskilled teenagers trying to break into the job market and you're trying to take them away.

not at all; there will always be a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism.

solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis is simply more efficient.

And we can make it easier or harder for unskilled teenagers with no work history to break into the job market. I want to make it easier, you want to make it harder.

easier for what, to make less just so the rich can get richer faster?

What part of that is difficult to understand? When you are fresh out of high school at 18 years of age, have not held a steady job, and have no marketable skills, you NEED a low paying, unskilled job to establish a work history, get a favorable reference for a better job and learn some skills. No one is going to pay you a lot of money until you demonstrate that you are capable of doing valuable work, so jacking the MW higher and higher makes those jobs disappear and makes it harder for someone to break into the job market.

having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means persons can go to school or vocational training for as long as they want. Only the right, never gets it.

What the right "gets" is that there is a set of people who will, as long as someone else is paying the bill, be professional students, continually "learning" and getting "training", but never actually putting those skills to use and earning a living. Unemployment compensation for when you're laid off makes sense, still getting paid after quitting a job is welfare.

shouldn't everyone go to school to become more marketable if they cannot command a decent wage?

 

[danielpalos]

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

And it was cheaper than training new workers.
Libs think he did it to be fair, he did it to make more money!!!

why can't modern capitalists do it now?

It took more training to build cars than it does to make fries.

doesn't make sense. training still costs as does turnover.

Yes they do. And?

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

 

[hadit]

Well it doesn't and it never will.
UI is meant for people who are forced out of employment against their will, or who were fired for insufficient cause not for lazy fucks who choose not to work

haven't actually read the law? it is about employment, at-will.

All employment is employment at will yet as far as UI is concerned there are specific conditions that must be met before one is eligible to collect and being a lazy fuck who refuses to work isn't one of them

those conditions are extra-lawful. only the right, never gets it.

It has nothing to do with right or left.
You are responsible for getting a ob to pay your own bills
You are not entitled to a job
No one is under mandate to hire employees
You control how much you make and how much your skill set is worth

what you want to do is blame employers because you can't pay your bills when the responsibility and blame for that is all yours

equal protection of the law is in our Constitution. Only the right, never gets it in our First World economy which even provides Corporate Welfare.

Corporate welfare is wrong. Using the tax code to entice companies to stay in a location or move, or to punish companies for doing legal things are also wrong. Although, it does stand to reason that if the government wants to punish a company for being wildly successful, it should also be there to prop up companies that face failure.

Continuing to pay someone who voluntarily leaves a job is welfare, not unemployment compensation.

We have equal protection under the law. It doesn't matter who you are, if you're laid off you can collect unemployment compensation. If you quit a job, you can't. That's equality.

 

[hadit]

And we can make it easier or harder for unskilled teenagers with no work history to break into the job market. I want to make it easier, you want to make it harder.

easier for what, to make less just so the rich can get richer faster?

having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means persons can go to school or vocational training for as long as they want. Only the right, never gets it.

if you don't want to make a rich person richer then don't work for a rich person. Work for the poorest guy you can find

with equal protection of the law; persons could go on unemployment compensation and go to school for as long as they want.

no. what you want is for everyone else to pay your bills so you can be a lazy shit

not at all; it is called, full employment of capital resources. it isn't my fault, capitalists are so useless when it comes to that. not even John Henry can "bail them out" of that.

This country is the best place in the world If you want to provide for yourself.

 

[hadit]

And it was cheaper than training new workers.
Libs think he did it to be fair, he did it to make more money!!!

why can't modern capitalists do it now?

It took more training to build cars than it does to make fries.

doesn't make sense. training still costs as does turnover.

Yes they do. And?

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

He sure did, and he was able to because he was making money hand over fist. He didn't have a government standing over his shoulder, forcing him to pay people more than their work was worth, he had the freedom to decide for himself what he was willing to pay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And it was cheaper than training new workers.
Libs think he did it to be fair, he did it to make more money!!!

why can't modern capitalists do it now?

It took more training to build cars than it does to make fries.

doesn't make sense. training still costs as does turnover.

Yes they do. And?

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

Henry Ford voluntarily raised wages because it made economic sense.
Because it increased his profits.
The minimum wage, and raising it to $15, does not make economic sense.
It would not increase profits. It would not increase employment.
It would reduce both. It would be a bad idea.
I can see why you support that.

 

[danielpalos]

haven't actually read the law? it is about employment, at-will.

All employment is employment at will yet as far as UI is concerned there are specific conditions that must be met before one is eligible to collect and being a lazy fuck who refuses to work isn't one of them

those conditions are extra-lawful. only the right, never gets it.

It has nothing to do with right or left.
You are responsible for getting a ob to pay your own bills
You are not entitled to a job
No one is under mandate to hire employees
You control how much you make and how much your skill set is worth

what you want to do is blame employers because you can't pay your bills when the responsibility and blame for that is all yours

equal protection of the law is in our Constitution. Only the right, never gets it in our First World economy which even provides Corporate Welfare.

Corporate welfare is wrong. Using the tax code to entice companies to stay in a location or move, or to punish companies for doing legal things are also wrong. Although, it does stand to reason that if the government wants to punish a company for being wildly successful, it should also be there to prop up companies that face failure.

Continuing to pay someone who voluntarily leaves a job is welfare, not unemployment compensation.

We have equal protection under the law. It doesn't matter who you are, if you're laid off you can collect unemployment compensation. If you quit a job, you can't. That's equality.

not at all; if you want people to work; you simply need to pay wages that attract Labor. There should be no unemployment, at all.

just hire someone, if you don't want to collect unemployment and not make you richer, at the same time. it really is that simple, except to the right.

 

[danielpalos]

easier for what, to make less just so the rich can get richer faster?

having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means persons can go to school or vocational training for as long as they want. Only the right, never gets it.

if you don't want to make a rich person richer then don't work for a rich person. Work for the poorest guy you can find

with equal protection of the law; persons could go on unemployment compensation and go to school for as long as they want.

no. what you want is for everyone else to pay your bills so you can be a lazy shit

not at all; it is called, full employment of capital resources. it isn't my fault, capitalists are so useless when it comes to that. not even John Henry can "bail them out" of that.

This country is the best place in the world If you want to provide for yourself.

that is why we have "corporate welfare".

 

[danielpalos]

why can't modern capitalists do it now?

It took more training to build cars than it does to make fries.

doesn't make sense. training still costs as does turnover.

Yes they do. And?

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

He sure did, and he was able to because he was making money hand over fist. He didn't have a government standing over his shoulder, forcing him to pay people more than their work was worth, he had the freedom to decide for himself what he was willing to pay.

He was a Good Capitalist. Where have all the Good Capitalists gone in modern times.

 

[danielpalos]

why can't modern capitalists do it now?

It took more training to build cars than it does to make fries.

doesn't make sense. training still costs as does turnover.

Yes they do. And?

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

Henry Ford voluntarily raised wages because it made economic sense.
Because it increased his profits.
The minimum wage, and raising it to $15, does not make economic sense.
It would not increase profits. It would not increase employment.
It would reduce both. It would be a bad idea.
I can see why you support that.

dude; he doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages. That was the point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It took more training to build cars than it does to make fries.

doesn't make sense. training still costs as does turnover.

Yes they do. And?

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

Henry Ford voluntarily raised wages because it made economic sense.
Because it increased his profits.
The minimum wage, and raising it to $15, does not make economic sense.
It would not increase profits. It would not increase employment.
It would reduce both. It would be a bad idea.
I can see why you support that.

dude; he doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages. That was the point.

Why did he double wages?

 

[danielpalos]

doesn't make sense. training still costs as does turnover.

Yes they do. And?

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

Henry Ford voluntarily raised wages because it made economic sense.
Because it increased his profits.
The minimum wage, and raising it to $15, does not make economic sense.
It would not increase profits. It would not increase employment.
It would reduce both. It would be a bad idea.
I can see why you support that.

dude; he doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages. That was the point.

Why did he double wages?

he wanted his workers to make more so they could buy more cars.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes they do. And?

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

Henry Ford voluntarily raised wages because it made economic sense.
Because it increased his profits.
The minimum wage, and raising it to $15, does not make economic sense.
It would not increase profits. It would not increase employment.
It would reduce both. It would be a bad idea.
I can see why you support that.

dude; he doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages. That was the point.

Why did he double wages?

he wanted his workers to make more so they could buy more cars.

Baloney.
That would be a moronic reason to raise wages.
I can see why you believe it.

 

[danielpalos]

Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.

Henry Ford voluntarily raised wages because it made economic sense.
Because it increased his profits.
The minimum wage, and raising it to $15, does not make economic sense.
It would not increase profits. It would not increase employment.
It would reduce both. It would be a bad idea.
I can see why you support that.

dude; he doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages. That was the point.

Why did he double wages?

he wanted his workers to make more so they could buy more cars.

Baloney.
That would be a moronic reason to raise wages.
I can see why you believe it.

read it for yourself; it was one reason. the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.

 

[hadit]

if you don't want to make a rich person richer then don't work for a rich person. Work for the poorest guy you can find

with equal protection of the law; persons could go on unemployment compensation and go to school for as long as they want.

no. what you want is for everyone else to pay your bills so you can be a lazy shit

not at all; it is called, full employment of capital resources. it isn't my fault, capitalists are so useless when it comes to that. not even John Henry can "bail them out" of that.

This country is the best place in the world If you want to provide for yourself.

that is why we have "corporate welfare".

That makes no sense.

 

[hadit]

Henry Ford voluntarily raised wages because it made economic sense.
Because it increased his profits.
The minimum wage, and raising it to $15, does not make economic sense.
It would not increase profits. It would not increase employment.
It would reduce both. It would be a bad idea.
I can see why you support that.

dude; he doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages. That was the point.

Why did he double wages?

he wanted his workers to make more so they could buy more cars.

Baloney.
That would be a moronic reason to raise wages.
I can see why you believe it.

read it for yourself; it was one reason. the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.

And again, the only reason he could do that was that he was making enough money to do it. Most companies are not in that situation.

 

[danielpalos]

with equal protection of the law; persons could go on unemployment compensation and go to school for as long as they want.

no. what you want is for everyone else to pay your bills so you can be a lazy shit

not at all; it is called, full employment of capital resources. it isn't my fault, capitalists are so useless when it comes to that. not even John Henry can "bail them out" of that.

This country is the best place in the world If you want to provide for yourself.

that is why we have "corporate welfare".

That makes no sense.

why only complain about welfare for Individuals?