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.
those conditions are extra-lawful. only the right, never gets it.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 themhaven't actually read the law? it is about employment, at-will.Well it doesn't and it never will.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.
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
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
no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. .
Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.yes, it does; it makes the same sense. only the right, never gets it.of course; he doubled autoworker wages not minimum wage to provide incentive to make more money. it is called, long run full employment and an economic stimulus to achieve that end.the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.
Yeah, like I said, he did it to make more money.
Yes, it made economic sense for him to increase wages.
Hiking the minimum wage to $15 does not make economic sense.
yes, it does; it makes the same sense.
It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.
You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.
Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.yes, it does; it makes the same sense. only the right, never gets it.of course; he doubled autoworker wages not minimum wage to provide incentive to make more money. it is called, long run full employment and an economic stimulus to achieve that end.
Yes, it made economic sense for him to increase wages.
Hiking the minimum wage to $15 does not make economic sense.
yes, it does; it makes the same sense.
It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.
You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.
It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.
It's a matter of terminology. What you are advocating is quite simply welfare for when you are not working for whatever reason. That means that a large number of people will decide that they prefer collecting a paycheck but not working a job and society will bear that cost.no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.UI is means tested welfare. It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one. If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation. You can't avoid it.but for unemployment compensation.This is true. At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it. When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.
Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.
it is more cost effective than means tested welfare. we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".
Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse. The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.
only the right is that naive/disingenuous with more than Ten Commandments on the books.those conditions are extra-lawful. only the right, never gets it.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 themhaven't actually read the law? it is about employment, at-will.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
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
exactly, a business should be free to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate with the best products in the entire world. Thats a huge important mission that should not be interfered with by govt.
not at all; what I am advocating is improving the efficiency of our economy, in favor of the general welfare instead of a private profit motive.It's a matter of terminology. What you are advocating is quite simply welfare for when you are not working for whatever reason. That means that a large number of people will decide that they prefer collecting a paycheck but not working a job and society will bear that cost.no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.UI is means tested welfare. It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one. If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation. You can't avoid it.but for unemployment compensation.This is true. At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it. When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.Sweety, the employer owns the job. it is his to give or take away.
it is more cost effective than means tested welfare. we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".
Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse. The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.
only in right wing fantasy does one hundred percent, not equal full employment.no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. .
actually we have 4.3% unemployment so it is full employment!!
only the right has no use for Capitalism. it is about consolidating and re-tooling for greater efficiency, like Henry Ford.Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.yes, it does; it makes the same sense. only the right, never gets it.of course; he doubled autoworker wages not minimum wage to provide incentive to make more money. it is called, long run full employment and an economic stimulus to achieve that end.
Yes, it made economic sense for him to increase wages.
Hiking the minimum wage to $15 does not make economic sense.
yes, it does; it makes the same sense.
It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.
You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.
It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.
Apparently your understanding of human nature takes second place to your ideology. Do you seriously think a system in which people get paid whether they work or not will result in most people working?not at all; what I am advocating is improving the efficiency of our economy, in favor of the general welfare instead of a private profit motive.It's a matter of terminology. What you are advocating is quite simply welfare for when you are not working for whatever reason. That means that a large number of people will decide that they prefer collecting a paycheck but not working a job and society will bear that cost.no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.UI is means tested welfare. It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one. If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation. You can't avoid it.but for unemployment compensation.This is true. At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it. When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.
it is more cost effective than means tested welfare. we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".
Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse. The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.
so what; if Capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost; how Good can they be.Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.yes, it does; it makes the same sense. only the right, never gets it.Yes, it made economic sense for him to increase wages.
Hiking the minimum wage to $15 does not make economic sense.
yes, it does; it makes the same sense.
It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.
You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.
It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.
yes, a $15 minimum would make it illegal to hire anyone not worth $15. What a great way to create more unemployment and another liberal scam to correct unemployment.
how many jobs are there, with a natural rate of unemployment?Apparently your understanding of human nature takes second place to your ideology. Do you seriously think a system in which people get paid whether they work or not will result in most people working?not at all; what I am advocating is improving the efficiency of our economy, in favor of the general welfare instead of a private profit motive.It's a matter of terminology. What you are advocating is quite simply welfare for when you are not working for whatever reason. That means that a large number of people will decide that they prefer collecting a paycheck but not working a job and society will bear that cost.no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.UI is means tested welfare. It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one. If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation. You can't avoid it.but for unemployment compensation.
it is more cost effective than means tested welfare. we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".
Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse. The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.
so what; if Capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost; how Good can they be.
They make what consumers demand and will pay for. If consumers demanded higher pay for workers and were willing to pay higher prices to get it, they would meet that demand. That's not, however, what consumers demand. Consumers demand the lowest prices possible. Thus, in order to remain profitable, companies cannot afford to pay workers more than their work is worth.so what; if Capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost; how Good can they be.Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.yes, it does; it makes the same sense. only the right, never gets it.
yes, it does; it makes the same sense.
It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.
You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.
It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.
yes, a $15 minimum would make it illegal to hire anyone not worth $15. What a great way to create more unemployment and another liberal scam to correct unemployment.
how many jobs are there, with a natural rate of unemployment?
Good question, here is the answer. The lower the MW, the more jobs there are. The higher the MW, the fewer jobs there are. Proof? Raise the MW to $100/hr. Will that eliminate poverty? Nope. Will it destroy jobs? Yup.how many jobs are there, with a natural rate of unemployment?Apparently your understanding of human nature takes second place to your ideology. Do you seriously think a system in which people get paid whether they work or not will result in most people working?not at all; what I am advocating is improving the efficiency of our economy, in favor of the general welfare instead of a private profit motive.It's a matter of terminology. What you are advocating is quite simply welfare for when you are not working for whatever reason. That means that a large number of people will decide that they prefer collecting a paycheck but not working a job and society will bear that cost.no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.UI is means tested welfare. It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one. If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation. You can't avoid it.
Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse. The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.
why should labor have to overcome that hurdle in Any first world economy.
, companies cannot afford to pay workers more than their work is worth.
The lower the MW, the more jobs there are.
not at all; what I am advocating is improving the efficiency of our economy, in favor of the general welfare instead of a private profit motive.It's a matter of terminology. What you are advocating is quite simply welfare for when you are not working for whatever reason. That means that a large number of people will decide that they prefer collecting a paycheck but not working a job and society will bear that cost.no, it isn't. it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.UI is means tested welfare. It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one. If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation. You can't avoid it.but for unemployment compensation.This is true. At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it. When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.
it is more cost effective than means tested welfare. we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".
Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse. The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.
only the right has no use for Capitalism. it is about consolidating and re-tooling for greater efficiency, like Henry Ford.Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.yes, it does; it makes the same sense. only the right, never gets it.Yes, it made economic sense for him to increase wages.
Hiking the minimum wage to $15 does not make economic sense.
yes, it does; it makes the same sense.
It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.
You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.
It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.
