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.
yup; just lousy management. we need to excise the difference in wages from US firms expatriating jobs. once that, equalization, occurs, US firms may not need to leave the US for cheap labor, if they can gain from increases in productivity in the US, instead.No, China has the advantage of a dominant government that can force a billion or more people to work for very low wages. The American consumers are responsible for manufacturing being shipped overseas because they demand the lowest price for goods.only lousy management will help it happen.For now. China will soon have that distinction.we have the largest economy in the world.just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.
Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.
employment is at the will of either party. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.i would rather accept the law. the law is employment at will.shouldn't matter. employment at will, is just that; no automated car required.The people who get laid off because of automation will get unemployment
You won't because you never had a job
automated car?
Do you even know what thread you're in?
You only can get unemployment if you had a job and you lost it by no fault of your own
That's how it will always be so you better learn to accept it
you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment. It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid
Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com
Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.
the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.
it is not a legal definition since it does not apply, equal protection of the law. it is a natural right to exercise your individual liberty, in pursuit of your individual civil liberty.employment is at the will of either party. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.i would rather accept the law. the law is employment at will.shouldn't matter. employment at will, is just that; no automated car required.
automated car?
Do you even know what thread you're in?
You only can get unemployment if you had a job and you lost it by no fault of your own
That's how it will always be so you better learn to accept it
you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment. It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid
Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com
Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.
You just can't make shit up. I gave you the LEGAL definition of at will employment if you want to make shit up you can't call anyone else fantastical
Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.
the cost of social services on average.the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.
For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?
Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..
Compared to Alabama.
.
Which you already have. You are perfectly free to pursue a career, work a job, or do nothing. What you DON'T have is the right to force someone else to support you if you decide not to work, and you should never have that right.it is not a legal definition since it does not apply, equal protection of the law. it is a natural right to exercise your individual liberty, in pursuit of your individual civil liberty.employment is at the will of either party. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.i would rather accept the law. the law is employment at will.automated car?
Do you even know what thread you're in?
You only can get unemployment if you had a job and you lost it by no fault of your own
That's how it will always be so you better learn to accept it
you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment. It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid
Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com
Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.
You just can't make shit up. I gave you the LEGAL definition of at will employment if you want to make shit up you can't call anyone else fantastical
mw jobs are entry level. that is not the point. everybody has to start somewhere.Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.
it is not a legal definition since it does not apply, equal protection of the law. it is a natural right to exercise your individual liberty, in pursuit of your individual civil liberty.employment is at the will of either party. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.i would rather accept the law. the law is employment at will.automated car?
Do you even know what thread you're in?
You only can get unemployment if you had a job and you lost it by no fault of your own
That's how it will always be so you better learn to accept it
you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment. It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid
Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com
Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.
You just can't make shit up. I gave you the LEGAL definition of at will employment if you want to make shit up you can't call anyone else fantastical
If you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, on average you're fine. IOW, the cost of social services varies from region to region and so should any MW.the cost of social services on average.the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.
For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?
Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..
Compared to Alabama.
.
It is exactly the point. You have equal protection under the law. You are free to work or not work, it's up to you.mw jobs are entry level. that is not the point. everybody has to start somewhere.Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.
the point is about equal protection of the law.
yes, we do. capitalism is public policy. capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. eminent domain applies.Which you already have. You are perfectly free to pursue a career, work a job, or do nothing. What you DON'T have is the right to force someone else to support you if you decide not to work, and you should never have that right.it is not a legal definition since it does not apply, equal protection of the law. it is a natural right to exercise your individual liberty, in pursuit of your individual civil liberty.employment is at the will of either party. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.i would rather accept the law. the law is employment at will.
you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment. It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid
Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com
Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.
You just can't make shit up. I gave you the LEGAL definition of at will employment if you want to make shit up you can't call anyone else fantastical
mw jobs are entry level. that is not the point. everybody has to start somewhere.Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.
the point is about equal protection of the law.
If you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, on average you're fine. IOW, the cost of social services varies from region to region and so should any MW.the cost of social services on average.the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter. If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much. What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay. You would take that away from them.only lousy implementation does that. low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.
For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?
Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..
Compared to Alabama.
.
yes, and so should unemployment compensation. if you don't like it, hire people. it really is that simple, so you can stop whining now and starting doing.It is exactly the point. You have equal protection under the law. You are free to work or not work, it's up to you.mw jobs are entry level. that is not the point. everybody has to start somewhere.Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.
the point is about equal protection of the law.
that is going to change. why do you care if someone works if you don't care how much they make?mw jobs are entry level. that is not the point. everybody has to start somewhere.Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services. thus, fifteen dollars an hour. anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.
the point is about equal protection of the law.
repeating the same shit over and over again doesn't make it true
If you don't work you do get equal protection under the law toy just don't get paid
that is going to change. why do you care if someone works if you don't care how much they make?mw jobs are entry level. that is not the point. everybody has to start somewhere.Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare. But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs. They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion. They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right? a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services. low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?
the point is about equal protection of the law.
repeating the same shit over and over again doesn't make it true
If you don't work you do get equal protection under the law toy just don't get paid
just the fantastical right wing, being cognitively dissonant, as usual.
Do try to be less selfish. There are many people who cannot work because they live in economically depressed areas of the country where industry has collapsed. There are also people who have major handicaps such as wounded soldiers back from fighting in the Middle East who cannot work and others of their comrades who suffer from stress and are unable to hold down a job. People who were born with congenital handicaps and debilitating conditions such as cerebral palsy. Then there are single parents who cannot afford child care should the go to work. The elderly who have worked all they lives and whose retirement funds were lost in the banking crash of 2008 may be too frail to work. These people are all your fellow Americans and are worthy of your concern and government help.And we should end the failed war on drugs but not to give the money to lazy fucks like you but to lower the tax rate so people who do work can keep more of their own moneyyet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.Public policy does that, merely to have the poor work harder so the rich can get richer faster.
Public policy does that
Public policy keeps wages low? How? Why? Please explain further.
The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.
Yes, the government can do lots of stupid things. Doesn't mean they should though.
Actually it is employer and commercial TV propaganda who care only about their own profits.It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.Economists did not see the crash coming and cannot be trusted with predictions.No, they will not, and here is why.Politicians who care more about their working class families than corporation executive salaries and stockholders dividends will make a minimum wage a living wage by law.There would be fewer working, period. The only question is how many fewer. Obviously, a higher MW kills jobs. Doubt it? Set it to $100/hr and ask what would happen. Now, you CAN have a MW that doesn't kill too many jobs all at once, but you have to keep it low enough that it really doesn't make much of a difference. We have already lost a lot of low end jobs to higher costs, but as long as the pace is gradual enough, not too many complain.There would be fewer working for slave wages if the minimum wage is higher.
1. They do hear from economists, and know that a MW raised that high that fast would kill the economy.
2. ANY MW that's supposed to be a "living wage" will end up simply chasing an ideal that can never be reached. First, jacking the MW increases inflation and within a short period of time erases any benefit. Secondly, those who got big raises and didn't lose their jobs and those who benefit politically from their votes will, in VERY short order, decide that whatever they set the MW to just isn't enough, and will insist on raising it yet again.
3. There is a significant number of people who would like to work and who would benefit from working, but don't need to be paid a lot to do so. Jacking the MW too high simply prices them out of the market, leaving them unemployed. You graduated from high school and want to start working? Great, just wait a few years until something opens up or enough experienced workers die to give you a spot.
Your philosophy is both callous and out-of-touch with reality.Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW. Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market. See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term. You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one. Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.Economists did not see the crash coming and cannot be trusted with predictions.No, they will not, and here is why.Politicians who care more about their working class families than corporation executive salaries and stockholders dividends will make a minimum wage a living wage by law.
1. They do hear from economists, and know that a MW raised that high that fast would kill the economy.
2. ANY MW that's supposed to be a "living wage" will end up simply chasing an ideal that can never be reached. First, jacking the MW increases inflation and within a short period of time erases any benefit. Secondly, those who got big raises and didn't lose their jobs and those who benefit politically from their votes will, in VERY short order, decide that whatever they set the MW to just isn't enough, and will insist on raising it yet again.
3. There is a significant number of people who would like to work and who would benefit from working, but don't need to be paid a lot to do so. Jacking the MW too high simply prices them out of the market, leaving them unemployed. You graduated from high school and want to start working? Great, just wait a few years until something opens up or enough experienced workers die to give you a spot.
