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

[Spare_change]

And you think what you have left over after you pay for rent, food, utilities and other misc things from your welfare check will allow you to become a millionaire in the stock market?

Wow

the Only problem with EBT cards now, is they can't be used with financial planners. Only the right, never gets it.

Really why use a financial planner I thought you could learn to do it on your own?
And how much will be left a month on your welfare card to invest in the market?

$10?

depends; i could rent a room with someone and go to school.

And of course you want us to pay your tuition

you are already paying for a War on Poverty. Why not actually solve simple poverty.

Maybe you can explain to all of us uninitiated you propose to eliminate poverty.

This is going to be real interesting ... and revealing.

 

[Spare_change]

The Boss has the power to keep national, hell, global wages, low?

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.

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.

yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.

Guess we can tell which side of that conflict you fight for.

 

[Spare_change]

Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?

McDonalds is already switching to Kiosks, robots(Pepper) and Ipads so higher wages will mean fewer jobs and less income for poor people and less demand in economy. Econ 101

unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves that simple problem, dear.

Sure does ... but at what cost?

 

[Spare_change]

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.

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.

yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.

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 money

ending the drug war lowers our tax burden. only the right, never gets it.

It also decreases the worker pool, kills children, ruins families, increases medical costs, drives up social rescue costs, and destroys economies.

Pay me now or pay me later.

 

[Spare_change]

Economists did not see the crash coming and cannot be trusted with predictions.

It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.

only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.

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.

I have to wonder what reality in which you reside.

The reality where a low-skilled job doesn't pay enough to buy a home and raise 4 kids in the suburbs.

... and it's your position that it should?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

yes, we do. capitalism is public policy. capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. eminent domain applies.

in any case, it is paid for through tax monies; you are not paying anyone's wages.

Thus, it is welfare. If you acknowledge that, you will at least be honest in saying what you want is a guaranteed income and that it's not business' responsibility to provide it.

it is you who is stuck on semantics; it is called, a solution. no one is asking business to do any other than hire people instead of whining about taxes.

Businesses hire people to do work. If they don't need any more people, they don't hire any more. If they have work to be done that is only worth $7/hr, they're not going to pay $15/hr to get it done. Be honest and say you want a guaranteed income and you want to force businesses to provide it so you can pretend it's not welfare.

i am being honest; social services cost money and the right likes to whine about taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

the cost of social services on average.

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.

why? would the private sector be worse off? improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing. no need to "leave the South, behind."

So you're okay with welfare providing some people a middle class lifestyle, even if they refuse to work? That's unsustainable.

If they refuse to work, it means more jobs for the rest of us. only the right, never gets it.

We already have a very anemic labor participation rate and a very, very large debt. We don't need a bunch more people converted from producers into consumers. And, you failed to deal with the question, are you okay with welfare giving some people a middle class lifestyle while giving others the lowest of the lower classes? Doesn't that violate your little "equal protection under the law" faux mantra?

you are the one claiming people won't want to work if they can opt for unemployment compensation. That means, more jobs available for those who want to work.

 

[danielpalos]

An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason.

this is good since it gives management control over the management of the company and who knows more about what is best for the company than the management. THe govt monopolist bureaucrats? Govt has no expertise, and no interest since the slub who got fired is no better or worse than the new hire who gets a new job that he badly needs.

If management fires the wrong people the company goes bankrupt! This is the beauty of Republican capitalism.

unless they are too big to fail; then, they lie about it and fire the "little guys".

A company in financial difficulty reduces costs where possible. If they got rid of management, there would be no company left.

why not; they could hire management from the Third World, to save money.

 

[danielpalos]

the Only problem with EBT cards now, is they can't be used with financial planners. Only the right, never gets it.

Really why use a financial planner I thought you could learn to do it on your own?
And how much will be left a month on your welfare card to invest in the market?

$10?

depends; i could rent a room with someone and go to school.

And of course you want us to pay your tuition

you are already paying for a War on Poverty. Why not actually solve simple poverty.

Maybe you can explain to all of us uninitiated you propose to eliminate poverty.

This is going to be real interesting ... and revealing.

there are no unintended consequences, other than a more efficient economy.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.

Guess we can tell which side of that conflict you fight for.

Individual Liberty and natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage? Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?

McDonalds is already switching to Kiosks, robots(Pepper) and Ipads so higher wages will mean fewer jobs and less income for poor people and less demand in economy. Econ 101

unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves that simple problem, dear.

Sure does ... but at what cost?

a rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.

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.

yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.

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 money

ending the drug war lowers our tax burden. only the right, never gets it.

It also decreases the worker pool, kills children, ruins families, increases medical costs, drives up social rescue costs, and destroys economies.

Pay me now or pay me later.

no, it doesn't; alcohol proved it.

 

[danielpalos]

It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.

only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.

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.

I have to wonder what reality in which you reside.

The reality where a low-skilled job doesn't pay enough to buy a home and raise 4 kids in the suburbs.

... and it's your position that it should?

no; that is just right wing canards since they have no actual arguments.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

yes, we do. capitalism is public policy. capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. eminent domain applies.

in any case, it is paid for through tax monies; you are not paying anyone's wages.

Thus, it is welfare. If you acknowledge that, you will at least be honest in saying what you want is a guaranteed income and that it's not business' responsibility to provide it.

it is you who is stuck on semantics; it is called, a solution. no one is asking business to do any other than hire people instead of whining about taxes.

Businesses hire people to do work. If they don't need any more people, they don't hire any more. If they have work to be done that is only worth $7/hr, they're not going to pay $15/hr to get it done. Be honest and say you want a guaranteed income and you want to force businesses to provide it so you can pretend it's not welfare.

i am being honest; social services cost money and the right likes to whine about taxes.

That's where you are wrong ... the right (that's me!) don't whine about taxes. We recognize the need for taxes, and we pay taxes. We whine about people who don't contribute, people who abuse the system, and people who make no effort to improve themselves, and take responsibility for themselves.

If you can show me how my taxes give them the opportunity to improve their lives AND they are taking advantage of it, I'll happily deliver my taxes by hand. Until then, as long as I see freeloaders and deadbeats using my tax dollars to avoid their responsibilities, I'll bitch and moan until somebody listens.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

why? would the private sector be worse off? improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing. no need to "leave the South, behind."

So you're okay with welfare providing some people a middle class lifestyle, even if they refuse to work? That's unsustainable.

If they refuse to work, it means more jobs for the rest of us. only the right, never gets it.

We already have a very anemic labor participation rate and a very, very large debt. We don't need a bunch more people converted from producers into consumers. And, you failed to deal with the question, are you okay with welfare giving some people a middle class lifestyle while giving others the lowest of the lower classes? Doesn't that violate your little "equal protection under the law" faux mantra?

you are the one claiming people won't want to work if they can opt for unemployment compensation. That means, more jobs available for those who want to work.

When I went to school, they called that "circular logic" ... now, we just call it "really fucking stupid".

 

[danielpalos]

yes, we do. capitalism is public policy. capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. eminent domain applies.

in any case, it is paid for through tax monies; you are not paying anyone's wages.

Thus, it is welfare. If you acknowledge that, you will at least be honest in saying what you want is a guaranteed income and that it's not business' responsibility to provide it.

it is you who is stuck on semantics; it is called, a solution. no one is asking business to do any other than hire people instead of whining about taxes.

Businesses hire people to do work. If they don't need any more people, they don't hire any more. If they have work to be done that is only worth $7/hr, they're not going to pay $15/hr to get it done. Be honest and say you want a guaranteed income and you want to force businesses to provide it so you can pretend it's not welfare.

i am being honest; social services cost money and the right likes to whine about taxes.

That's where you are wrong ... the right (that's me!) don't whine about taxes. We recognize the need for taxes, and we pay taxes. We whine about people who don't contribute, people who abuse the system, and people who make no effort to improve themselves, and take responsibility for themselves.

If you can show me how my taxes give them the opportunity to improve their lives AND they are taking advantage of it, I'll happily deliver my taxes by hand. Until then, as long as I see freeloaders and deadbeats using my tax dollars to avoid their responsibilities, I'll bitch and moan until somebody listens.

only the right never gets it; Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is only natural to capitalism. a more efficient economy is what we will get, by making capital work instead of fools or horses.

 

[danielpalos]

why? would the private sector be worse off? improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing. no need to "leave the South, behind."

So you're okay with welfare providing some people a middle class lifestyle, even if they refuse to work? That's unsustainable.

If they refuse to work, it means more jobs for the rest of us. only the right, never gets it.

We already have a very anemic labor participation rate and a very, very large debt. We don't need a bunch more people converted from producers into consumers. And, you failed to deal with the question, are you okay with welfare giving some people a middle class lifestyle while giving others the lowest of the lower classes? Doesn't that violate your little "equal protection under the law" faux mantra?

you are the one claiming people won't want to work if they can opt for unemployment compensation. That means, more jobs available for those who want to work.

When I went to school, they called that "circular logic" ... now, we just call it "really fucking stupid".

I call it having nothing but diversion. There is no circular logic with full employment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.

only low end jobs. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.

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.

I have to wonder what reality in which you reside.

The reality where a low-skilled job doesn't pay enough to buy a home and raise 4 kids in the suburbs.

... and it's your position that it should?

No, it's the silly Marxist's position.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.

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 money

ending the drug war lowers our tax burden. only the right, never gets it.

It also decreases the worker pool, kills children, ruins families, increases medical costs, drives up social rescue costs, and destroys economies.

Pay me now or pay me later.

no, it doesn't; alcohol proved it.

Actually, comparing alcohol addiction to opoid addiction is like comparing slingshots to bazookas. You need to do your research. (Particularly, at the impact on actual brain structural changes as a result of the two addictions).

Further, the societal and financial impacts of drug addiction are catastrophic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thus, it is welfare. If you acknowledge that, you will at least be honest in saying what you want is a guaranteed income and that it's not business' responsibility to provide it.

it is you who is stuck on semantics; it is called, a solution. no one is asking business to do any other than hire people instead of whining about taxes.

Businesses hire people to do work. If they don't need any more people, they don't hire any more. If they have work to be done that is only worth $7/hr, they're not going to pay $15/hr to get it done. Be honest and say you want a guaranteed income and you want to force businesses to provide it so you can pretend it's not welfare.

i am being honest; social services cost money and the right likes to whine about taxes.

That's where you are wrong ... the right (that's me!) don't whine about taxes. We recognize the need for taxes, and we pay taxes. We whine about people who don't contribute, people who abuse the system, and people who make no effort to improve themselves, and take responsibility for themselves.

If you can show me how my taxes give them the opportunity to improve their lives AND they are taking advantage of it, I'll happily deliver my taxes by hand. Until then, as long as I see freeloaders and deadbeats using my tax dollars to avoid their responsibilities, I'll bitch and moan until somebody listens.

only the right never gets it; Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is only natural to capitalism. a more efficient economy is what we will get, by making capital work instead of fools or horses.

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment

Give us the definition.

is only natural to capitalism

Socialism's rate of unemployment is better? LOL!