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

[hadit]

An equilibrium wage is ideal. When the government plays wage control, that becomes impossible to achieve.

why do you believe that?

micromanaging our tax codes is similar; and, our legislators enjoy it.

Them enjoying it does not make it effective or efficient. The optimal tax code that produces the maximum amount of revenue with the least impact on the economy will never be utilized because it's not politically correct.

should we, "blame the right"?

You tell me. Who messes with the tax code?

 

[danielpalos]

no, they don't.

List the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed.

unemployment compensation.

You said protection under law.
List the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed.

unemployment compensation. Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

They can. It's called welfare.

that is not what welfare is for, or, it would not require means testing. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism eliminated capitalism's, boom and bust cycle.

You bet.

There is no boom and bust cycle in Venezuela.
Thank goodness for that.

we still have homelessness in the finest capital economy in the world.

shouldn't a command economy be able to command economize?

They've tried, and the only thing that was equalized was misery.

how did that work for the US, during WWII?

You tell me, if you think you know the answer. Here's a hint:

The American economy boomed AFTER the war when all the GI's came home and we didn't have to ration materials.

during WWII, it was socialism, all the way, simply because Individual Liberty cannot be entrusted to Capitalism, when it really matters.

 

[danielpalos]

An equilibrium wage is ideal. When the government plays wage control, that becomes impossible to achieve.

why do you believe that?

micromanaging our tax codes is similar; and, our legislators enjoy it.

Them enjoying it does not make it effective or efficient. The optimal tax code that produces the maximum amount of revenue with the least impact on the economy will never be utilized because it's not politically correct.

should we, "blame the right"?

You tell me. Who messes with the tax code?

which party came up with the Tax Holiday idea? or, simply pandering to the private sector with Tax preferences.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said protection under law.
List the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed.

unemployment compensation. Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

unemployment compensation.

Unemployed people don't get protection under the law from unemployment compensation?
Employed people do get protection under the law from unemployment compensation?

That makes even less sense than the rest of your confused postings.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

Under the law, if you quit, you can't collect.

So still no list of the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed?
That's not a surprise.

it is about equal protection of the law; no wonder, the right never gets it.

So still no list of the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed?
That's not a surprise.
No wonder why the left always fails.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation. That is, equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

We get it. You don't understand economics or incentives.

That is, equal protection of the law.

No it isn't. It's welfare.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

Dude, don't bogart that joint.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The bottom fell out of the oil market, the US still manages to have enough toilet paper.
What makes us so much better than Venezuela?

The United States is much bigger with more resources than Venezuela and yet many people there were devastated with the economic crash. Millions of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck and only one major illness away from being wiped out. Americans deserve better with all its wealth.

The United States is much bigger with more resources than Venezuela

Ummmm....Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, with less than 10% of the population of the US. Takes socialism to fuck that up, eh comrade?

diversification is important.

Diversify away from socialist failure.

sure; it is the Only reason it works so well for the US; our Founding Fathers enumerated Only sufficient socialism, to provide for the common defense and general welfare, not, Any thing and Every thing, as the right wing, would have us believe.

general welfare

Which does not mean handouts for stoners.

 

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation. Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

unemployment compensation.

Unemployed people don't get protection under the law from unemployment compensation?
Employed people do get protection under the law from unemployment compensation?

That makes even less sense than the rest of your confused postings.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

Under the law, if you quit, you can't collect.

So still no list of the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed?
That's not a surprise.

it is about equal protection of the law; no wonder, the right never gets it.

So still no list of the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed?
That's not a surprise.
No wonder why the left always fails.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation. That is, equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

We get it. You don't understand economics or incentives.

That is, equal protection of the law.

No it isn't. It's welfare.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

Dude, don't bogart that joint.

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause and alleging to be for the "gospel Truth"? no wonder, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities without determining for-cause or at-will employment by EDD. EDD has to find for-Cause employment as the relationship and not at-will, to deny benefits. Otherwise, it is a breach of social Contract and Due Process, and the government is going to lose if it has to go to Court.

 

[danielpalos]

The United States is much bigger with more resources than Venezuela and yet many people there were devastated with the economic crash. Millions of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck and only one major illness away from being wiped out. Americans deserve better with all its wealth.

The United States is much bigger with more resources than Venezuela

Ummmm....Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, with less than 10% of the population of the US. Takes socialism to fuck that up, eh comrade?

diversification is important.

Diversify away from socialist failure.

sure; it is the Only reason it works so well for the US; our Founding Fathers enumerated Only sufficient socialism, to provide for the common defense and general welfare, not, Any thing and Every thing, as the right wing, would have us believe.

general welfare

Which does not mean handouts for stoners.

It means full employment of resources in any given public policy; otherwise, it could be perceived as a Bill of Attainder, which are proscribed to both the federal and State government in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Things were made worse when the governments saved the bankers by assuming their debt and putting it onto their citizens.

The US government didn't assume our bankers debt. The US government made profitable loans to our banks.
The banks were saved and the loans repaid. At a profit to the US government.

You are correct, the Federal Government used taxpayers money to save the banks which is a definition of nationalizing the debt but the profits are always privatized.

Yes, the US Treasury loaned money, which was repaid, at a profit.
So the debt wasn't nationalized, but over $70 billion in profit was.

Sorry to point out your errors. Does that mean I have a passport or I don't have a passport?

the same thing should happen with full recourse to unemployment compensation; a positive multiplier will help "bailout" the People.

Workers who are laid off have full recourse to unemployment compensation.

why Any distinction? employment is at the will of either party, not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose. only the right wing likes to "stack the deck" against Individuals, and claim they are just plain lazy.

why Any distinction?

Incentives. Trust funds. Economics.

employment is at the will of either party

Yup. You can quit anytime you want. In your case, you'd have to get a job first.

not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose.

The employer can't deny you unemployment payments you deserve just as you can't collect unemployment payments you don't deserve. See how that works? Equal protection under the law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

unemployment compensation.

Unemployed people don't get protection under the law from unemployment compensation?
Employed people do get protection under the law from unemployment compensation?

That makes even less sense than the rest of your confused postings.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

Under the law, if you quit, you can't collect.

So still no list of the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed?
That's not a surprise.

it is about equal protection of the law; no wonder, the right never gets it.

So still no list of the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed?
That's not a surprise.
No wonder why the left always fails.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation. That is, equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

We get it. You don't understand economics or incentives.

That is, equal protection of the law.

No it isn't. It's welfare.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

Dude, don't bogart that joint.

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause and alleging to be for the "gospel Truth"? no wonder, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities without determining for-cause or at-will employment by EDD. EDD has to find for-Cause employment as the relationship and not at-will, to deny benefits. Otherwise, it is a breach of social Contract and Due Process, and the government is going to lose if it has to go to Court.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities

But it can exclude unearned and undeserved unemployment benefits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The United States is much bigger with more resources than Venezuela

Ummmm....Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, with less than 10% of the population of the US. Takes socialism to fuck that up, eh comrade?

diversification is important.

Diversify away from socialist failure.

sure; it is the Only reason it works so well for the US; our Founding Fathers enumerated Only sufficient socialism, to provide for the common defense and general welfare, not, Any thing and Every thing, as the right wing, would have us believe.

general welfare

Which does not mean handouts for stoners.

It means full employment of resources in any given public policy; otherwise, it could be perceived as a Bill of Attainder, which are proscribed to both the federal and State government in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

only the right wing, never gets it.

You're the perfect example of, "This is your brain on drugs"

 

[danielpalos]

You are correct, the Federal Government used taxpayers money to save the banks which is a definition of nationalizing the debt but the profits are always privatized.

Yes, the US Treasury loaned money, which was repaid, at a profit.
So the debt wasn't nationalized, but over $70 billion in profit was.

Sorry to point out your errors. Does that mean I have a passport or I don't have a passport?

the same thing should happen with full recourse to unemployment compensation; a positive multiplier will help "bailout" the People.

Workers who are laid off have full recourse to unemployment compensation.

why Any distinction? employment is at the will of either party, not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose. only the right wing likes to "stack the deck" against Individuals, and claim they are just plain lazy.

why Any distinction?

Incentives. Trust funds. Economics.

employment is at the will of either party

Yup. You can quit anytime you want. In your case, you'd have to get a job first.

not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose.

The employer can't deny you unemployment payments you deserve just as you can't collect unemployment payments you don't deserve. See how that works? Equal protection under the law.

our natural rights are not subject to a profit motive for the right. it is about socialism, the law, and our form of social Government; not, capitalism. In any case, correcting for that market based inefficiency can only engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy, since that money will be spent sooner, rather than later.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about equal protection of the law; no wonder, the right never gets it.

So still no list of the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed?
That's not a surprise.
No wonder why the left always fails.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation. That is, equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

We get it. You don't understand economics or incentives.

That is, equal protection of the law.

No it isn't. It's welfare.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

Dude, don't bogart that joint.

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause and alleging to be for the "gospel Truth"? no wonder, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities without determining for-cause or at-will employment by EDD. EDD has to find for-Cause employment as the relationship and not at-will, to deny benefits. Otherwise, it is a breach of social Contract and Due Process, and the government is going to lose if it has to go to Court.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities

But it can exclude unearned and undeserved unemployment benefits.

they are "earned and deserved" simply by being unemployed on an at-will basis. if You don't like it, hire someone.

 

[danielpalos]

diversification is important.

Diversify away from socialist failure.

sure; it is the Only reason it works so well for the US; our Founding Fathers enumerated Only sufficient socialism, to provide for the common defense and general welfare, not, Any thing and Every thing, as the right wing, would have us believe.

general welfare

Which does not mean handouts for stoners.

It means full employment of resources in any given public policy; otherwise, it could be perceived as a Bill of Attainder, which are proscribed to both the federal and State government in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

only the right wing, never gets it.

You're the perfect example of, "This is your brain on drugs"

i am resorting to the fewest fallacies, on drugs. What is the right wing's, abomination of an excuse for doing it, without drugs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the US Treasury loaned money, which was repaid, at a profit.
So the debt wasn't nationalized, but over $70 billion in profit was.

Sorry to point out your errors. Does that mean I have a passport or I don't have a passport?

the same thing should happen with full recourse to unemployment compensation; a positive multiplier will help "bailout" the People.

Workers who are laid off have full recourse to unemployment compensation.

why Any distinction? employment is at the will of either party, not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose. only the right wing likes to "stack the deck" against Individuals, and claim they are just plain lazy.

why Any distinction?

Incentives. Trust funds. Economics.

employment is at the will of either party

Yup. You can quit anytime you want. In your case, you'd have to get a job first.

not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose.

The employer can't deny you unemployment payments you deserve just as you can't collect unemployment payments you don't deserve. See how that works? Equal protection under the law.

our natural rights are not subject to a profit motive for the right. it is about socialism, the law, and our form of social Government; not, capitalism. In any case, correcting for that market based inefficiency can only engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy, since that money will be spent sooner, rather than later.

our natural rights are not subject to a profit motive for the right.

I agree. And they don't include unemployment benefits for quitting or never working.

engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy, since that money will be spent sooner, rather than later.

Handing free money to stoners is never going to be positive for our economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So still no list of the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed?
That's not a surprise.
No wonder why the left always fails.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation. That is, equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

We get it. You don't understand economics or incentives.

That is, equal protection of the law.

No it isn't. It's welfare.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

Dude, don't bogart that joint.

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause and alleging to be for the "gospel Truth"? no wonder, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities without determining for-cause or at-will employment by EDD. EDD has to find for-Cause employment as the relationship and not at-will, to deny benefits. Otherwise, it is a breach of social Contract and Due Process, and the government is going to lose if it has to go to Court.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities

But it can exclude unearned and undeserved unemployment benefits.

they are "earned and deserved" simply by being unemployed on an at-will basis. if You don't like it, hire someone.

they are "earned and deserved"

Nope. They're earned based on employer payments into the Trust Fund.
They are deserved based on the employer terminating your employment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Diversify away from socialist failure.

sure; it is the Only reason it works so well for the US; our Founding Fathers enumerated Only sufficient socialism, to provide for the common defense and general welfare, not, Any thing and Every thing, as the right wing, would have us believe.

general welfare

Which does not mean handouts for stoners.

It means full employment of resources in any given public policy; otherwise, it could be perceived as a Bill of Attainder, which are proscribed to both the federal and State government in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

only the right wing, never gets it.

You're the perfect example of, "This is your brain on drugs"

i am resorting to the fewest fallacies, on drugs. What is the right wing's, abomination of an excuse for doing it, without drugs.

Dude!

 

[danielpalos]

the same thing should happen with full recourse to unemployment compensation; a positive multiplier will help "bailout" the People.

Workers who are laid off have full recourse to unemployment compensation.

why Any distinction? employment is at the will of either party, not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose. only the right wing likes to "stack the deck" against Individuals, and claim they are just plain lazy.

why Any distinction?

Incentives. Trust funds. Economics.

employment is at the will of either party

Yup. You can quit anytime you want. In your case, you'd have to get a job first.

not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose.

The employer can't deny you unemployment payments you deserve just as you can't collect unemployment payments you don't deserve. See how that works? Equal protection under the law.

our natural rights are not subject to a profit motive for the right. it is about socialism, the law, and our form of social Government; not, capitalism. In any case, correcting for that market based inefficiency can only engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy, since that money will be spent sooner, rather than later.

our natural rights are not subject to a profit motive for the right.

I agree. And they don't include unemployment benefits for quitting or never working.

engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy, since that money will be spent sooner, rather than later.

Handing free money to stoners is never going to be positive for our economy.

equality is a Social concept not a Capital concept; no wonder, the right, never gets it.

under truer forms of Capitalism, only Capital has to work, not fools or horses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Workers who are laid off have full recourse to unemployment compensation.

why Any distinction? employment is at the will of either party, not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose. only the right wing likes to "stack the deck" against Individuals, and claim they are just plain lazy.

why Any distinction?

Incentives. Trust funds. Economics.

employment is at the will of either party

Yup. You can quit anytime you want. In your case, you'd have to get a job first.

not just th employer for unemployment compensation purpose.

The employer can't deny you unemployment payments you deserve just as you can't collect unemployment payments you don't deserve. See how that works? Equal protection under the law.

our natural rights are not subject to a profit motive for the right. it is about socialism, the law, and our form of social Government; not, capitalism. In any case, correcting for that market based inefficiency can only engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy, since that money will be spent sooner, rather than later.

our natural rights are not subject to a profit motive for the right.

I agree. And they don't include unemployment benefits for quitting or never working.

engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy, since that money will be spent sooner, rather than later.

Handing free money to stoners is never going to be positive for our economy.

equality is a Social concept not a Capital concept; no wonder, the right, never gets it.

under truer forms of Capitalism, only Capital has to work, not fools or horses.

DUDE!

 

[danielpalos]

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation. That is, equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Labor should be able to quit or not work, and collect unemployment compensation.

We get it. You don't understand economics or incentives.

That is, equal protection of the law.

No it isn't. It's welfare.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

Dude, don't bogart that joint.

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause and alleging to be for the "gospel Truth"? no wonder, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities without determining for-cause or at-will employment by EDD. EDD has to find for-Cause employment as the relationship and not at-will, to deny benefits. Otherwise, it is a breach of social Contract and Due Process, and the government is going to lose if it has to go to Court.

Employment is at the will of either party. That cannot exclude privileges and immunities

But it can exclude unearned and undeserved unemployment benefits.

they are "earned and deserved" simply by being unemployed on an at-will basis. if You don't like it, hire someone.

they are "earned and deserved"

Nope. They're earned based on employer payments into the Trust Fund.
They are deserved based on the employer terminating your employment.

capitalism and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Public Policy; eminent domain applies to that social problem.