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

[Toddsterpatriot]

we don't need to keep wages lower, they need to outpace inflation.

Wages don't need to do anything.

yes, they do. capital must work under any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.

Nope. You have to work, under capitalism. We're not going to hand you money for your dope.

that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics. Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism.

that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics.

No one takes you seriously about economics, because it's clear you have no understanding of the issue.
No one takes you seriously about the law, because it's clear you have no understanding of the issue.
No one takes you seriously about capitalism, because it's clear you have no understanding of the issue.

you have nothing but diversion.

You have less.

 

[danielpalos]

that law is not Constitutional since it denies and disparages equal protection.

The Constitution does not mandate unemployment payments for people who quit or never worked.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law. the is employment at will.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law.

Yup.
Employed people who are laid off have earned and are eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
Employed people who quit are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
People who never worked are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.

the is employment at will.

Employment at will simply means "the employer does not have to have good cause to terminate your employment. Most employers take advantage of this protection. Unless you signed some sort of employment contract that states you cannot be terminated without good cause, it is assumed that you are an at-will employee"

At-Will Employee FAQ's - FindLaw

equal protection of the law is not negotiable.

And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution does not mandate unemployment payments for people who quit or never worked.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law. the is employment at will.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law.

Yup.
Employed people who are laid off have earned and are eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
Employed people who quit are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
People who never worked are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.

the is employment at will.

Employment at will simply means "the employer does not have to have good cause to terminate your employment. Most employers take advantage of this protection. Unless you signed some sort of employment contract that states you cannot be terminated without good cause, it is assumed that you are an at-will employee"

At-Will Employee FAQ's - FindLaw

equal protection of the law is not negotiable.

And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I gotta get out my mega-bong if I'm gonna read your stuff again, daniel.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law. the is employment at will.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law.

Yup.
Employed people who are laid off have earned and are eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
Employed people who quit are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
People who never worked are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.

the is employment at will.

Employment at will simply means "the employer does not have to have good cause to terminate your employment. Most employers take advantage of this protection. Unless you signed some sort of employment contract that states you cannot be terminated without good cause, it is assumed that you are an at-will employee"

At-Will Employee FAQ's - FindLaw

equal protection of the law is not negotiable.

And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I gotta get out my mega-bong if I'm gonna read your stuff again, daniel.

i had to make my own chillum.

 

[danielpalos]

what would happen if we solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

our Standard of living would go up to that extent, in a market friendly manner that is fully compatible with any form of capitalism.

 

[hadit]

Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.

It's the value of the work that determines the pay.

BS, if the value of the job determined the pay, CEOs wouldn't be making several hundred times what their employees make and a man with a helmet defending a football wouldn't be making $millions while a man with a helmet defending our country barely makes a living.

Take a good CEO out of a company and the company fails. I saw it happen first hand at Circuit City, which went from a $10 billion company to nothing in a short period of time. As for entertainment figures making a lot of money, that's a function of the market too. When millions of people want to watch you or listen to you do something, you can make a lot of money charging them for the privilege. If millions of people wanted to watch soldiers living and fighting in a desert, soldiers would make a lot of money too.

The point is that the value of the work does not determine the pay.

You may not agree with it, but that's the value society sets.

 

[hadit]

But that's what it is. Means testing is just one way to ensure those who need help get it while those who don't, don't take advantage of the system. Look at it this way, would you demand that Donald Trump get welfare benefits?

it only requires it because it should be to help those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough. it is merely being misapplied and the right likes to complain about the Tax cost associated with that, misapplication.

Would you demand that Donald Trump get welfare benefits?

no one is requiring Mr. Trump to exercise a work ethic from the Age of Iron, either.

why value a work ethic in modern times?

You're dodging the question. Tell you what, don't have a work ethic and don't work. You have that freedom, you know. Of course, you have to handle the consequences of that decision, but that's what freedom is. So, for the third time, would you demand that Donald Trump get welfare benefits?

the consequences are recourse to the law. the law is employment at will. only the right wing, never gets it.

how is that relevant?

who cares how much Mr. Trump makes or how much he works for it? only nosey right wingers gossip about stuff like that.

Obviously, you don't want to address the question.

 

[danielpalos]

Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.

It's the value of the work that determines the pay.

BS, if the value of the job determined the pay, CEOs wouldn't be making several hundred times what their employees make and a man with a helmet defending a football wouldn't be making $millions while a man with a helmet defending our country barely makes a living.

Take a good CEO out of a company and the company fails. I saw it happen first hand at Circuit City, which went from a $10 billion company to nothing in a short period of time. As for entertainment figures making a lot of money, that's a function of the market too. When millions of people want to watch you or listen to you do something, you can make a lot of money charging them for the privilege. If millions of people wanted to watch soldiers living and fighting in a desert, soldiers would make a lot of money too.

The point is that the value of the work does not determine the pay.

You may not agree with it, but that's the value society sets.

a minimum wage can be fixed as a Standard.

 

[danielpalos]

it only requires it because it should be to help those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough. it is merely being misapplied and the right likes to complain about the Tax cost associated with that, misapplication.

Would you demand that Donald Trump get welfare benefits?

no one is requiring Mr. Trump to exercise a work ethic from the Age of Iron, either.

why value a work ethic in modern times?

You're dodging the question. Tell you what, don't have a work ethic and don't work. You have that freedom, you know. Of course, you have to handle the consequences of that decision, but that's what freedom is. So, for the third time, would you demand that Donald Trump get welfare benefits?

the consequences are recourse to the law. the law is employment at will. only the right wing, never gets it.

how is that relevant?

who cares how much Mr. Trump makes or how much he works for it? only nosey right wingers gossip about stuff like that.

Obviously, you don't want to address the question.

equal protection of the law is a natural right.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...

More tax money would go into local, state, and federal programs, so schools and infrastructure would improve.

I doubt there would be any significant impact other than some low income earners losing their jobs. The reality is that The VAST majority (over 95%) of hourly paid employees already earn more than the minimum wage. It's really cute that you think that though.

Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2015 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In 2015, 78.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.5 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 870,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.

And most minimum wage earners are young, under 25.

Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 11 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.)

 

[danielpalos]

More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...

More tax money would go into local, state, and federal programs, so schools and infrastructure would improve.

I doubt there would be any significant impact other than some low income earners losing their jobs. The reality is that The VAST majority (over 95%) of hourly paid employees already earn more than the minimum wage. It's really cute that you think that though.

Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2015 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In 2015, 78.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.5 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 870,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.

And most minimum wage earners are young, under 25.

Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 11 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of workers age 25 and older. (See tables 1 and 7.)

In other words, more people will have more money to spend, and they will.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Constitution does not mandate unemployment payments for people who quit or never worked.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law. the is employment at will.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law.

Yup.
Employed people who are laid off have earned and are eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
Employed people who quit are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
People who never worked are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.

the is employment at will.

Employment at will simply means "the employer does not have to have good cause to terminate your employment. Most employers take advantage of this protection. Unless you signed some sort of employment contract that states you cannot be terminated without good cause, it is assumed that you are an at-will employee"

At-Will Employee FAQ's - FindLaw

equal protection of the law is not negotiable.

And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits

Which law is violated? Post the text of the law, I'll point out your error.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what would happen if we solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

our Standard of living would go up to that extent, in a market friendly manner that is fully compatible with any form of capitalism.

DUDE!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law. the is employment at will.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law.

Yup.
Employed people who are laid off have earned and are eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
Employed people who quit are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
People who never worked are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.

the is employment at will.

Employment at will simply means "the employer does not have to have good cause to terminate your employment. Most employers take advantage of this protection. Unless you signed some sort of employment contract that states you cannot be terminated without good cause, it is assumed that you are an at-will employee"

At-Will Employee FAQ's - FindLaw

equal protection of the law is not negotiable.

And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I gotta get out my mega-bong if I'm gonna read your stuff again, daniel.

Danny speaks English as a 4th language!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

More people would spend more money,

impossible of course because the amount of money would stay the same. Govt does not print more money when it raises the MW. Liberal don't know that??? Amazing.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law. the is employment at will.

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law.

Yup.
Employed people who are laid off have earned and are eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
Employed people who quit are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
People who never worked are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.

the is employment at will.

Employment at will simply means "the employer does not have to have good cause to terminate your employment. Most employers take advantage of this protection. Unless you signed some sort of employment contract that states you cannot be terminated without good cause, it is assumed that you are an at-will employee"

At-Will Employee FAQ's - FindLaw

equal protection of the law is not negotiable.

And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits

Which law is violated? Post the text of the law, I'll point out your error.

employment at will. EDD should have to prove for-cause employment to deny benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

More people would spend more money,

impossible of course because the amount of money would stay the same. Govt does not print more money when it raises the MW. Liberal don't know that??? Amazing.

no, it doesn't stay the same. we have a central bank to ensure money circulates and multiplies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our Constitution secures equal protection of the law.

Yup.
Employed people who are laid off have earned and are eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
Employed people who quit are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.
People who never worked are not eligible for unemployment compensation, under law.

the is employment at will.

Employment at will simply means "the employer does not have to have good cause to terminate your employment. Most employers take advantage of this protection. Unless you signed some sort of employment contract that states you cannot be terminated without good cause, it is assumed that you are an at-will employee"

At-Will Employee FAQ's - FindLaw

equal protection of the law is not negotiable.

And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits

Which law is violated? Post the text of the law, I'll point out your error.

employment at will. EDD should have to prove for-cause employment to deny benefits.

Which law is violated? Post the text of the law,

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

More people would spend more money,

impossible of course because the amount of money would stay the same. Govt does not print more money when it raises the MW. Liberal don't know that??? Amazing.

no, it doesn't stay the same. we have a central bank to ensure money circulates and multiplies.

Govt does not print more money when it raises the MW. Liberals don't know that??? Amazing.

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is not negotiable.

And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

it is violated by a lack of unemployment benefits

Which law is violated? Post the text of the law, I'll point out your error.

employment at will. EDD should have to prove for-cause employment to deny benefits.

Which law is violated? Post the text of the law,

employment at will.