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

[danielpalos]

only bad management needs high taxes.

some on the left are learning to merely use Capitalism for all of its worth in modern times.

We merely need more public sector means of production like Hoover Dam and the Fed; there are capital opportunities all around; only the right, prefers socialism to capitalism.

IOW, you need capitalism to thrive in order for socialism to survive. We knew that.

Socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Capitalism only needs capital morals for a price.

And therein lies the rub. Man is inherently immoral and selfish. That's why socialism always fails. Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.

Should we not believe the Religious when they claim it Only takes social morals for free, to merit a divine, Commune of Heaven for free?

Irrelevant. Put down the bong and return to the topic, please.

no social morals for free; i got it, my Goode Capitalist.

 

[hadit]

A bull elk is a large animal, a tick is a small animal. The elk does not even notice when a tick fastens on and drinks his blood. When, however, untold thousands of ticks fasten on and drink his blood, he is weakened and becomes a target for a wolf pack. Likewise, a society may be wealthy enough to sustain itself if a small number of individuals who otherwise cannot contribute instead are given what they need to sustain themselves. But, should that number of takers become large enough, society will become weakened and eventually collapse. Far better for society to expect the able bodied to work and take care of only those who cannot take care of themselves and have no one to help.

It is why a minimum wage for a work ethic should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

Not without means testing. Too many takers to too few producers is unsustainable. That's the bottom line.

being unemployed is a qualification for unemployment. by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, there will be more producers.

That's a nice sounding platitude. It is, however, directly contradicted by history. Inevitably, the number of takers grows while the number of producers shrinks.

that used to be true in the past; take pre-WWII Germany, for example. Those conditions no longer exist and that point of view is obsolete in modern times.

What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?

 

[danielpalos]

It is why a minimum wage for a work ethic should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

Not without means testing. Too many takers to too few producers is unsustainable. That's the bottom line.

being unemployed is a qualification for unemployment. by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, there will be more producers.

That's a nice sounding platitude. It is, however, directly contradicted by history. Inevitably, the number of takers grows while the number of producers shrinks.

that used to be true in the past; take pre-WWII Germany, for example. Those conditions no longer exist and that point of view is obsolete in modern times.

What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

 

[hadit]

Not without means testing. Too many takers to too few producers is unsustainable. That's the bottom line.

being unemployed is a qualification for unemployment. by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, there will be more producers.

That's a nice sounding platitude. It is, however, directly contradicted by history. Inevitably, the number of takers grows while the number of producers shrinks.

that used to be true in the past; take pre-WWII Germany, for example. Those conditions no longer exist and that point of view is obsolete in modern times.

What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

being unemployed is a qualification for unemployment. by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, there will be more producers.

That's a nice sounding platitude. It is, however, directly contradicted by history. Inevitably, the number of takers grows while the number of producers shrinks.

that used to be true in the past; take pre-WWII Germany, for example. Those conditions no longer exist and that point of view is obsolete in modern times.

What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

 

[hadit]

That's a nice sounding platitude. It is, however, directly contradicted by history. Inevitably, the number of takers grows while the number of producers shrinks.

that used to be true in the past; take pre-WWII Germany, for example. Those conditions no longer exist and that point of view is obsolete in modern times.

What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

 

[danielpalos]

that used to be true in the past; take pre-WWII Germany, for example. Those conditions no longer exist and that point of view is obsolete in modern times.

What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

 

[hadit]

What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Okay then, which first world countries are thriving that do not have a strong work ethic? I've noticed a pattern from you. You don't deal with inconvenient issues, you wander off and start picking daisies, then come back and claim you dealt with them.

 

[danielpalos]

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Okay then, which first world countries are thriving that do not have a strong work ethic? I've noticed a pattern from you. You don't deal with inconvenient issues, you wander off and start picking daisies, then come back and claim you dealt with them.

only Capital has to work, not fools or horses. is that clear enough for you?

 

[hadit]

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Okay then, which first world countries are thriving that do not have a strong work ethic? I've noticed a pattern from you. You don't deal with inconvenient issues, you wander off and start picking daisies, then come back and claim you dealt with them.

only Capital has to work, not fools or horses. is that clear enough for you?

It's clear that you're either:

1. A moron.
2. High as a kite.
3. A socialist phrase generating bot.
4. Completely incapable of deeper thought than a slogan.

 

[danielpalos]

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Okay then, which first world countries are thriving that do not have a strong work ethic? I've noticed a pattern from you. You don't deal with inconvenient issues, you wander off and start picking daisies, then come back and claim you dealt with them.

only Capital has to work, not fools or horses. is that clear enough for you?

It's clear that you're either:

1. A moron.
2. High as a kite.
3. A socialist phrase generating bot.
4. Completely incapable of deeper thought than a slogan.

it is your ignorance. capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism. only the right, never gets it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the left wants one handed to them.

moral practice should make moral perfect.

And socialism still sucks. Still fails.

God is all about socialism, not capitalism. Only the (semi-)Religious right, never gets it.

God wants higher taxes and UE benefits for people who quit?

Link?

Bearing false witness to our own laws is a moral turpitude; only the (semi-)Religious right wing, never gets it.

If God is about socialism, so why does it fail everywhere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Okay then, which first world countries are thriving that do not have a strong work ethic? I've noticed a pattern from you. You don't deal with inconvenient issues, you wander off and start picking daisies, then come back and claim you dealt with them.

only Capital has to work, not fools or horses. is that clear enough for you?

It's clear that you're either:

1. A moron.
2. High as a kite.
3. A socialist phrase generating bot.
4. Completely incapable of deeper thought than a slogan.

I vote...all of the above.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

And the high rate of failure.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Only because the more we spend on social services the more they cripple people and the more liberals claim more social services are needed.

 

[danielpalos]

moral practice should make moral perfect.

And socialism still sucks. Still fails.

God is all about socialism, not capitalism. Only the (semi-)Religious right, never gets it.

God wants higher taxes and UE benefits for people who quit?

Link?

Bearing false witness to our own laws is a moral turpitude; only the (semi-)Religious right wing, never gets it.

If God is about socialism, so why does it fail everywhere?

a lack of social morals for free? how much does it cost us to need more than Ten Commandments.

 

[danielpalos]

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Okay then, which first world countries are thriving that do not have a strong work ethic? I've noticed a pattern from you. You don't deal with inconvenient issues, you wander off and start picking daisies, then come back and claim you dealt with them.

only Capital has to work, not fools or horses. is that clear enough for you?

It's clear that you're either:

1. A moron.
2. High as a kite.
3. A socialist phrase generating bot.
4. Completely incapable of deeper thought than a slogan.

I vote...all of the above.

just another clueless wonder. how many rich people work like the poor, if they can get capital to work for them.

 

[danielpalos]

all first world economies have less of a work or die ethic, than true, Third World economies.

Okay then, since you seem to need focus, restrict the choice to first world economies and answer the question.

According to the right, our form of Socialism is too Good for our poor; they should be made to "suffer more" for their benefits.

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

And the high rate of failure.

a lack of "moral capitalization"?

 

[danielpalos]

the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Only because the more we spend on social services the more they cripple people and the more liberals claim more social services are needed.

The same could be said about our exorbitantly expensive superpower; our politicians love to fail at diplomacy, because of it.

 

[hadit]

That is false. Try again, this time with real thought, not failed platitudes. And, actually address the question at hand if you would.

i have; you are simply clueless and Causeless. the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.

Okay then, which first world countries are thriving that do not have a strong work ethic? I've noticed a pattern from you. You don't deal with inconvenient issues, you wander off and start picking daisies, then come back and claim you dealt with them.

only Capital has to work, not fools or horses. is that clear enough for you?

It's clear that you're either:

1. A moron.
2. High as a kite.
3. A socialist phrase generating bot.
4. Completely incapable of deeper thought than a slogan.

it is your ignorance. capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism. only the right, never gets it.

Obviously a bot. Good-bye.