US employers posted more job openings in February, a sign that hiring will pick up - Associated Press, April 8, 2014
It was a Soros-funded study just over a year ago that recommended the minimum wage be increased to $21.72. (... and then RepubliCONs' heads exploded...)
... someone who makes $15,000.00 an hour, and who thinks someone making $15,000.00 a YEAR is overpaid?
(or a Fortune 500 CEO -- but I repeat myself)
Hmmm, they're all either social democratic or democratic socialist (possible exception Australia, but even it probably qualifies as social democratic)...
I thought CONs said "socialism never works"?! LOLOL
/Poverty at record levels/
30+ years of RepubliCON policies will do that to America every time. Hope we remember the lesson. :P
Next time you might want to try (within your limited processor speed and bandwidth constraints) to at least come up with your own joke..
Just want to point out that use of bow and arrow here limited body count to ONE (1), instead of thirty (30)...
Likewise, to implement tax and other legislation highly favorable to "capitalists" (i.e. those who live principally, if not entirely, from the returns on investment of their accumulated wealth),* to the disadvantage of "labor" (i.e. those who live principally, if not entirely, by sweat, either of their back or of their brow), is also a legalized form of larceny, yet another instance (one in a rather long queue) of barriers to social mobility and a cause and aggravator of human want, despair and desperation. ["But," the capitalists will say, "you say these last as though they are bad things!"]
I give but two examples... there are a great many others.
* Thereby rendering "wealth" in its varied manifestations, never something which anyone could seriously maintain had any want of advantages for those who possessed it, EVEN MORE ADVANTAGEOUS.
Smith's writings (the ones typically NOT cited by right-wingers) make clear that he rather disapproved of the motives and practices of "masters" (today read corporations) of his day vis-à-vis BOTH (i) those "servants" in their employ, and (ii) the consuming public. They also make clear that he was quite sympathetic to the plight of the servants in such situations, and this was WELL PRIOR (by nearly a century) to the worst excesses of the industrial revolution, the collected writings of Marx & Engels, etc. I've posted some of the most cogent of Smith's writings on these topics before, and will no doubt do so again.
So for example, when potential sources of employment become more and more concentrated (bearing in mind that labor markets are mainly local, even today, because people aren't actually commodities - alackaday - and tend to have ties to family, community, etc.), this has the effect of transferring a LARGER degree of the fruits of labor to the employer than would be the case in a true Smithian "free market." And for employers to use their vast collective wealth to influence police, army and legislatures to prevent laborers from banding together (in guilds or their modern analogue - trade unions) to prevent this picking of their pockets, is to maintain an advantage allowing the legalized larceny to continue.
The (pristine) study of economics* is an attempt to answer three basic questions:
(i) what gets produced?
(ii) by whom?
(iii) for whose benefit?
To use phrases like "the free market" and "supply and demand" is only the BEGINNING of the inquiry, not the final word -- not by a country mile. Because it can be (and has been) conclusively demonstrated that the STRUCTURE of markets has marked effects on (i) and (iii), and to a lesser extent (ii).
Adam Smith made several simplifying assumptions in reaching his most touted (touted by right-wingers, that is) conclusions and observations: (i) that a very large (effectively infinite) number of producers, (ii) ACTING INDEPENDENTLY, (iii) would compete to sell their goods to a very large (effectively infinite) number of consumers, (iv) ALSO ACTING INDEPENDENTLY. Smith was not a Pollyanna, nor was he particularly naïve, about #$%$ economicus (he was in fact a moral philosopher of some repute, after all), and he knew intuitively (if not to a mathematical degree of certainty) that where one or more of these assumptions failed to hold, outcomes would thereby be skewed. And he knew further that they failed to hold QUITE OFTEN.
So where (i) fails, we get monopoly or oligopoly. Where (ii) fails, we get price fixing on the "offer" by producers. Where (iii) fails, we get monopsony, or its oligarchic equivalent. And where (iv) fails, we get price fixing on the "bid" by consumers. More complex outcomes are also possible, clearly.
* This as opposed to the actual way in which most non-academic economics is practiced in the U.S. today, whereby those holding economics degrees attempt to outcompete one another in justifying why those who have most of the wealth and income should keep it, and supplement it with every scrap of surplus produced out to the indeterminate future... Hey, they know where their bread gets buttered, after all.