I guess he never ran a lemonaide stand either. I long for the days when an employer and employee had a mutual agreement on work and wages, and the gov't was not involved.
1 posted on
10/22/2014 12:07:47 PM PDT by
Rusty0604
To: Rusty0604
making hiring people more expensive and burdensome is going to create jobs?
lol
2 posted on
10/22/2014 12:09:02 PM PDT by
GeronL
(Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
To: Rusty0604
3 posted on
10/22/2014 12:11:07 PM PDT by
bolobaby
To: Rusty0604
Labor secretary obviously has the IQ of an ashtray.
4 posted on
10/22/2014 12:12:06 PM PDT by
Revel
To: Rusty0604
Why is the cure for liberalism always more liberalism?
5 posted on
10/22/2014 12:13:26 PM PDT by
fhayek
To: Rusty0604
Welcome to Newspeak. Up is now down. Good is bad. Doing nothing is work.
6 posted on
10/22/2014 12:14:08 PM PDT by
lurk
To: Rusty0604
I was looking for the satire tag. I guess our Labor Secretary is dumber than a bag of hammers.
7 posted on
10/22/2014 12:15:29 PM PDT by
A message
To: Rusty0604
So, to increase employment you just offer people a job where they get paid for not working. Boy, what a stroke of genius.
To: Rusty0604
Yup. Liblogic. Less people working=more people working. Must be common core training kickin’ in. It’s not the answer that counts, it’s the journey it took to get to the answer. HUH?
10 posted on
10/22/2014 12:17:46 PM PDT by
rktman
("The only thing dumber than a brood hen is a New York democrat." Mother Abagail.)
To: Rusty0604
uhhh....the labor participation rate in Canada is higher because Stephen Harper can run rings around Obama when it comes to knowledge of economics. Not because of the additional benefit.
To: Rusty0604
13 posted on
10/22/2014 12:22:54 PM PDT by
Eddie01
(Liberals lie about everything all the time.)
To: Rusty0604
Gotta hand it to a liberal....they’ll come up with some specious BS every time. Rain or shine. Just a labor version of the Broken Window fallacy.
15 posted on
10/22/2014 12:25:23 PM PDT by
Gaffer
To: Rusty0604
I guess I must have missed the satire alert.
17 posted on
10/22/2014 12:27:13 PM PDT by
JimSEA
To: Rusty0604
If we limit the program to government numbskulls like him and make them promise they will never work ever again, we might actually come out ahead on this plan.
18 posted on
10/22/2014 12:30:41 PM PDT by
Mygirlsmom
(Liberalism: Promising Utopia - Delivering Detroit)
To: Rusty0604
...because forcing businesses to pay people who aren’t working encourages them to hire more workers.
Help me, John Galt!
To: Rusty0604
20 posted on
10/22/2014 12:56:44 PM PDT by
ex91B10
(We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
To: Rusty0604
Increase participation in labor by paying people to
not labor?
Crazy.
23 posted on
10/22/2014 1:24:21 PM PDT by
BenLurkin
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
To: Rusty0604
Yeah, let’s make employers pay more people for doing nothing, that’ll solve everything. /s
26 posted on
10/22/2014 2:22:46 PM PDT by
dfwgator
(The "Fire Muschamp" tagline is back!)
To: Rusty0604
What?! Paid leave is a solution to the opposite problem: when you have too many jobs and not enough people, you offer incentives to attract the best to your place of work.
To: Rusty0604
"The labor force participation rate of women ages 25 to 54 in the year 2000 in the U.S. and Canada was virtually identical. Today, Canada is ahead of us by roughly 8 percentage points, in large measure because they have generous paid leave laws and they provide affordable access to affordable child care. So no chance that anything other than paid leave could cause that result? Undivided middle fallacy.
29 posted on
10/22/2014 6:19:25 PM PDT by
Mike Darancette
(AGW-e is the climate "Domino Theory")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson