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



## nicoleivy5 (Oct 19, 2016)

Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?





What would happen if the government and employers cooperate to boost the minimum wage to say, a very high figure. What would happen to the economy in the short and long run


----------



## Grandma (Oct 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Oct 19, 2016)

Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.

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


----------



## nicoleivy5 (Oct 19, 2016)

real talk thanks guys


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

Simple. 

No independent restaurant startup would ever be able to compete. The rate of failure for restaurant startups is already 9 out of 10.


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

Grandma said:


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



On Mcdonalds and Walmart, since those are some of the few corporations that can compete in that type of economy. 

That is essentially the case now. Any further action would just be signing the death certificate for American small business and independent capitalists. 



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



The ruling class would bank off of that too. They already bank off the majority of taxpayer revenue, and the only time we benefit from money spent is when public interests coincide with special interests.


----------



## xband (Oct 19, 2016)

nicoleivy5 said:


> Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are paid due to your skill and what the market will bear. Artificially increasing wages will raise the price of the product you produce. This will bankrupt the company you work for and then you are in the unemployment line again.


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

xband said:


> You are paid due to your skill and what the market will bear.



Not always, as we have seen markets in the past collectively take advantage of workers. 

Nonetheless, the answer has never been the government.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 19, 2016)

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole  and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically



It seems silly to raise it at all.

Scrap that!  It seems silly for the corporate government to play wage control at all.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically
> ...



I agree.  It doesn't matter what the MW is IMO because employment is a ladder not a bed you're not supposed to stay at the bottom rung your entire life


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> I agree.  It doesn't matter what the MW is IMO because employment is a ladder not a bed you're not supposed to stay at the bottom rung your entire life



Unfortunately that is not sustainable model for a population, since the "ladder" does not have the capacity for everyone to ascend it.

 If this country were intelligent, a tremendous number of non labor positions would never have existed.


----------



## xband (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically
> ...



It's pure insanity to price yourself out of a job. There are multitudes of scabs eager and willing to do low tech work.


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

xband said:


> It's pure insanity to price yourself out of a job.



No, what's insane is working at a job where you are undervalued.



> There are multitudes of scabs eager and willing to do low tech work.


 
And there is this theoretical concept called competition, that hypothetically should prevent someone from absorbing labor at .50 ¢

Rarely markets can monopolize and control their sector,  although this rarely happens without government. If this is the case, then I support worker syndicates as a means of direct action recourse.


----------



## xband (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > It's pure insanity to price yourself out of a job.
> ...



I can't read or speak Cyrillic but am a wordsmith. Please translate your by line.


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

xband said:


> I can't read or speak Cyrillic but am a wordsmith. Please translate your by line.



Not sure the relevance, but whatever. Google translate is your friend....

Google Translate


----------



## xband (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > I can't read or speak Cyrillic but am a wordsmith. Please translate your by line.
> ...



That was a simple and innocent request on my part and it is much easier for you to translate rather than for me Google it.


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

xband said:


> That was a simple and innocent request on my part and it is much easier for you to translate rather than for me Google it.



Mate, you literally just copy and paste the phrase into one side, and it instantly pops out the other.

Likewise, if you are running on google chrome or have the proper plug in, you can just highlight the sentence, right click, and press translate.


----------



## xband (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > That was a simple and innocent request on my part and it is much easier for you to translate rather than for me Google it.
> ...



I was born long before the computer revolution and can't even copy and paste. If that is some kind of secret phrase then just say so and I will not inquire further. I have a Univac general purpose digital computer for an avatar that was used special purpose many decades ago.


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

xband said:


> I was born long before the computer revolution and can't even copy and paste. If that is some kind of secret phrase then just say so and I will not inquire further. I have a Univac general purpose digital computer for an avatar that was used special purpose many decades ago.



Don't worry, someone will come around and translate it for you.

And yes, I like being difficult.


----------



## xband (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > I was born long before the computer revolution and can't even copy and paste. If that is some kind of secret phrase then just say so and I will not inquire further. I have a Univac general purpose digital computer for an avatar that was used special purpose many decades ago.
> ...


A yo ko pek pek na baho. Too dirty to translate into English.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

Grandma said:


> 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.


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

Fewer stores and restaurants would open.
Stores and restaurants would hire fewer people. People and businesses would have less money to spend.
More tax money would go to welfare and unemployment.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 19, 2016)

The economy would crash just like it has every time the minimum wage has been increased over the last 70 years or so.

You'd think they would learn by now.,


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 19, 2016)

Mr Clean said:


> The economy would crash just like it has every time the minimum wage has been increased over the last 70 years or so.
> 
> You'd think they would learn by now.,


Like I said it depends on how much of an increase

7.25 to 8.00  or even 8.50 no big deal

7.25 to 15.00 is a totally different story


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 19, 2016)

Grandma said:


> 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.



seems like  another liberal no brainer. Perhaps  we need a Constitutional Amendment to raise all wages by $10/hr every year for the next 100 years??????????


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.
> 
> It's the value of the work that determines the pay.



Employees make all of the monies for employers. If you cut employees you make less money.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> Simple.
> 
> No independent restaurant startup would ever be able to compete. The rate of failure for restaurant startups is already 9 out of 10.



All new business today MUST do three things to survive.

1) A minimum of FIVE YEARS total capital.
2) Know whom to hire (which can be farmed out to professionals).
3) NEVER, NEVER, NEVER hire relatives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.
> ...



*Employees make all of the monies for employers.*

All of it? What about the equipment?

*If you cut employees you make less money.*

If the minimum wage is more than the employee is producing, you would actually save money by cutting employees.


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> 1) A minimum of FIVE YEARS total capital.



Right, and that number is only going to increase. 

You cannot start a business operation without taking in debt, or (if you want to start young) working for others on the street for 5-15 years years. Even if you do raise enough capital for a start up, it is not a guarantee that you are going to make a profit. A lot of businesses that go out should of been able to make a comfortable living, had the government lowered the cost of doing business.

It is a really fucked up state of affairs.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 19, 2016)

Small business and corporations have seen their wealth increase $13 trillion in the last eight years

Almost none of that wealth went to increase wages


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Small business and corporations have seen their wealth increase $13 trillion in the last eight years
> 
> Almost none of that wealth went to increase wages



Employee compensation is up from $7.787 trillion in 2009 to $9.693 trillion last year.

Wages and salaries are up from $6.251 trillion to $7.855 trillion over the same period.

http://www.bea.gov/itable/iTable.cf...=1&904=2000&903=58&906=a&905=2016&910=x&911=0


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 19, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> If you cut employees you make less money.



it depends of course on if you need the employees in question at the time and at the price.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



As long as employers can get away with paying crap, that is what is going to happen. 

Why do you continue to plead the case for these jerks?


----------



## Onyx (Oct 19, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> As long as employers can get away with paying crap, that is what is going to happen.
> 
> Why do you continue to plead the case for these jerks?



Ever consider that minimum wage laws help those same jerks destroy aspiring competition?


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

xband said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



With the exception of degree professionals/certificate/licensed, every job is low tech. Greed is why workers make crap today.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



Equipment is infrastructure.

Since an average employee makes five times revenue vs. expense how is that possible?


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > As long as employers can get away with paying crap, that is what is going to happen.
> ...



Someone willing to do the job for less? That NEVER works.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


*
Equipment is infrastructure.
*
Yeah, those workers who "make all the monies" are usually working with some expensive equipment.

*Since an average employee makes five times revenue vs. expense how is that possible?*

We aren't talking about average employees. We're talking about minimum wage employees.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Small business and corporations have seen their wealth increase $13 trillion in the last eight years
> ...



Employee compensation to whom?

From 2009-14, CEO compensation rose 54.3%, while private-sector production/non-supervisory workers rose 0.0%.

Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical Workers: Pay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

Onyx said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > As long as employers can get away with paying crap, that is what is going to happen.
> ...



By lying when they say they can't afford it?


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Again, equipment is infrastructure of the company so the employee can make monies for the company.

Average INCLUDES minimum wage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


*
Employee compensation to whom?*

Employees.

http://www.bea.gov/itable/iTable.cf...=1&904=2000&903=58&906=a&905=2016&910=x&911=0


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*Again, equipment is infrastructure of the company*

Yes. Money which needs to be spent, so those workers can "make all the monies".

*Average INCLUDES minimum wage.*

It's true, minimum wage workers are well below the average.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Onyx said:
> ...



If people don't like what their employer is paying them they can find another job or acquire the skills needed to demand higher pay

only about 3% of all workers get paid the federal MW and in that 3% are service workers who get tips

so I hate to break it to you  but this is not the problem you are making it out to be


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > Onyx said:
> ...



Skilled labor like plumbers welders and electricians are arguably more technical than a barista which is where most people with worthless degrees end up


----------



## xband (Oct 20, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > xband said:
> ...



Skilled labor is infinitely more valuable than people who can't pour piss out of a boot with directions written on the bottom. Plumber's Creed: never chew your fingernails, shit flows downhill and payday is on Friday.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 20, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Three million American workers are at or near minimum wage. THREE MILLION. Pretty bleak for the richest country in the world.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 20, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > xband said:
> ...



But Baristas make more revenue for their employer. Besides, any corn hole can do all three jobs......Even you!


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sure. The former CEO of Walls Fargo took a great 'you're fired' compensation package. You think that should be counted as a workers salary?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



3 million out of over 350 million OH MY GAWWWWWD


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Really?  You can wire and plumb a house to code?

I know I can because I wired and plumbed my own house you on the other hand I don't think you can


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


*
Three million American workers are at or near minimum wage. THREE MILLION.*

We don't live in Lake Wobegone.
*
Pretty bleak for the richest country in the world.*

If you raise it to $10 or $15, many multiples of 3 million would be at or near minimum wage.
You'd be making it even bleaker!!!


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 20, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



A statement which proves you are a sociopath.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 20, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



With a minimal amount of instruction, anyone can do what you did.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I care about the three million people. You, not so much. Sociopath.

Except $15.00/hr is closer to where minimum should be, $23.50/hr. More money spent by the middle class, the faster the economy will improve.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



tell you what if you're so rich (yeah right) and you care sooooo much then you hire all those people making MW and pay them all 100K a year if you don't then you just don't give a shit about people


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Then why is there a shortage of skilled labor?  If it's soooo easy why bother to get a worthless BS in Psych and work as a counter schlep at Starbucks?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


Then you hire people to sweep your floors for 25 an hour.  If you don't not only are you a hypocrite but by your definition you are a sociopath


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


*
I care about the three million people.*

Say you double the minimum wage.  Now more than 3 million people will be making minimum wage.

Won't that be worse?
*
Except $15.00/hr is closer to where minimum should be, $23.50/hr.*

Oh, yeah, your bad calculation. Still funny.
*
More money spent by the middle class*

Why do you feel the bottom 2% of earners are middle class?


----------



## xband (Oct 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I know how to sweat pipe but was never employed as a plumber but was a plumber's assistant. I know the NEC like the back of my hand that I self-studied. I took a test to be an electrician at a big factory and missed one question. I said I did not miss the question and proved it to the Master's Degree Electrical Engineer using the National Electric Code book. He hired me and changed the answer and we became good friends.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Gee, a sociopath having an issue with psych degrees. LOL!!!


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



People that sweep floors don't maintain the infrastructure of a business?


----------



## xband (Oct 22, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 22, 2016)

Grandma said:


> 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.



Wow, I'm constantly amazed at the people here who have absolutely no clue how an economy functions!  You want a large increase in the minimum wage?  OK, fine...raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and lets step back and take a common sense look at what would happen.  First of all a raise that large at the bottom of the wage scale would have to cause a corresponding increase in the wages of throughout the wage scale.  Does anyone here think that someone with years of experience and far more job skills then an entry level worker is going to be content getting paid the same as someone who just started?  Obviously not...correct?  So you have to raise everyone's wage.  Since labor costs are generally the largest expense of any company...it's common sense that prices will have to be raised to pay for these across the board pay raises...correct?  So the cost of everything you purchase...all the services you need...would have to increase...correct?

So if I came to you and said...Hey, I'm going to give you a ten dollar an hour wage...but I'm going to increase your rent...increase the cost of your lunch...increase the cost of that plumber you call to fix your leaky pipe...increase the cost of your internet service provider...increase the cost of EVERYTHING you purchase...would you still be thrilled with your wage "increase"?  Come on people...THINK!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 24, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


anyone with a brain knows a BS in psych is worthless it's no wonder you don't know that


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 24, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


do you pay people 25 an hour to push a broom?

FYI that's a yes or no question


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...
> ...



Wow, I'm constantly amazed at the people here who have absolutely no clue how an economy functions!  You want a large increase in the minimum wage?  OK, fine...raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and lets step back and take a common sense look at what would happen.  First of all a raise that large at the bottom of the wage scale would have to cause a corresponding increase in the wages of throughout the wage scale. Not at all.  Increase, yes.  Proportional, no. Does anyone here think that someone with years of experience and far more job skills then an entry level worker is going to be content getting paid the same as someone who just started? Uh, no one suggested that.  Are you having delusions?  Obviously not...correct?  So you have to raise everyone's wage.  Since labor costs are generally the largest expense of any company...it's common sense that prices will have to be raised to pay for these across the board pay raises...correct?  So the cost of everything you purchase...all the services you need...would have to increase...correct?  No, not actually.  You may want at some point to look at the history of minimum wage increases, and notice that what you suggest "must happen" did not happen.  Labor costs are a different percent of the cost of operations based on the type of market the company is in, and other variables.  Assuming that labor costs are always the highest costs indicate that you believe all companies are similar to restaurants.  They are not.  

So if I came to you and said...Hey, I'm going to give you a ten dollar an hour wage...but I'm going to increase your rent...increase the cost of your lunch...increase the cost of that plumber you call to fix your leaky pipe...increase the cost of your internet service provider...increase the cost of EVERYTHING you purchase...would you still be thrilled with your wage "increase"?  Come on people...THINK!
Uh, perhaps you are the one that needs to think.  You are simply pushing well established and totally unproven conservative talking points.  Which does not require you to think anything through.  And in fact discourages the exercise of thinking. 
No, I would simply think you are a far right wing nut case pushing right wing talking points, and have no understanding of economic history.  But we will all find out.  $15 is a big number, but you obviously ignored the fact that it is implemented over time.  Not all at once, as you suggest.  And, of course, you ignore the simple fact that raises in minimum wage are always opposed by the far right with the same rhetoric from the same right wing talking points, and in every case are proven to be wrong.  
What is constant ant true is that the corporatists and their right wing supporters always say the same exact thing and have always been proven wrong.  

Really, trying to find the truth about this is very simple if you are interested.  A basic look at the subject could start, if you actually cared, with the dol site and their refuting of the untrue conservative talking points and untrue claims that the right uses.  Here.  Assuming you are interested at all.

*"Minimum Wage Mythbusters*
Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour  before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015.

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour  before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.

Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage.

Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.

Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips.

Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.

Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase.

Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices.

Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office.

Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support.

Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it.

Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set."
Minimum Wage Mythbusters


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



*If you raise it to $10 or $15, many multiples of 3 million would be at or near minimum wage.
You'd be making it even bleaker!!*
Really?  Any proof of your statement, or are you simply pushing con talking points?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Won't that be worse?*
No.  Not to those making the higher wage.  But it would be worse for con trolls, like you.

*Why do you feel the bottom 2% of earners are middle class?*
I don't.  Do you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Grandma said:
> ...



Would there be more or fewer at the new, higher minimum wage?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



I don't, OnePercenter does.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*Would there be more or fewer at the new, higher minimum wage?*
Really, me boy.  Your question is immaterial.  And too easy.  So, are you simply playing games, or do you have a point?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Grandma said:
> ...



So you believe that those making a wage above minimum wage will be content with a small raise and not one that is proportional to the raise that an entry level worker makes...even though businesses will of course have to raise the price of their goods and services to make up for the increase in labor costs?  Do you not grasp that means that the buying power of those above minimum wage will actually decline?  You think they'll be "fine" with that though because it will let entry level people make more?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 24, 2016)

Funny how you Progressives are always talking about how you're "here" for the Middle Class...yet all of your policies to help the poor end up with the Middle Class footing the bill.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*So, are you simply playing games, or do you have a point?*

Give me an answer, I'll tell you my point.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So you believe that those making a wage above minimum wage will be content with a small raise and not one that is proportional to the raise that an entry level worker makes.. So, me boy, history shows.  But I did not say small, nor large.  Just less than that of the very poor.  Because, you see, in fact most of those making higher wages are not working multiple jobs or suffering due to inability to pay for reasonable necessities.  So, you see, those at very low wages NEED the added income.  Those with higher wages would LIKE higher wages.  You may want to go to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  Most understand it.  Obviously you do not.   even though businesses will of course have to raise the price of their goods and services to make up for the increase in labor costs?   So,  you do not believe in supply and demand. You believe that companies simply respond to costs, and do not try to create maximum returns on revenue?  Got it.   I believe, you see, that companies maximize prices to maximize revenues and profits.   Do you not grasp that means that the buying power of those above minimum wage will actually decline? I grasp, me boy, that the buying power of those affected by the new minimum wage will increase.  And that those  above it will have little change.  As they always do when the minimum wage increases.  Based, you see, not on talking points but on economic history.   You think they'll be "fine" with that though because it will let entry level people make more? I have been an employee paid above minimum wage several times.  I new many like myself.  I never knew a single person, myself included, that cared what the wages of those lower than myself did.  If they increased it was fine with everyone I knew.  I believe you are looking at fictional people, me boy, as proposed by the conservative bat shit crazy con web sites.  Not based on anything in the actual real world.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 24, 2016)

ppl act as though we have never raised min wage before, and thus no historical record of the results.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Funny how you Progressives are always talking about how you're "here" for the Middle Class...yet all of your policies to help the poor end up with the Middle Class footing the bill.



So, you actually believe that raising the minimum wage will hurt the middle class.  I think you are wrong.  Read the information I provided, and try to find an impartial source that suggests the middle class will be hurt.  I am sure you will not.  That claim is simply from the bat shit crazy con web sites.  Not from an actual proven source.  It simply is a point that makes con trolls angry.  Which they want to be.
Look up multiplier theory, which occurs as a result of added aggregate demand.  And then explain again why increased minimum wage hurts the middle class.  Jesus.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 24, 2016)

Raising the.min wage HISTORICALLY damages the.middle.class, by devaluing their work, and.making it almost impossible to start a business.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 24, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Raising the.min wage HISTORICALLY damages the.middle.class, by devaluing their work, and.making it almost impossible to start a business.


Can you explain.  Can you provide you provide proof?  I think you are simply pushing dogma, with no truth at all.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Raising the.min wage HISTORICALLY damages the.middle.class, by devaluing their work, and.making it almost impossible to start a business.
> ...



Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers



One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

*Thomas Sowell*, "Minimum Wage Madness," September 17, 2013


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 24, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers



One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

*Thomas Sowell*, "Minimum Wage Madness," September 17,

Thomas Sowell is a econ prof who brags that he is a libertarian, who can not name a single successful libertarian nation, or libertarian economy.  He is a close associate of the Koch brothers and their think tank, CATO.  If you want a total lack of integrity, read Sowell.  Known by economists as a bought and paid for clown.
But what would you expect from ed, who is himself a self admitted Libertarian, also looking for a successful libertarian economy.  Poor ignorant clown.

Posting lies about the facts of minimum wage is what con trolls do  All six points untrue.  And the source is totally partial, a true con troll.  But what would you expect of ed?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Thomas Sowell is a well respected economist who came out of college believing that communism was the best political system in existence only to change his mind when he saw what big government policies did to the sugar cane industry and it's workers in Puerto Rico.  Thomas Sowell is a libertarian because he saw for himself that government isn't always the answer and often times it becomes the problem.

I was fortunate to have Thomas Sowell as an economics professor when he taught one year at Amherst College.  He was one of the best professors I had when I was in college.  Knee jerk progressives like you, Rshermr...hate people like Sowell because they deal in reality rather than pie in the sky liberal theory.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 24, 2016)

If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Thomas Sowell is a well respected economist who came out of college believing that communism was the best political system in existence only to change his mind when he saw what big government policies did to the sugar cane industry and it's workers in Puerto Rico.  Thomas Sowell is a libertarian because he saw for himself that government isn't always the answer and often times it becomes the problem.

I was fortunate to have Thomas Sowell as an economics professor when he taught one year at Amherst College.  He was one of the best professors I had when I was in college.  Knee jerk progressives like you, Rshermr...hate people like Sowell because they deal in reality rather than pie in the sky liberal theory.

So, you admit sowell was stupid enough to believe that communism, an economic system that never had a chance of survival, was the best.  So, he started believing in communism, then changed to libertarianism, the other economic system that never had a chance of making it.  Communism never succeeded, and today only a very few poor countries call themselves communist.  Shows Sowell's ignorance.  Then, he goes on to support an economic system even more a failure.  Libertarianism, which has never succeeded in the history of the world.  Great.

Relative to pie in the sky, that would be anyone who believes in Libertarianism.  You see, liberal theory exists, whether you believe in it or not.  Libertarianism is a dream.  By nut cases who do not want to look at economic history and observe the many times it has been tried and has failed.  And you, me boy, think it is "reality".  Which simply proves you to be disconnected with reality in a really fast way.  Just like your hero, Sowell.

I hardly hate Sowell.  I simply try to see him as he is, and he is certainly not a great economic professor.  Like a number of economists, he chose to take the big bucks, siding with the movers and shakers of the Libertarian push who make econ professors the best offers out there.  Sowell is a rich economist.  But his theories are hardly of interest to serious economists.  History majors who are con trolls and have very little economic understanding may be impressed.  What was that?  Two classes in economics you have had, and you are an expert on the best economists, choosing Sowell?  Are you simply trying to prove you are a joke?  Sowell is a close associate of the folks at CATO, particularly Charles Koch and his brother.  Who are well known to pay economists with low ethics to push their views.  Yup, that would be your way of proving he is a great economist.  Economists with ethics have the class to stay impartial.  Unlike Sowell.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


So tell me do you respect people with rigid beliefs that never change in the face of contrary evidence more than people who may change a stance based on evidence and / or experience?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.



He wrote just one.  Not well received, except in right wing circles.  Here is a comment or two.
Responding to the question would you recommend Sowells text, the response was a list of other texts and the following in response to Sowell's text:

"I would say no. A strong and resounding "NO!"
Perhaps if you are looking for a primer on American libertarianism, it's not bad, though Rothbard is perhaps more cited.
But for an unbiased intro to economics, you would be better served by a book written by a mainstream or at least professional economist."
Is the book 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell a decent primer of the study? Will his obvious resent for non-capitalist systems interfere at all? • /r/AskSocialScience

Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.  There are good texts, and there are those that fall short.  This one falls short, according to the multiple reviews out there.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So tell me do you respect people with rigid beliefs that never change in the face of contrary evidence more than people who may change a stance based on evidence and / or experience?  No.  Did you have a point?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.
> ...



Nobody expects "AskSocialScience" to approve of any economic plan that works.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Nobody expects "AskSocialScience" to approve of any economic plan that works.

There is a difference, me girl, between economic plans and economic texts.  We were discussing economic texts.  Perhaps if you start with a dictionary.  Be sure to look up Economics, and you will find that it is a Social Science.  So AskSocialScience is indeed a valid source, and discusses right leaning economics frequently and mostly favorably.  It simply believes Sowell's text to be poor.
Next, if you are referring to Libertarianism, Sowell's economic system (not plan) of choice, you are referring to an economic system that has never in the history of earth worked.  So you would, I assume, not expect expect the source to approve of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.
> ...



*Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.*

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



shut the fuck up, you pompous twit. Commies are lying, disingenuous pieces of shit, and go out of their way to distort reality. So people of at least normal intelligence aren't going to put much faith in anything that "AskSocialScience" has to say.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



"Commies who review the text say it's just awful!"

Alrighty then!!! That clinches it, it must be awful! I'll be sure not to read it now!


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.*

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.

So, that must be why this "leftist"  source points favorably toward several Friedman texts.  The problem with Sowell's texts are many.  But mostly that it is partial.  Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.  Which is beyond the understanding of Libertarians like yourself.
Just think what you could learn if you actually read the sources statements.


----------



## alpine (Oct 25, 2016)

You can solve the problem of everything being expensive and bottom not making enough to afford it by 2 ways:

1. Easy way out. Throw some money at the problem, increase min wage, problem solved... 

2. Take steps to ensure job gets paid its real value. Meaning, a college education dont cost you a fortune, a hospital dont bankrupt you....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*So, that must be why this "leftist" source points favorably toward several Friedman texts.*

If they had dinged Friedman, even morons like you would have to admit they were leftist hacks.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



shut the fuck up, you pompous twit. So, only congenital idiots would use that language.  Pissed you got caught being a dipshit again? Commies are lying, disingenuous pieces of shit, and go out of their way to distort reality.  Commies??  More stupid name calling.  So, proving you are a dipshit?   So people of at least normal intelligence aren't going to put much faith in anything that "AskSocialScie  nce" has to say.  Yes, but then you are far lower than average intelligence.  Way short of that low mark.  But yes, indeed, good job of proving yourself a dipshit.
Then again, you already proved you are incapable of rational talk.  You see, me boy, you are too stupid to discuss anything.  No chance you are going to make sense.  You simply help prove that con trolls are, by definition, stupid.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*So, that must be why this "leftist" source points favorably toward several Friedman texts.*

If they had dinged Friedman, even morons like you would have to admit they were leftist hacks.
Having not read the source, you have no clue.  But that is pretty normal, eh, me con troll.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

*Reviews of the text are generally not favorable.*

Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.

So, that must be why this "leftist"  source points favorably toward several Friedman texts.  The problem with Sowell's texts are many.  But mostly that it is partial.  Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.  Which is beyond the understanding of Libertarians like yourself.
Just think what you could learn if you actually read the sources statements. [/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

*So, that must be why this "leftist" source points favorably toward several Friedman texts.*

If they had dinged Friedman, even morons like you would have to admit they were leftist hacks.
Having not read the source, you have no clue.  But that is pretty normal, eh, me con troll.  You see, as a con troll, you do not understand the concept of impartial sources, nor do you want to believe that this could be one.  Must be convenient to believe anything you want to, eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.*

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Oct 25, 2016)

nicoleivy5 said:


> Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is complicated: some businesses would have to raise the prices of their products / services. On the other hand, more money would mean more purchasing power and more expenses. 

Other alternatives are to establish a minimum income ( a negative income tax) that is an idea which was supported by both Hayek and Friedman.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.*

Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must. So, me boy, are you suggesting that Samuelson's Economics was a fake impartial text?  I think you are a simple con troll, and practicing Libertarian hopeful. Any proof that Samuelson was not impartial?
Do you know what impartial is?
Care to suggest what is partial about samuelson's text?  

So, in my humble but correct opinion, having spent hundreds of hours in Samuelson's texts, that the authors have done all possible to make the text's impartial.  Which is why I know your assertions are untrue, perhaps lies or ignorance, but without question basically stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson?

And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy? Weird.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You've spent hundreds of hours reading Samuelson?  Easily.  Twas the text of choice for introductory economics, first three quarters.  And a version was used for economics for non majors.   
And you're still spreading your economic errors and idiocy?  One of the things I learned over the years is that those ignorant of economic history and facts can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy.  You are an obvious example.  

Weird.  Yes you are
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs and make you look silly is no reason for you to feel inferior.  I suspect that if you actually tried to understand economics, instead of trying to make it fit the concepts of Conservative Talking points, you would be able to carry on a reasonable conversation relative to the subject.  As you are, you would be laughed out of a serious economics discussion.

You made no effort at all at showing me where Samuelson's Economics was  not impartial.   What a surprise.


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 25, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



YES, but like everywhere else, that's only PART of their duties.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs*

Where did you correct my beliefs?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> you are referring to an economic system that has never in the history of earth worked.


actually our Founders were capitalist libertarians and the they created the greatest country in human history!


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > you are referring to an economic system that has never in the history of earth worked.


actually our Founders were capitalist libertarians and the they created the greatest country in human history!

Hardly.  the founders were generally afraid of corporations, and legislated to keep them under control.  And the nation was NEVER libertarian, except in your little ignorant mind.  But the issue was finding a successful libertarian nation, one that succeeded and withstood time.  Unlike the US, which got further from the ideal as it became a major country.  You loose again, me boy.  Just a problem with being stupid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Hardly.  the founders were generally afraid of corporations, and legislated to keep them under control.



there were not corporations then as we know them today, only govt monopolies. You have learned this 10 times. Shall we try for 11?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> .  And the nation was NEVER libertarian, .



Welcome to your first lesson in American History:

the govt then was 1% the size of todays on a per capita inflation adjusted basis so that makes it perfectly libertarian!!!

"The path we have to pursue [when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."-Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs*

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time.  As a con troll,  you tend to need correcting. 

Still waiting for  you to back up your statement here:
Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.

*Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.  *
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue.  Lie?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > .  And the nation was NEVER libertarian, .
> ...


let me try to help you again.  Probably impossible, me ignorant con troll.  You see, you proved what we all knew.  The government was small, but it was not Libertarian.  And the country was not yet successful.  So, only you believe it was a libertarian economy.  And that is because you want to believe it.  And, of course, because you are a con troll.  And because you are stupid.
Over time, you should also know, the people saw to it that the government got larger (Reagan, for example, increased it in size greatly}.  So, as the economy got larger it became more and more socialist in nature, less and less capitalist in nature.  Today, it is mixed.  Your bike is produced by a capitalist company.  Your roads by a socialist entity.
Sorry, Ed.  You loose again.  As always.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




_Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems._

Where do you feel you corrected this?

_Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must_

Ditto.

*Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.
*
Thanks for the laugh.

*
As a con troll,  you tend to need correcting.*

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




_*Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.*
1.  It did not need correcting.  It is simply your opinion, with no proof.  
2.  It is stupid.  Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3.  Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "t*exts that point out the failures of their economic systems." *_Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way.  My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education.  But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.

*Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.*
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue?  Of course you do not.  But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll.  There is this thing called integrity.  Professors I have met have it.  Most cons do not.  

*
As a con troll,  you tend to need correcting.*

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above.  I keep having to try to educate you.  Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.*
_ 1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.  
_
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
*
Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.*

Not the ones I see

See above.  I keep having to try to educate you.  Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Your statement that states:Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.*
_ 1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.   
You stated lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.  With no proof.  
So, lets dissect your stupidity for a moment : 1.  Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems.  They are not "their" economic system.  
2.  Since they do not have the economic system that you said they had, there is no concern on their part should the text show the system's shortcomings.
3.  Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems, but point out the potential problems and past failures of all economic systems.  
4.  Students of all types dislike economic texts because they can be uninteresting.  But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, or the negative aspects of economic systems they liked.   Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern.   Again, for cons, truth is what they want to believe.  For others, truth is what can be proven.  
5.  I never ever saw an econ professor criticize an economic system unfairly.  Ever.  I did see conservative students get upset when a professor would discuss the positive aspects of communism, or of socialism.  _
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
My bet is that you do not.  You simply, me boy, imagine it.

*
Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.*

Not the ones I see
Yes, but then, you are a con troll.  So you are unaffected by the truth.  


See above.  I keep having to try to educate you.  Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.
You do not look at evidence.  See, your malfunction is that you think that con talking points and evidence are the same thing.  And you have no integrity.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

*Just because I correct your juvenile beliefs*

Where did you correct my beliefs?
Post 94 and 102 in this thread, and many instances over time.  As a con troll,  you tend to need correcting.

*Yes, fake liberal impartiality is a must, you said.  *
But, you can not back up your statement, as it is untrue.  Lie?[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]


_*Your statement that states: Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.*
1.  It did not need correcting.  It is simply your opinion, with no proof.  
2.  It is stupid.  Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.
3.  Liberals and most all other students get impartial texts, and have no experience with "t*exts that point out the failures of their economic systems." *_Perhaps if you went to a good right wing nut case college, like Liberty university, you could find texts suggesting that economic systems are bad in some way.  My experience says it does not happen in actual normal higher education.  But it does exist, obviously, in the ignorant mind of con trolls.
So, as I expected, you stated that lefties do not like texts..................  But you can not show that it is true.  Now, a person with integrity would prove his statement, or admit he was either wrong, or wrong and lying.  Do you have any integrity at all?

*Nearly all texts that are used by actual universities are impartial by requirement.*
Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, so you have some proof that my statement is untrue?  Of course you do not.  But thanks for proving again that you are a con troll.  There is this thing called integrity.  Professors I have met have it.  Most cons do not.  

*
As a con troll,  you tend to need correcting.*

And as a lib moron, you keep imagining things.
See above.  I keep having to try to educate you.  Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

*Your statement that states: Lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.*
_ 1. It did not need correcting. It is simply your opinion, with no proof.   
You stated lefties dislike texts that point out the failures of their economic systems.  With no proof.  
So, lets dissect your stupidity for a moment : 1.  Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems.  They are not "their" economic system.  
2.  Since they do not have the economic system that you said they had, there is no concern on their part should the text show the system's shortcomings.
3.  Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems, but point out the potential problems and past failures of all economic systems.  
4.  Students of all types dislike economic texts because they can be uninteresting.  But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, or the negative aspects of economic systems they liked.   Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern.   Again, for cons, truth is what they want to believe.  For others, truth is what can be proven.  
5.  I never ever saw an econ professor criticize an economic system unfairly.  Ever.  I did see conservative students get upset when a professor would discuss the positive aspects of communism, or of socialism.  _
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?
My bet is that you do not.  You simply, me boy, imagine it.

*
Lefties, where they exist, like the truth.*

Not the ones I see
Yes, but then, you are a con troll.  So you are unaffected by the truth.  


See above.  I keep having to try to educate you.  Problem is, as a con troll, you prefer to believe what you want, not what the evidence tells rational people

The evidence tells me you aren't rational.
You do not look at evidence.  See, your malfunction is that you think that con talking points and evidence are the same thing.  And you have no integrity.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MindWars (Oct 25, 2016)

nicoleivy5 said:


> Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Businesses shut down and soon human workers aren't going to be needed anyway.
Raise the pay , and everything else around it goes up in price. Meaning the cost of living.
People can't understand simple economics. You can't raise people's pay in an economy that is collapsing anyway.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 25, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


It's so much easier to plumb now with plastics instead of copper.. I would wire in parallel instead of series though....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



_Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems. 
_
The left has no economic system? LOL!

_Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems
_
On the one hand, Communism, on the other hand, capitalism. LOL!

_But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, 
_
Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.

_Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern. _

Besides curling up in a ball and looking for their safe space.......

*So you are unaffected by the truth.* 

I'm unaffected by the lies of the left.

*I keep having to try to educate you.*

But you're so dumb. And so wrong.

*You do not look at evidence.*

I do. And it shows me the left lies. It's what they do best.
*
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?*

My bet is that you do not. Hehe.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



_Lefties or impartial students do not have economic systems. 
_
The left has no economic system? LOL!
Nope, me boy.  They are lucky to have a few bucks.  Countries have economic systems.  Students do not.  Maybe you are too stupid for econ classes.

_Impartial texts do not point out the failures of particular systems
_
On the one hand, Communism, on the other hand, capitalism. LOL!
Correct, me con troll.  Both have good and bad points.  But name the communist nation you have in mind, dipshit.  Or do you want to discuss the system in general.  Texts and econ profs I have known talk about strengths and weaknesses of systems.  But failures of particular nations economies.  Which were seldom pure anything.  Certainly not pure communist,  And certainly not pure capitalist.
I suspect this is too complex for you. 

_But my experience only found conservative students who did not like showing the positive components of economic systems they disliked, 
_
Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.
1.  Fast way to grow the economic strength of the nation due to central planning.
2.  Equality within the society.

But, here is the thing, me poor ignorant con, all you have to do is google the question.  Pay me, and I will write you a short thesis.  


_Liberal minded students take such analysis with no concern. _

Besides curling up in a ball and looking for their safe space.......
Ah, more con talking points.  Again no use of facts.  Must be cool to be able to believe anything you want.  

*So you are unaffected by the truth.*

I'm unaffected by the lies of the left.
Name the organizations putting out left leaning lies.  There are over 100 well financed "think tanks" doing that for the right.  Just a few from the left.  Which is why, I suspect, you expect lies from the left.  Truth is, lies from the left are few, from the right enormous.  
So, as I mentioned and you prove, to a con, the truth is what they want to believe, and what they are told.

*I keep having to try to educate you.*

But you're so dumb. And so wrong.
I appreciate that.  I long since learned to consider the source, and you are the source, so I must be smart and correct.  

*You do not look at evidence.*

I do. And it shows me the left lies. It's what they do best.
Sure you do.  Me poor ignorant con troll, you are a con.  By definition, you lie constantly.  You have no integrity.  You lack class.  And you believe what you are told to believe.  So you project, believing everyone lies.  They don't, me boy.  Those that are not cons often have integrity, and value honesty, and class.  Different world from that of the con troll.
*
Do you have any examples where lefties like a text that points out their failures?*

My bet is that you do not. Hehe.
Not my claim.  Must be yours, me con troll.  You are bad at discussion.  The texts I have used do not point to the failures or lefties or righties. Stupid statement.  

Thanks for proving you know nothing at all of economics higher education. But you are truly convinced of what you have been told to believe.  Sad.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone wants to read a text on economics that makes sense...I strongly suggest reading anything that Sowell has written on the subject.
> ...



Thomas Sowell wrote one text on economics?  You're so ignorant sometimes it's amusing.

Sowell has written 59 books to date.  Ten of them deal specifically with economics.

If you would READ Sowell, Rshermr...you'd be much better at pretending to be an economist!  Just saying...


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You claim to have taught economics at the college level...yet didn't know what I was referring to when I referenced The Chicago School!  You want to claim Thomas Sowell is lacking in ethics?  Sowell isn't on an internet chat site pretending to be something he obviously ISN'T!  He has ethics...you have your fantasies.  You're the George Costanza of the US Message Board!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.

*1. Fast way to grow the economic strength of the nation due to central planning.
2. Equality within the society.
*
LOL!


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Ah, wondered how long it would take you to get back to pure lies and personal attacks.  You know better, have been proved a lier over you lies multiple times.  And you know I never ever lie.  That is your purview.  
But again, considering the source of the personal attacks and lies, I feel pretty good.  

Relative to Sowell, your hero, I know the following.
1.  He is a Libertarian.  I know that because he admits it, and works for a Libertarian think tank.
2.  He is totally right wing, and writes as those reviewing his text indicate, partial to the far right.  
3.  If he is not on the take from CATO, he is one of a very few who are not. So, that is my opinion.
4.  Unless you want to show me what country is or ever has been considered a successful Libertarian economy, then I believe he is dishonest or stupid.  And I am sure he is not stupid.  Or do you think he is rational to believe in economic systems that have never worked in the history of mankind.  I believe he pushes libertarianism because the trail toward libertarianism makes people, including himself, wealthy.

A few months ago, you went over 20 posts without a single economic post, or other post on the subject of the thread.  Are you going for a new record?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Were you referring to the 20 posts where I ridiculed you for your total ignorance of economics?  When come on here and pose as you do, Georgie...you should be prepared to be lampooned for it!

For some reason you seem to believe that Libertarianism is a "far right" view point!  It isn't...and neither is Thomas Sowell.

As for why there hasn't been a successful Libertarian country?  The answer to that is quite obvious.  It's the nature of government.  Countries are run by those seeking or having power.  Adopting Libertarian policies means those having power would have to surrender it.  You don't see Libertarian countries because you don't see countries in which those who control things are willing to surrender that control.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here's your chance to educate me, name some positive components of Communism.

*1. Fast way to grow the economic strength of the nation due to central planning.
2. Equality within the society.
*
LOL!
So, you think those two primary points on Communism are untrue?  But the only comment you are capable of is a childish LOL.  Wow, you really are weak.
You seem to have an antagonistic attitude toward economic systems you do not like.  To be clear, even when I first started in economics, in the 1960's, I believed personally that communism was bound to fail.  Simple deduction based on what I saw, as others did, of personal issues.  IE, people would not put up with it, or perform well within it.  There were other problems, but that was the principle one.  However, it was an economic system and I would have no problem if the people agreed to it being what they wanted.  
If you want to look at the advantages and disadvantages of Communism, here is part of one, relative to the advantages (which you asked about).  What I gave you above is valid.  As was the suggestion that google would be a better way of finding what students of the subject have come to believe.  

*"The Benefits of Communism*
Theoretically, there are many benefits that can be achieved through a communist society. Communist ideology supports widespread universal social welfare. Improvements in public health and education, provision of child care, provision of state-directed social services, and provision of social benefits will, theoretically, help to raise labor productivity and advance a society in its development. Communist ideology advocates universal education with a focus on developing the proletariat with knowledge, class consciousness, and historical understanding. Communism supports the emancipation of women and the ending of their exploitation. Both cultural and educational policy in communist states have emphasized the development of a “New Man”—a class-conscious, knowledgeable, heroic, proletarian person devoted to work and social cohesion, as opposed to the antithetic “bourgeois individualist” associated with cultural backwardness and social atomization.

Other theoretically beneficial ideas characteristic of communist societies include:


_People are equal_. In a communist regime, people are treated equally in the eyes of the government regardless of education, financial standing, et cetera. Economic boundaries don’t separate or categorize people, which can help mitigate crime and violence.
_Every citizen can keep a job_. In a communist system, people are entitled to jobs. Because the government owns all means of production, the government can provide jobs for at least a majority of the people. Everyone in a communist country is given enough work opportunities to live and survive. Every citizen, however, must do his or her part for the economy to receive pay and other work benefits.
_There is an internally stable economic system_. In communism, the government dictates economic structure; therefore, economic instability is out of the question. Every citizen is required to work in order to receive benefits, and those who don’t have corresponding sanctions. This creates an incentive to participate and to encourage economic growth.
_Strong social communities are established_. In communism, there are certain laws and goals which determine resource and responsibility allocation. If the citizens abide by these laws, this leads to a harmonious spirit of sharing one goal. Consequently, this builds stronger social communities and an even stronger economy.
_Competition doesn’t exist_. In communist societies, everyone can work harmoniously without stepping on each other’s toes. Work, responsibility, and rewards are shared equally among the citizens. If people have no sense of envy, jealousy or ambitions that counter the goals of the state, then a harmonious economic development can be maintained.
_Efficient distribution of resources_. In a communist society, the sense of cooperation allows for efficiency in resource distribution. This is very important, especially in times of need and in emergency situations.
Reading: The Benefits of Communism | International Business

So, that is what impartial students of the subject see, though every list of advantages is different.  But it gives you some idea of what the "good" points are, and the lists of disadvantages are equally long or longer.  Or, you can simply drop back to the conservative talking points, and practice being a con troll with no ability to have a rational discussion.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Were you referring to the 20 posts where I ridiculed you for your total ignorance of economics? No, I referred to the 20 posts made up nearly totally of lies and untrue attacks.  As you well know. When come on here and pose as you do, Georgie...you should be prepared to be lampooned for it!  And you think, as a basic food services worker, you have the right to lie about people.  But then, you do not.  And, as you well know, I never pose.  My accomplishments in life are quite simple.  I feel neither pride nor shame in what i have done.  But I do not, with out question, feel any need to POSE.  So, I never do.  Posing, me boy, is just a form of lying.  And I never ever lie.  Again, you do, have been caught at it multiple times, and appear to have no concern about it.  I never, ever lie.  And if I am wrong, which I am at times, I admit it.  

For some reason you seem to believe that Libertarianism is a "far right" view point!  It isn't.. I suspect you think you just made a profound statement.  You actually, in fact, just posted a libertarian definition that Sowell would be proud of.  .and neither is Thomas Sowell.
Libertarianism, me boy, is neither left wing or right.  But Economic libertarianism is pushed by those in this country as right wing Laissez Faire capitalist economics.  Little to no government, no ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from their government.  Or, said another way, it is Laissez Faire Economics.  And, Libertarian economics nor Laissez Faire economics has never worked.  And yes, the reason is obvious.  It is the nature of people, who do not want to be controlled by large and powerful organizations.  And corporations, who do not want to give up power or see their revenues drop.  Money and power flow to the top, the people suffer.  And the result is always that the economy craters.

As for why there hasn't been a successful Libertarian country?  The answer to that is quite obvious.  It's the nature of government.  Countries are run by those seeking or having power.  Adopting Libertarian policies means those having power would have to surrender it.  You don't see Libertarian countries because you don't see countries in which those who control things are willing to surrender that control.

Sort of.  Or as most would put it, the people will not put up with the concentrated power of a few private concerns who end up controlling the people and resources of the nation.  The result is always revolt, peaceful via the government or not so peaceful.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr.  Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate?  You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations?  Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves.  They don't believe in "little to no" government.  They believe in less government.  You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are.  "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"?  Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives.  America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.


----------



## hadit (Oct 26, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> It all depends on how much you raise it
> 
> A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already
> 
> ...


That is true.  In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less.  Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise.  I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more?  In the short term, the job market would be chaos.  In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Oldstyle starts with another lie and personal attack, then defends libertarianism by quoting as many con talking points as he can fit in:
You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr. Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate? You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations? Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. They don't believe in "little to no" government. They believe in less government. You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are. "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"? Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives. America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.

Sort of.  Or as most would put it, the people will not put up with the concentrated power of a few private concerns who end up controlling the people and resources of the nation.  The result is always revolt, peaceful via the government or not so peaceful.[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr.  Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate?  You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.
Oldstyle, you are a joke,  You are lying, calling me a liar.  And you know well that I never ever lie.  Here is the thing, me boy. If I ever claimed such a thing, it would be in the history on this board. What was actually said is, in fact there, and I have brought it forward before, several times.  It proved you to be a liar.  I made no claim to have been in charge of a class of economics, which would have been over 47 years ago.  I proved you a liar a couple years ago, and more recently in the past year.  And I have no reason to do so again.  Though I will bring back the proof should anyone other than you wish to see it.  Because, you see, you know that you are lying.  If someone else wants the proof, that is worth showing your lies.
Now, if I were to have said what you say I did, it would be simple for you to prove.  That you can not proves you to be a liar in addition.  
Nice to see you have not changed.  You immediately start off with personal attacks, and lies.  Then you ignore the subject (minimum wage, remember) and take off posting con talking points.  Jesus, you are a waste of space.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations?  Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. Sorry, but the proof is in the history of such economies.  The wealthy, me boy, like to be more wealthy.  And the powerfull like to be more powerful.  So they see to it that the revenues are increased to the maximum and that those revenues end up in their hands.  Simple enough.  We who examine such things today see that occurance.  Only con trolls who are told what to believe, and do so. like yourself, miss that.   They don't believe in "little to no" government.  They believe in less government. They believe in very little government, in general.  And as things move forward for them, they typically want even less government.   You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are.  No, I do not. I know what anarchists are.  They are not libertarians.  And really, you calling someone ignorant is really a case your inability to argue a point and reverting to the normal, for you, lies and personal insults.   "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"?  Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives.   What they believe is that the more of the pie they get, the better.  So they see no reason for social security, educational services, health services, and so forth.  Simple.   America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.The question is not about how powerful the economy becomes, at all.  You are pretending to miss the point entirely.  You see, we have become less and less a Laissez Faire capitalist economy. We have provided more and more services to our people.  Why, me boy?  For the same, exact reason that every nation has done so.  Because the people have not been willing to go along with the libertarian ideal of clowns like yourself.  
The people, not the owners of power, are what ends libertarian hopes.  In every single case.  Which is why, as I have said and continue to point out that there is not a single Libertarian nation today, and has never been a successful libertarian nation ever, in the history of the world.  And you, and other libertarian minded people, seem incapable of seeing that in every case it has ever been tried, it has ended in failure.  But you continue to push it, having bought the dream pushed on you by those who would actually benefit from both the push toward libertarianism through reduced costs for their corporations, and for the end result that they will never achieve.  
What proves Libertarian wanabe's like yourself to be stupid is that you are incapable of understanding that with hundreds of countries over hundreds of years, the great Libertarian dream has never worked.  No such libertarian economy ever worked.  All went down, peacefully or in flames.  How stupid do you have to be to miss that, dipshit?  You are a proven con troll, me boy.  I always know that you will take the side of the con dream in every single discussion of any subject.  You are, as are all cons, predictable.  But pushing the Libertarian dream makes you a joke.
Simple, me boy, bring forward the name of a successful LIBERTARIAN nation, as named by an expert source, with proof that it is Libertarian, and I will admit it is possible.  Otherwise, get back to the subject of this thread and stop your silly insults and lies.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

hadit said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends on how much you raise it
> ...


That is true.  In addition, consider that some 60% of American workers earn $20/hr or less.  Raise the MW overnight to $15/hr and all those workers would demand a raise.  I mean, who is going to tolerate going from making more than twice the MW to making just a few dollars more?  In the short term, the job market would be chaos.  In the long term, inflation would absorb the increase, prices would rise to accommodate it, and the same crowd would be back again, demanding another increase to $50/hr.

Heck, if raising the MW drastically would have only a positive impact, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?
Are you serious?  Are you of the simple mindset that if something is good, then more is always better?  Here i the thing, it turns out to NEVER work that way.  Never, me boy.  And only a really stupid person would believe that. 
So, if raising the minimum wage will obviously hurt the rest of us, and the economy, then that must have happened over the many times it has been raised since the minimum wage was started in the 1930's.  Want to show me when that has EVER been the case, or do you just want to continue making unsubstantiated claims. Or are you simply a con who likes to push con talking points, but has no ability to research a question and find truth.  
Do you simply prefer to be told what to believe.  Looks that way to me.


----------



## hadit (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter.  Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight and bad things would happen.  And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers.  And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear.  Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

hadit said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


And that is why I've always maintained that the only way to raise the MW without causing pain is to keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter.  Sure, we could raise it to $8 or $8.50/hr without too much impact, but go to $15/hr overnight  Uh, you missed the truth again.  You see, there is no proposal to raise the minimum wage OVERNIGHT.  Rather it is proposed to be raised in steps over years.   and bad things would happen.  Your opinion.  Do you think being able to provide for your family is a bad idea?  And, no matter what you do to it, within a short period of time the economy would absorb it and you would be right back where you started with the same group of people making the same complaints and insisting on the same remedy, only this time using bigger numbers.  And, while this is going on, more and more jobs would disappear. Like they never have before when minimum wage has increased. Ever wonder why Grandpa talks about pulling into a gas station where a young man would run out, check his oil $125and water levels, wash his windshield, and pump his gas while you have to do all that yourself?  Funny.  I am the grandpa.  I used to be the young guy pumping the gas and checking the oil.  For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.  And I saw that the technology allowed them to stop pumping gas, me boy.  Those pumps that take cash or credit cards cause my type of job to be obsolete.  Suggesting it was the minimum wage just proves you are really ignorant.
I did the work, cleaned their floors, changed tires, did minor tune up work, and so on.  And watched as the prices the oil companies got for gas went from .30 per gallon to over $4.50 per gallon.  You really need to get a grip, perhaps research the subject.  Blaming minimum wage makes you look stupid.


----------



## hadit (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Here's a question even the terminally uninformed should be able to answer.

When a company has a job that needs to be done, which option will it take?

1.  Buy a machine that can do the job well, takes no time off and has no attitude issues.
2.  Hire a human that costs more than the machine, takes time off, and has attitude issues.

Rising the MW simply makes automation more economically viable, which replaces more expensive humans.  If the gas station could hire a human to pump gas and check the oil for LESS than the cost of a self-serve pump, it would.  And why again does the human cost more than the machine?  Be honest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.* 

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

hadit said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Here's a question even the terminally uninformed should be able to answer.

When a company has a job that needs to be done, which option will it take?

1.  Buy a machine that can do the job well, takes no time off and has no attitude issues.
2.  Hire a human that costs more than the machine, takes time off, and has attitude issues.

Here is an answer to your terminally stupid question:
Simple enough.  he will do what costs the least.  Which says, me boy, he will hire a person at a wage which will not allow the person to live, or he will buy the machine.  Which is why there are no jobs left to pump gas.  Even the terminally uninformed know that.  Sorry you missed it.

Rising the MW simply makes automation more economically viable, which replaces more expensive humans.  If the gas station could hire a human to pump gas and check the oil for LESS than the cost of a self-serve pump, it would.  And why again does the human cost more than the machine?  Be honest.
Simple, but really ignorant question.  Have an intelligent phone?  Think for a minute.  If you are capable.  The technology of the self serve pump has increased by the cost of the electronics.  Now, you try to be honest, if possible. 
1. Do you really think that anyone can work for what they used to prior to automated gas pumps????
2.  Look around.  See any gas pump attendant?
3.  Did you notice that those attendants were long ago phased out?
4.  The gas station owners profits have been squeezed to near starvation levels.
5.  The oil companies were making record profits, prior to the oil glut over the past couple years.
Blaming minimum wage for automated gas stations is close to the stupidest thing I have seen anyone suggest.  Really, really stupid.  

Now, here is a hard one, I am afraid, for you.  What does all that have to do with minimum wage?
And please, if you are capable, spend a bit of time with google. and try to find an impartial source that suggests that raising the minimum wage has ever done what you say it will do.  Best of luck with that.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



*For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.*

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You got that from the above sentence that I posted?  Wow, only a true con troll could do that.

The guy who pumps the gas should make just as much as the station owner. Maybe more.
He does all the work, right?

Wow, me boy, you are truly delusional. I said no such thing.  I was not complaining at all.  But you sure went off the map suggesting things which were and are untrue.  

I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully, and help to save the economy.  But then, I am a thinking person, not a con troll like yourself.  

Have you always been delusional?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

*You got that from the above sentence that I posted?* 

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
*
 I was not complaining at all.* 

These weren't complaints?

*For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.*

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
*
I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully*

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.


----------



## hadit (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


1.  You are agreeing with me that it is cheaper to use self-serve pumps than to hire and pay a teenager to pump gas.  That is the point, after all.
2.  When have we ever doubled the MW in a handful of years?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

*You got that from the above sentence that I posted?*

Yes. Whiney libs often go there.
But then, not as often as you lie.  I have known many, many libs.  Never ever has one gone there.  Which is why you can not suggest a single name of a lib who has.  

*
 I was not complaining at all.*

These weren't complaints?
Maybe it is brain damage.  Statements of fact are not complaints, me boy.  Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.  You may want to consult an MD.  I think brain damage may be the issue.

*For about $1.25 per hour for the oil company that was rich, and the station owners who lived like kings.*

What does the richness of the oil company or the king-like living of the owner have to do with your wage?
Nothing.  Did you think that it did?
*
I suggest finding alternative energy sources, which would cut costs hopefully*

If they cost less, there would be no need for subsidies and mandates. I'd happily support your free choice in that case....if they require taxpayer support, not so much.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.  The internet, for instance, was originally developed by the government based on our tax dollars.  As will new technologies.  If we followed you thinking, we would still be using a Ticonderoga and an abacus.  
Computers, same thing.  
GPS, same thing.
Bar codes, same thing.
Google, same thing.
Tire belting technology, same thing.
Microchips, same thing.
Touch Screens, same thing.
Numerous life saving vaccines, same thing.
Wind energy, same thing.

Studies show the government not only provided these things, and many more, but that the cost of that development done by the gov. saved companies tons.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

hadit said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


1.  You are agreeing with me that it is cheaper to use self-serve pumps than to hire and pay a teenager to pump gas.  That is the point, after all.  No, that is not the point.  Your point was that the problem was the minimum wage, me boy.  I simply proved you to be wrong.  The reason, me boy, was the cost of  the new technology, not minimum wage.  
2.  When have we ever doubled the MW in a handful of years?
In the 1930's.  And republicans then told all that would listen that it would kill an already terrible economy.  It did not of course.  But they, like you, believed the con talking points, believing them rather than the majority of economists.  The economists were correct.  The con talking points were, as they are today, simply dogma of the very wealthy that create the talking points, for the weak minded who believe them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.* 

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!

*Nothing. Did you think that it did?*

Only because you mentioned it.

*If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.* 

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.*

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.  While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated.  Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope.  Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


*Nothing. Did you think that it did?*

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense.  Because after all you are a con.  Derp.

*If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.*

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will.  In the end, so will you.  Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies.  So, who is "us"?  Got a mouse in your pocket?  
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.  That majority will continue to increase.  Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.  
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss?  Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.* 

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

*And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.* 






Or not.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.*

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really.  I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.  Perhaps you are confused again.

*And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.*

View attachment 95410

As  I stated.  Here is Gallup's latest.  Aces.  You loose.












U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another.  Five aces?        AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more.  These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also.  Supports exactly what I said.  But there are many more, but all say the same.  

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky.  You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.  Very, very tacky.  And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious.  YOU LOOSE.  Try again when you have valid data.


----------



## Southern Dad (Oct 26, 2016)

A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs.  Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service.  The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle starts with another lie and personal attack, then defends libertarianism by quoting as many con talking points as he can fit in:
> You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr. Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate? You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.
> 
> Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations? Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. They don't believe in "little to no" government. They believe in less government. You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are. "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"? Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives. America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.
> ...


  [/QUOTE]

You're the biggest poser on this board, Rshermr.  Claiming to have taught college economics classes as an undergraduate?  You're not just a liar...you're a pathetically bad liar.
Oldstyle, you are a joke,  You are lying, calling me a liar.  And you know well that I never ever lie.  Here is the thing, me boy. If I ever claimed such a thing, it would be in the history on this board. What was actually said is, in fact there, and I have brought it forward before, several times.  It proved you to be a liar.  I made no claim to have been in charge of a class of economics, which would have been over 47 years ago.  I proved you a liar a couple years ago, and more recently in the past year.  And I have no reason to do so again.  Though I will bring back the proof should anyone other than you wish to see it.  Because, you see, you know that you are lying.  If someone else wants the proof, that is worth showing your lies.
Now, if I were to have said what you say I did, it would be simple for you to prove.  That you can not proves you to be a liar in addition.  
Nice to see you have not changed.  You immediately start off with personal attacks, and lies.  Then you ignore the subject (minimum wage, remember) and take off posting con talking points.  Jesus, you are a waste of space.

Why would Libertarian policies lead to control by large and powerful organizations?  Libertarians believe in taking power from big government and returning as much of it as possible to the people themselves. Sorry, but the proof is in the history of such economies.  The wealthy, me boy, like to be more wealthy.  And the powerfull like to be more powerful.  So they see to it that the revenues are increased to the maximum and that those revenues end up in their hands.  Simple enough.  We who examine such things today see that occurance.  Only con trolls who are told what to believe, and do so. like yourself, miss that.   They don't believe in "little to no" government.  They believe in less government. They believe in very little government, in general.  And as things move forward for them, they typically want even less government.   You seem to think that Libertarians are Anarchists...which once again illustrates how ignorant you are.  No, I do not. I know what anarchists are.  They are not libertarians.  And really, you calling someone ignorant is really a case your inability to argue a point and reverting to the normal, for you, lies and personal insults.   "No ability of the people to provide for themselves with help from the government"?  Libertarians believe that the people already possess the ability to provide for themselves if government was less intrusive in their lives.   What they believe is that the more of the pie they get, the better.  So they see no reason for social security, educational services, health services, and so forth.  Simple.   America didn't become an economic powerhouse because it's people were clueless idiots that needed help from an all powerful government...it became the strongest economy of all time because it's people were given unprecedented freedoms.The question is not about how powerful the economy becomes, at all.  You are pretending to miss the point entirely.  You see, we have become less and less a Laissez Faire capitalist economy. We have provided more and more services to our people.  Why, me boy?  For the same, exact reason that every nation has done so.  Because the people have not been willing to go along with the libertarian ideal of clowns like yourself.  
The people, not the owners of power, are what ends libertarian hopes.  In every single case.  Which is why, as I have said and continue to point out that there is not a single Libertarian nation today, and has never been a successful libertarian nation ever, in the history of the world.  And you, and other libertarian minded people, seem incapable of seeing that in every case it has ever been tried, it has ended in failure.  But you continue to push it, having bought the dream pushed on you by those who would actually benefit from both the push toward libertarianism through reduced costs for their corporations, and for the end result that they will never achieve.  
What proves Libertarian wanabe's like yourself to be stupid is that you are incapable of understanding that with hundreds of countries over hundreds of years, the great Libertarian dream has never worked.  No such libertarian economy ever worked.  All went down, peacefully or in flames.  How stupid do you have to be to miss that, dipshit?  You are a proven con troll, me boy.  I always know that you will take the side of the con dream in every single discussion of any subject.  You are, as are all cons, predictable.  But pushing the Libertarian dream makes you a joke.
Simple, me boy, bring forward the name of a successful LIBERTARIAN nation, as named by an expert source, with proof that it is Libertarian, and I will admit it is possible.  Otherwise, get back to the subject of this thread and stop your silly insults and lies.[/QUOTE]

What Libertarian economy "went down, peacefully or in flames"?  You make it sound like Libertarianism was tried and failed.  Kindly point out a country that has followed Libertarian principles only to see them fail!  The truth is that people in power want nothing to do with Libertarian policies because Libertarian policies start by LIMITING the power that people in power HAVE!  It's human nature to crave control of things and against human nature to give up control once you have it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 26, 2016)

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South.  It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing.  It was done on purpose.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.
*
World oil production is just under 80 million barrels a day.
Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?
*
As  I stated.  Here is Gallup's latest.* 

Great deal/ Fair amount? LOL!
Get back to me if you find a poll that counts "great deal" alone, like mine, and we'll see if your claim was correct.

*By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky.  You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.* 

A Gallup poll that ends around 2014. How is it undated? No explanation? Read the chart. DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...







*And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.*

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters". LOL!


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Southern Dad said:


> A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs.  Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service.  The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.


   [/QUOTE]
But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.     And, the increase is phased in over time.  And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved.  We shall see.  I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change.  Though some is expected.  And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.


----------



## Southern Dad (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.     And, the increase is phased in over time.  And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved.  We shall see.  I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change.  Though some is expected.  And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.



That sounds good.  Really, you paint a rosy picture.  I'm in management for a company that owns newspapers.  We can't really raise our prices.  So, as our labor costs go up, we are going to have cut some expenses somewhere.  That may be sending our call center offshore putting those workers out of a job.  That may mean eliminating our truck drivers to have that done by contractors.  Maybe outsourcing printing of a couple publications to another newspaper.  Again, eliminating jobs.  

You suspect there will be little change, and you seem attached to this "living wage."  The fact is that a significant raise in minimum wage adjusts across the board.  Union contracts will require step level in kind increases.  You raise minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour that means that union press lead goes from $25 an hour to $50, and so forth.  No, my friend, I know there will be change.  There will be significant change.  

Walmarts and Targets they can absorb the costs of this labor increase but your small chains and mom-pops?  This is the coffin nail for them.  Businesses that are already struggling to stay profitable?  They're done.  Then those employees making a "living wage" are down at the unemployment line where they will max out in 13 weeks.  Then what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Southern Dad said:
> 
> 
> > A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs.  Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service.  The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.
> ...



*But then, added income to workers gets spent.*

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.
*
Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.* 

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.
*
World oil production is just under 80 million barrels a day.
Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?
BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell
*
As  I stated.  Here iGallup's latest.*

Great deal/ Fair amount? LOL!
You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting.  Apparently you don't feel it is helpful.  So, we have your opinion, and Gallup's opinion.  You loose.  Have you always been this dishonest, or are you simply trying it out from scratch:
Get back to me if you find a poll that counts "great deal" alone, like mine, and we'll see if your claim was correct.   You are using old methodology.  Simply, and obviously, because you do not want to look at current data.  And because you are dishonest. Gallup does not break it out as your chart has it, from back in 2014,   Get back to me if you can find new charting of more current data, not with data over 2 years old.  Otherwise, just give up.  You are about to loose this on big time.

Get back to me if you can find a recent chart, 2016.  There are several out there.  Easy to find.  I did not comment about 2014.  

*By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky.  You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.*

A Gallup poll that ends around 2014. How is it undated? No explanation? Read the chart. DERP
Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie.  You will not.  
I did read your little chart.    It has no date.  .  Provide a link, if you say it is a valid meaningful chart.  To me, looks to be a scam.   Sorry, I just have no respect for clowns who try to pass off nonsense as something meaningful.  DERP.  Provide a link so I can see what Gallup has to say about your 2014  chart.  Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

Here is what they said in 2016.  You see, that is where we are actually at.  We live in 2016.  Not back in 2014.  Since then, americans have come to be very concerned with Global Climate Change. 

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans are taking global warming more seriously than at any time in the past eight years, according to several measures in Gallup's annual environment poll. M*ost emblematic is the rise in their stated concern about the issue. Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say they are worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming, up from 55% at this time last year* and the highest reading since 2008.
Mirroring this, the March 2-6 survey -- conducted at the close of what has reportedly been the warmest winter on record in the U.S. -- documents a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who believe the effects of global warming have already begun. *Nearly six in 10 (59%) today say the effects have already begun, up from 55% in March 2015*. Another 31%, up from 28% in 2015, believe the effects are not currently manifest but will be at some point in the future. That leaves only 10% saying the effects will never happen, down from 16% last year and the lowest since 2007.
Concern about global warming has increased among all party groups since 2015, although it remains much higher among Democrats than Republicans and independents. For example, 40% of Republicans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 31% last year. The percentage of independents expressing concern has also increased nine points, from 55% to 64%. Democrats' concern is up slightly less, from 78% to 84%.

Democrats and independents also show double-digit increases in the percentages attributing warmer temperatures to human activities. Republicans show a more modest uptick of four points on this question.
U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Southern Dad said:
> ...



*But then, added income to workers gets spent.*

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.
Jesus, you could use a class in economics.  Lets say you are in the burger business.  You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks.  Other burger joints are seldom your customers.  
Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Burger joints may well not.  Poor multiplier, but the worker has a high multiplier.  Particularly true when the business saves, and does not spend.  
*
Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.*

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.
No way, me boy.  Again, about that class in economics.  Increased wages are spent, increasing income.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Southern Dad said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.     And, the increase is phased in over time.  And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved.  We shall see.  I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change.  Though some is expected.  And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


As I am sure you know, since that chart, the concern of voters has increased a great deal.  To new highs.  
Really, you need to use a new graph, dipshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?

*BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell
*
How do they have monopoly power?

*You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting.  Apparently you don't feel it is helpful.*

Your claim was, "And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.".  Do Americans who worry "a fair amount" qualify as understanding it is "a large problem"? Or only those who worry about it "a great deal"?

I'd say my earlier chart which broke out "a great deal" is a more accurate indicator of the accuracy of your claim.

*You are using old methodology.*

Obviously, and the old methodology showed that Americans don't consider global warming...err...climate change...err...extreme weather to be their main, or even a major concern.


*Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie.*

My Gallup chart was a lie?

*I did read your little chart.    It has no date. *

The last year on the chart is 2014. Too complex for you?
*
Provide a link, if you say it is a valid meaningful chart.  To me, looks to be a scam.* 

Well, you're an idiot, so of course it does.

Americans Show Low Levels of Concern on Global Warming


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



View attachment 95413

*And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.*

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters". 
So, you disagree with what Gallup says.  The chart says something slightly different in words from what you "mis" quoted.  The chart was of serious threat to you (IE, those being polled).  In other words, most think they will escape the problem.  But they indicated on the other charts they believed it was a serious problem.  So, the expectation of most, though certainly not cons, is that they will have concern for the human race, not just themselves.  Being a con, you probably can not fathom that, but indications are that it is true.  And it is true that the trend is upward,for the past year plus.  And it is expected to continue,

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word?   Oh yeah, you are *SCREWED,*
The biggest problem is obvious.  If you read the Gallop article, you will understand. Er, probably not.  Understand what thinking people see as obvious.  People are getting more and more concerned at a rapid rate.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

*So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.*

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really.  I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.  Perhaps you are confused again.

*And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.*

View attachment 95410

As  I stated.  Here is Gallup's latest.  Aces.  You loose.













U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another.  Five aces?        AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more.  These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also.  Supports exactly what I said.  But there are many more, but all say the same.  

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky.  You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.  Very, very tacky.  And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious.  YOU LOOSE.  Try again when you have valid data.[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]
*
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.
*
World oil production is just under 80 million barrels a day.
Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?
BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell
*
As  I stated.  Here iGallup's latest.*

Great deal/ Fair amount? LOL!
You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting.  Apparently you don't feel it is helpful.  So, we have your opinion, and Gallup's opinion.  You loose.  Have you always been this dishonest, or are you simply trying it out from scratch:
Get back to me if you find a poll that counts "great deal" alone, like mine, and we'll see if your claim was correct.   You are using old methodology.  Simply, and obviously, because you do not want to look at current data.  And because you are dishonest. Gallup does not break it out as your chart has it, from back in 2014,   Get back to me if you can find new charting of more current data, not with data over 2 years old.  Otherwise, just give up.  You are about to loose this on big time.

Get back to me if you can find a recent chart, 2016.  There are several out there.  Easy to find.  I did not comment about 2014.  

*By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky.  You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.*

A Gallup poll that ends around 2014. How is it undated? No explanation? Read the chart. DERP
Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie.  You will not.  
I did read your little chart.    It has no date.  .  Provide a link, if you say it is a valid meaningful chart.  To me, looks to be a scam.   Sorry, I just have no respect for clowns who try to pass off nonsense as something meaningful.  DERP.  Provide a link so I can see what Gallup has to say about your 2014  chart.  Otherwise, stop wasting my time.[/QUOTE]

Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?

*BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell
*
How do they have monopoly power?  First, they are not monopolies.  That is not what monopoly power means.  It means what it says.  Do a little research for yourself, and it may help you.  As is, I see no need to have to educate you to what any first quarter econ student knows.  And I suspect you know, as well.  

*You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting.  Apparently you don't feel it is helpful.*
Your claim was, "And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.".  Do Americans who worry "a fair amount" qualify as understanding it is "a large problem"? Or only those who worry about it "a great deal"?
Again, you are assuming that voters only worry about themselves, like con trolls. Most people worry about the human race to a large degree.  So, they are very concerned, though some feel that they will not be affected.  

I'd say my earlier chart which broke out "a great deal" is a more accurate indicator of the accuracy of your claim.
Sure you would.  Because it was done in 2014, and mine is from 2016.  During those 2 plus years.  And concerns of those polled were much higher in 2016.  Funny, isn't it, that you used those prior years.  Dipshit.

*You are using old methodology.*

Obviously, and the old methodology showed that Americans don't consider global warming...err...climate change...err...extreme weather to be their main, or even a major concern.
Not actually.  But less of a concern in 2014 than today.  Today, me poor ignorant con troll, is 2016.  So, we are going to use those 2016 figures that Gallup is quite comfortable with.  


*Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie.*

My Gallup chart was a lie?
Funny.  No, you lie.  Gallup does not.  But gallup is quite aware that things change in two plus years.  You try to hide that, and pretend nothing is wrong with using old data.  Tacky, me boy.


*I did read your little chart.    It has no date. *

The last year on the chart is 2014. Too complex for you?
No date of creation.  And you provided no link to the source of the chart.

Here by the way is what Gallup said in 2016.  Negates everything you have been saying.
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans are taking global warming more seriously than at any time in the past eight years, according to several measures in Gallup's annual environment poll. M*ost emblematic is the rise in their stated concern about the issue. Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say they are worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming, up from 55% at this time last year* and the highest reading since 2008.
Mirroring this, the March 2-6 survey -- conducted at the close of what has reportedly been the warmest winter on record in the U.S. -- documents a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who believe the effects of global warming have already begun. *Nearly six in 10 (59%) today say the effects have already begun, up from 55% in March 2015*. Another 31%, up from 28% in 2015, believe the effects are not currently manifest but will be at some point in the future. That leaves only 10% saying the effects will never happen, down from 16% last year and the lowest since 2007.
Concern about global warming has increased among all party groups since 2015, although it remains much higher among Democrats than Republicans and independents. For example, 40% of Republicans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 31% last year. The percentage of independents expressing concern has also increased nine points, from 55% to 64%. Democrats' concern is up slightly less, from 78% to 84%.

Democrats and independents also show double-digit increases in the percentages attributing warmer temperatures to human activities. Republicans show a more modest uptick of four points on this question.
U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks.*

Great. Let's look at Red Robin.
Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000
Labor costs $309,966,000
Income before income taxes $48,968,000

About 5.1% profit margin.

Red Robin - Investors - News Release

Almost 32,000 employees.

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

*Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.*

Great, give their workers another $100 a week.
$100 X 32000 X 40 weeks = $128,000,000.
Now they're losing about $79,000,000 over that 40 week period.

How many more burgers do they need to sell?
How many more will they sell because "customers have more bucks"?
*
Increased wages are spent, increasing income.*

For sure. Will Red Robin spend more or less?

*Jesus, you could use a class in economics.* 

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
How long before I have you sobbing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*So, you disagree with what Gallup says.  *

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.

*Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word?   Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
*
Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

*BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell*

How do they have monopoly power?
*
First, they are not monopolies. That is not what monopoly power means.
*
So you can't explain how they have monopoly power?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

[/QUOTE]
What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South.  It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing.  It was done on purpose.  [/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources.  Never seen that in a reputable source.  Including text books, and other publications.  You have a source?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 26, 2016)

*BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell*
[/QUOTE]*   [/QUOTE]*
How do they have monopoly power?
*
First, they are not monopolies. That is not what monopoly power means.*
So you can't explain how they have monopoly power?
I can.  It is simple.  I just want you to do a little work for yourself.  As I said, any first quarter econ student knows the answer.  Are you saying you are so ignorant that you do not know the answer?  And unable to make use of Google.  
I would suggest you stop wasting my time, and either admit you are stupid, or go find your answer.  It is not that I can not provide it.  It is simply that I do not like you.  And I do not like helping people I do not like.  Now, stop playing games, dipshit.   Try to be responsible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *BP
> Exxon Mobil
> Chevron
> Royal Dutch Shell*


 
How do they have monopoly power?
*
First, they are not monopolies. That is not what monopoly power means.*
So you can't explain how they have monopoly power?
I can.  It is simple.  I just want you to do a little work for yourself.  As I said, any first quarter econ student knows the answer.  Are you saying you are so ignorant that you do not know the answer?  And unable to make use of Google.  
I would suggest you stop wasting my time, and either admit you are stupid, or go find your answer.  It is not that I can not provide it.  It is simply that I do not like you.  And I do not like helping people I do not like.  Now, stop playing games, dipshit.   Try to be responsible.  

BP produces about 3.3 mbpd.
Exxon about 3.9 mdpd.
Chevron about 2.6 mbpd.
Shell about 3.1 mbpd.

Less than 1/6th of world daily production.
How do they have monopoly power?
*
And I do not like helping people I do not like.*

You proving your own claim doesn't help me.

Just admit you were wrong and I'll stop pestering you about it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 26, 2016)

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South.  It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing.  It was done on purpose.  [/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources.  Never seen that in a reputable source.  Including text books, and other publications.  You have a source?  
[/QUOTE]

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie.  Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's.  Those were overwhelmingly white.  If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages.  Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black.  FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act and the Fair Labor Act.  The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period.  As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black.  The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks.  When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you?  Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites?  What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks.*

Great. Let's look at Red Robin.
Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000
Labor costs $309,966,000
Income before income taxes $48,968,000

About 5.1% profit margin.

Red Robin - Investors - News Release

Almost 32,000 employees.
Actually, under 29,000
Not known how many are minimum wage

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

*Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.*
Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592
Great, give their workers another $100 a week.  Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.
$100 X 32000 X 40 weeks = $128,000,000.   The 32,000 is actually 29,000.  You have no way of knowing how many are below minimum wage.
Now they're losing about $79,000,000 over that 40 week period.  That would be, technically, bullshit.  You have no idea.  

How many more burgers do they need to sell?  Again,  you have no idea.  Your data is bullshit.
How many more will they sell because "customers have more bucks"?
*
Increased wages are spent, increasing income.*
Based on your calculations, all we know is you are a joke.  
For sure. Will Red Robin spend more or less?

*Jesus, you could use a class in economics.*

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
I do not teach economics, dipshit.  Never suggested I do.  
What you do not understand, due to crass stupidity, is this is not a valid exercise.  But you could well get laughed out of any management, finance, or economics class.
How long before I have you sobbing?  Well I do feel sorry for you.  But I won't be sobbing.  That is simply your delusions kicking up again.  But it may take a while before I stop laughing at this ignorant exercise you put together.  Sad but kinda funny.
Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.
No idea of the number of employees under minimum wage.
No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.  
Etc.
You just made a complete ass of yourself.  But it was funny.  

You have proven my suspicion.  You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*So, you disagree with what Gallup says.  *

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.
Who cares what you disagree with.  Gallup chose to add a second catagory.  And, since they have a large number of professionals looking at the issue, my money is on them.  What it is not on, as any rational person would know, is useing data over 2 years old instead of current data.  We were, me boy, talking about 2016, which makes your chart of little value.
Funny thing is, if you put in the term gloval climate change poll, you would have found both.  But there would be more of the 2016 polls, only one or so for 2014.  Yet you picked the 2014 poll which better fitted your liking, with a lower percentage of those polled that thought CS was an issue.  What a coincidence. Dipshit.

*Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word?   Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
*
Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK.  Same issue.  you can simply substitute warming, same issue for you.  Different in that gw includes fewer variables.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South.  It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing.  It was done on purpose.


   [/QUOTE]

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources.  Never seen that in a reputable source.  Including text books, and other publications.  You have a source?  
[/QUOTE]

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie.  Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy.  And you know how much i value your opinion.  

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site.  For obvious reasons, you have no source.  And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense.  Simply adds to your reputation for lying.  

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's.  Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages.  Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black.  FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit.   and the Fair Labor Act.  The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period.  Sorry, that is totally untrue.  Unions excluded blacks, not law.  As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black.  The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages.  But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly.    When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor.  It was not aimed at blacks.  

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup.  Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese.    Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites?  What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!.  So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2.  A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e.  4. Because you are lying.  The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.  
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy.  As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.  

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans.  Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks.  The fair labor act had no issues with blacks.  T*he Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office..*   I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.  

Here is the thing, me boy.  You do not provide a link.  This is all your patter, at this point.  I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it.  Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in.  Caught again, me boy.  Liar that you are.  

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years.  Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done.  In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies.  Here.  I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, *the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. *T*hese crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. *This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR.  As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually.  All economic students knew that 50 years ago.  They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources.  But then, I know you like the bullshit sources.  You always try to throw one in.  Always with no link.  Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy.  Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag.  Truth be damned.


----------



## Southern Dad (Oct 27, 2016)

Keep in mind that a significant minimum wage increase doesn't just cause those making under the new minimum wage get an increase.  If you have employees with five, ten years time on the job who have *earned* their raises up to, say $15 per hour.  Minimum wage gets raised from $7.25 an hour to say, $15 with a two year phase in.  Do you think that your $15 per hour wage earners are going to be satisfied seeing those just starting out making the same thing that they are?  Of course, there are union contracts which will require in kind raises.  I have never seen a union contract that didn't have a clause requiring that the step level rates be increased, if there is an increase in minimum wage.  

We live in a global economy.  Where is Ford moving small car production?  Mexico?  Why would they add jobs in Mexico rather than in the USA?  Can you say, UAW?  A significant increase in the minimum wage is going to see more jobs in both service and production move offshore.  Think service jobs can't go offshore?  Think again.  Further you will see, kiosks and apps taking the place of employees.  Why pay an employee to take orders at McDonalds, Little Caesar's, Taco Bell, Subway, etc.?  An app can take the order and payment.  Try out Taco Bell's app.  It works great.  Do you know this technology isn't widely used right now?  ROI (Return on Investment)!  It just takes too long to recover the amount spent on the technology.  Raise labor expense significantly and that ROI comes down from three years to one and the technology or automation looks far more attractive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Almost 32,000 employees.

*Actually, under 29,000*
_
Red Robin’s core values and unbridled atmosphere is at the heart of the company’s energizing culture and its nearly 32,000 Team Members across North America._

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Actually, Red Robin says nearly 32,000

*Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592
*
Translate that into English.
*
Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.*

We can only give their minimum wage workers more money?
Doesn't the multiplier work for all their employees?

*That would be, technically, bullshit.  You have no idea.* 

Feel free to correct my math, technically.

*Again,  you have no idea.  Your data is bullshit.
*
Let's hear your numbers. Because mine was from the company itself.

*I do not teach economics, dipshit.*

I'm glad, because you'd be really bad at it.

*Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.*

Tell Red Robin, I took their numbers. Links provided.

*No idea of costs of product.*
*No idea of sales price of product.*

I'd ask you why that matters when we're taking about wages, but you'd just say something stupid.

*You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.*

DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Who cares what you disagree with*

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.

Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.

*OK.  Same issue.* 

Same issue? LOL!
That's why people don't take the fearmongering seriously anymore.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South.  It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing.  It was done on purpose.



That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources.  Never seen that in a reputable source.  Including text books, and other publications.  You have a source?  
[/QUOTE]

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie.  Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy.  And you know how much i value your opinion.  

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site.  For obvious reasons, you have no source.  And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense.  Simply adds to your reputation for lying.  

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's.  Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages.  Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black.  FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit.   and the Fair Labor Act.  The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period.  Sorry, that is totally untrue.  Unions excluded blacks, not law.  As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black.  The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages.  But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly.    When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor.  It was not aimed at blacks.  

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup.  Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese.    Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites?  What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!.  So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2.  A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e.  4. Because you are lying.  The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.  
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy.  As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.  

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans.  Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks.  The fair labor act had no issues with blacks.  T*he Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office..*   I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.  

Here is the thing, me boy.  You do not provide a link.  This is all your patter, at this point.  I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it.  Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in.  Caught again, me boy.  Liar that you are.  

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years.  Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done.  In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies.  Here.  I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, *the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. *T*hese crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. *This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR.  As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually.  All economic students knew that 50 years ago.  They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources.  But then, I know you like the bullshit sources.  You always try to throw one in.  Always with no link.  Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy.  Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag.  Truth be damned.  



[/QUOTE]

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"?  Interesting concept, Georgie.  In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office.  How exactly could the GOP have passed anything?  Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You really are an ignorant person, Georgie.  Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy.  And you know how much i value your opinion.  

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site.  For obvious reasons, you have no source.  And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense.  Simply adds to your reputation for lying.  

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's.  Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages.  Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black.  FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit.   and the Fair Labor Act.  The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period.  Sorry, that is totally untrue.  Unions excluded blacks, not law.  As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black.  The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages.  But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly.    When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor.  It was not aimed at blacks.  

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup.  Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese.    Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites?  What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!.  So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2.  A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e.  4. Because you are lying.  The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.  
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy.  As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.  

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans.  Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks.  The fair labor act had no issues with blacks.  T*he Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office..*   I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.  

Here is the thing, me boy.  You do not provide a link.  This is all your patter, at this point.  I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it.  Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in.  Caught again, me boy.  Liar that you are.  

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years.  Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done.  In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies.  Here.  I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, *the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. *T*hese crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. *This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR.  As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually.  All economic students knew that 50 years ago.  They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources.  But then, I know you like the bullshit sources.  You always try to throw one in.  Always with no link.  Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy.  Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag.  Truth be damned.  



[/QUOTE]

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"?  Interesting concept, Georgie.  In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office.  How exactly could the GOP have passed anything?  Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.[/QUOTE]  
So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh.  You really are simple minded.  Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year.  And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ.  Should you research it, you would fin that is true.  But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows.  That it hurt blacks to some degree is true.  But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that.  Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office.  I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens.  You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology.  And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy.  Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law.  As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was.  Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit.  I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel.  It has no source.  Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements.  Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator.  But of all the claims you made, you are correct here.  It was passed three months after FDR took office.  So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them.  Got it.  Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.  

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history.  Sounds good.  You say you have a degree in the subject.  Though you have spent your years as a food services worker.  It was funny, however, that:
1.  You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges.  No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source.  Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using.  Eh, Oldstyle.  I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source.  Then, you want people to believe you???
2.  When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.  
3.  You actually call FDR a racist.  But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find.  All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese.  Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4.  To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR.  But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931.  Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933,  So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are 
embarrassingly wrong.  Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error.  Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.  

You have proven you are dishonest.  Again.  What a surprise.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"?  Interesting concept, Georgie.  In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office.  How exactly could the GOP have passed anything?  Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.[/QUOTE]
So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh.  You really are simple minded.  Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year.  And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ.  Should you research it, you would fin that is true.  But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows.  That it hurt blacks to some degree is true.  But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that.  Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office.  I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens.  You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology.  And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy.  Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law.  As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was.  Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit.  I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel.  It has no source.  Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements.  Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator.  But of all the claims you made, you are correct here.  It was passed three months after FDR took office.  So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them.  Got it.  Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.  

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history.  Sounds good.  You say you have a degree in the subject.  Though you have spent your years as a food services worker.  It was funny, however, that:
1.  You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges.  No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source.  Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using.  Eh, Oldstyle.  I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source.  Then, you want people to believe you???
2.  When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.  
3.  You actually call FDR a racist.  But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find.  All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese.  Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4.  To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR.  But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931.  Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933,  So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are 
embarrassingly wrong.  Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error.  Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.  

You have proven you are dishonest.  Again.  What a surprise.  [/QUOTE]

What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things!  I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college.  Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college.  Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President?  You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments.  The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership.  Care to try again?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 27, 2016)

You trying to have a history debate with me isn't going to go well for you, Georgie!  Just saying...


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh.  You really are simple minded.  Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year.  And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ.  Should you research it, you would fin that is true.  But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows.  That it hurt blacks to some degree is true.  But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that.  Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office.  I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens.  You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology.  And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy.  Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law.  As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was.  Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit.  I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel.  It has no source.  Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements.  Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator.  But of all the claims you made, you are correct here.  It was passed three months after FDR took office.  So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them.  Got it.  Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.  

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history.  Sounds good.  You say you have a degree in the subject.  Though you have spent your years as a food services worker.  It was funny, however, that:
1.  You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges.  No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source.  Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using.  Eh, Oldstyle.  I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source.  Then, you want people to believe you???
2.  When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.  
3.  You actually call FDR a racist.  But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find.  All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese.  Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4.  To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR.  But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931.  Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933,  So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are 
embarrassingly wrong.  Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error.  Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.  

You have proven you are dishonest.  Again.  What a surprise.  [/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things! Sorry you think it is amusing to demand a source.  The problem is that you were wrong multiple times.  So, these musings you posted are the thoughts of a dish washer with a long ago history degree.  Sorry.  I have no reason to believe you.  Responsible people are not afraid to prove what they say.  Those who lie are.   I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college.  Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college.  Nice bunch of personal attacks.  Having had two classes in econ does not make you an expert on the subject.  I have a degree in economics, and though I may be a few light years ahead of you, I do not disrespect people by posting untrue things and expecting them to believe me.  Here is a news flash, me boy.  There are people out there who know way more than either of us.  And they publish.  You need to back up what you say useing those sources, or simply admit you are posting what you choose to post.  Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. Prove it, me boy.  As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President?  You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments.  The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership.  Care to try again?
No need to me boy.  You missed the absolutely obvious fact that the bill was a republican bill, written by republican congressmen and passed by a republican president.  Which you finally had to admit.  As for amendments, that would be normal.  But it was never aimed at blacks.  It was aimed at companies who tried to hire workers at lower than local wages.  As even non history majors know.  What did you get when you graduated, a comic book?  Everyone knows what Davis Bacon is.  It is still in effect, has been modified many, many times, and republicans hate it these days.  Because it does not permit large contractors from paying below normal wages.  

Now, relative to my econ degree, which you are questioning again.  As you have done for years.  Find a mutually impartial member, or a bank official, and I will send you a copy of my econ degree.  Or, if you are actually capable, simply call the college and ask if my degree is correct and valid.  If my degree is valid, you owe me $500, if I can not produce, you get $500.  But, since I have no reason to trust you, our bets ($500 each) go in a mutually agreeable escrow.  Really simple.  Or, do as you always have before when I provide you a chance to back up your unsubstantiated insults, and run.  And you will, of course, run.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You trying to have a history debate with me isn't going to go well for you, Georgie!  Just saying...


You already dumped your historical expertise reputation when you said that FDR passed the David Bacon act.  Just saying.......


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Who cares what you disagree with*

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.  Well, you are wrong again.  I care about what Gallup says, and know that you are, technically, full of shit.  


Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.

*OK.  Same issue.* 

Same issue? LOL!
That's why people don't take the fearmongering seriously anymore

Fearmongering?  Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists?  What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously.  Only con talking points suggest otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists?* 

Which scientists predicted such a long pause in the warming?

*What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously.* 

Good for you. The people still aren't willing to waste...err...invest their own money in fixing the "problem".
That's because they don't take it as seriously as you imagine.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

*So, you disagree with what Gallup says.  *

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.
Who cares what you disagree with.  Gallup chose to add a second catagory.  And, since they have a large number of professionals looking at the issue, my money is on them.  What it is not on, as any rational person would know, is useing data over 2 years old instead of current data.  We were, me boy, talking about 2016, which makes your chart of little value.
Funny thing is, if you put in the term gloval climate change poll, you would have found both.  But there would be more of the 2016 polls, only one or so for 2014.  Yet you picked the 2014 poll which better fitted your liking, with a lower percentage of those polled that thought CS was an issue.  What a coincidence. Dipshit.

*Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word?   Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
*
Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK.  Same issue.  you can simply substitute warming, same issue for you.  Different in that gw includes fewer variables.  [/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

*Who cares what you disagree with*

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.  Well, you are wrong again.  I care about what Gallup says, and know that you are, technically, full of shit.  


Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.

*OK.  Same issue.* 

Same issue? LOL!
That's why people don't take the fearmongering seriously anymore

Fearmongering?  Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists?  What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously.  Only con talking points suggest otherwise.[/QUOTE]

*Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists?*

Which scientists predicted such a long pause in the warming?
As a con troll, I am not at all surprised you asked that question.  But it has been answered by scientists already, and you missed the memo apparently.  You must just be too deep in the bat shit crazy con talking points. 
The answer is, it is not something they were surprised at. And there has been no pause.   You are simply taking a con talking point and trying to push it.  Really, me boy, listening to Lamar Smith makes you look really stupid.  But the question is important, so lets see what FactCheck.org found when they looked into Lamar's charges, which you are now using in your ignorant question:

*"Smith Still Wrong About Warming ‘Halt’*

By Vanessa Schipani
Posted on March 30, 2016

Rep. Lamar Smith at a recent hearing claimed a new study published in the journal _Nature Climate Change_ “confirms the halt in global warming.*” It doesn’t. In fact, the authors of the paper write, “We do not believe that warming has ceased.”*
*Red, bold, and underlines added by me to help you find the truth for once, me boy.*

Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and longtime* climate change *skeptic, used the _Nature_ study as ammunition against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in an ongoing battle over the validity of a paper that NOAA researchers published in the journal _Science_ last June.

While the _Nature_ study, published online in late February, claims there was a “slowdown” in the rate of global warming in the early 21st century, the _Science_ paper argues there was not. But the studies compared different time periods.* Both studies agree that there was no complete halt in global warming and the long-term warming trend remains unabated.*

At the March 16 House hearing, Smith also continued to criticize the _Science_ paper. He said the paper was “prematurely published,” but the editor-in-chief of _Science_ told us Smith’s claim is “baseless and without merit.” Smith also said that the NOAA researchers used “controversial methods” in their study, but the authors of the _Nature_ paper cited by Smith said this wasn’t the case. In fact, they cite the _Science_ paper as having “high scientific value.”

Overall, each study asked different scientific questions, the answers to which can both remain valid and correct, according to the _Nature_ authors themselves.

*Smith vs. NOAA*
This is not the first time Smith, a Republican from Texas, has made false statements about climate science and the so-called “Karl study,” named after Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information and the _Science_ paper’s lead author.

e’ve written before, Smith claimed in October 2015 that “climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades” and that NOAA scientists “altered the data” to get the results they presented in the _Science_ study.

Motivated to quell what he considers the NOAA and Obama administration’s “extreme climate change agenda,” Smith used the House science committee’s subpoena power on Oct. 13 to obtain internal communications at NOAA regarding the Karl study. NOAA has provided the committee with some documents and emails, though Smith continues to request more information.

In the battle’s latest episode, NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan testified before the House science committee on March 16 on NOAA’s 2017 budget. Again, Smith brought up the Karl study, claiming it was “prematurely published” and used “controversial new methods,” among other things.

During the hearing, Sullivan countered by stating that the final timing of any publication is “at the discretion of the publication itself.” She also said _Science_ “scrubbed this paper with extra diligence” due to the “interest in this matter.”

*According to Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief at Science, Smith is wrong and Sullivan is right. In fact, McNutt told us by email, “Any suggestion that the review of this paper was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit.”*

McNutt added that “knowing that this report’s results disputed the existence of a 21st century global warming slowdown described in previous studies, _Science_ took extra care to assure even more rigorous review and evaluation than normal.”

When asked to provide evidence that NOAA had prematurely published the Karl study, a committee aide for Smith pointed us to a Nov. 23, 2015, _Washington Post_ article. In that article, Thomas Peterson, an author of the _Science_ study and retired NOAA climate scientist, describes “internal tensions” between NOAA scientists and engineers over delays related to the programs used to process the climate data. But in the same piece, Peterson is quoted as stating that the research was not rushed. “Indeed just the opposite is true,” he told the _Post_.

*Smith made a few new claims during the March 16 budget hearing as well. He said, “A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Nature, confirms the halt in global warming. According to one of the study’s lead authors, it ‘essentially refutes’ NOAA’s study.” Smith also repeatedly asked Sullivan to side with either the Science or the Nature study’s findings because he claimed both can’t be “correct” or “valid.”*

*First off, the two papers’ disagreement was on whether the rate of warming has slowed in the first 15 years of the 21st century, not whether warming has halted, as Smith claimed.

Second, John Fyfe, lead author of the Nature paper, told us in an email that Smith took his comment during an interview with the website Climate Central out of context. “It would be incorrect to interpret [the ‘essentially refutes’] quote as indicating that Fyfe et al. refuted the Karl et al. study in its entirety.” He said, “As we said in our Commentary we view the Karl et al. study as being of ‘high scientific value.’ ”

Third, according to McNutt and the Nature authors, both papers could, in fact, remain valid and correct. For example, Gerald Meehl, an author on the Nature paper and climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, pointed us to a segment of an article with Environment & Energy Publishing, which states “both comparisons are valid … and provide answers to different questions.”*

In the following section we’ll explain the similarities and differences between the two papers’ methods and results and why both can remain valid.

* Science vs. Nature*
Both the _Science_ and the _Nature_ papers begin by mentioning the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s description of a surface warming slowdown between 1998 and 2012 in its Fifth Assessment Report. Both papers also note that researchers use “hiatus” to describe this slowdown in the scientific literature — a point Smith’s committee aide made to us. But technically the rate of global warming never completely halted during this period, as both papers state.

For this reason, the authors of the _Nature_ paper write that it’s “unfortunate” that the 21st century warming trend has been framed as having “stalled,” “stopped,” “paused” or “entered a ‘hiatus.’ ” While “[j]ust exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate,” the authors suggest “reduced rate of warming,” “decadal fluctuation” and “temporary slowdown” as some possibilities.

Both papers diverge when it comes to the specific questions the researchers asked, and, accordingly, how they quantified the slowdown.

The authors of the _Science_ paper compared the rate of warming during the period between 2000 and 2014 with that of 1951 to 1999, though they also investigated trends in warming dating back to 1880.

The _Nature_ authors, alternatively, compared the warming rate of 2001 to 2014 with a shorter period — 1972 to 2001.

The rationale for using different time periods is tied, at least in part, to the ultimate aim of each study.

The _Science_ study was designed to determine if the global warming trend for “the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.” It found there was no “slowdown” in global warming compared with this 50-year period.

The _Nature_ study, on the other hand, strove to figure out whether the rates of global warming fluctuate every few decades, so the authors compared the first 15 years of the 21st century with a shorter time period. They reported that the rate had slowed down from 1950 to 1972, then sped up from 1972 to 2001, and then slowed again from 2001 to 2014. “A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations; it is also clear that it has been a ‘slowdown’, not a ‘stop,’ ” the study concluded.

Meehl told us by email that it was mainly the Karl study’s “interpretation of different trend lengths [discussed above] that we took issue with.”

However, Meehl said he did not find the Karl study’s methods to be “controversial.” The adjustments the NOAA scientists made to their data, which Smith has criticized, “were fairly minor,” added Meehl, and involved calibrating different sets of data to each other.

For example, data on sea surface temperatures alone can come from buoys, ship engine-intake systems and buckets dropped off the side of a ship. As the _Science_ study states, “ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data,” so adjustments need to be made to calibrate them to each other.

The same inconsistencies occur when data are collected from different land stations. In fact, the _Nature_ paper describes the Karl study’s identification and correction of these data “errors and inhomogeneities” as “of high scientific value.”

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University and an author on the _Nature_paper, wrote Smith an open letter on March 3, which directly addressed the chairman’s false claims.

In his letter, which was posted on Facebook, Mann wrote: “Please don’t misrepresent our recent Nature Climate Change commentary. Our study does NOT support the notion of a ‘pause’ in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.”

In sum, based on their different questions and correspondingly different time period comparisons, the _Science_ and _Nature_ studies came to different, though equally valid, conclusions about the warming rate in the early 21st century. *Regardless, neither paper supported a halt in global warming, as Smith claimed."
Smith Still Wrong About Warming ‘Halt’

So, in short, your question was answered by scientists who stated there was no pause, and that the climate change continued and continues.  Maybe, however, your con talking points would be better for you.  They say what you want to hear, rather than the complex truth.  Which is beyond you.*


*What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously.*

Good for you. The people still aren't willing to waste...err...invest their own money in fixing the "problem".
That's because they don't take it as seriously as you imagine.
That would be you not willing to look at the polls, nor at what the pollsters are saying.  They will, me boy.  They will.  That climate change boat you are in is in fact an iceberg and it is melting.  
You may not have noticed, but your associates are leaving like rats off a sinking ship,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




*You forgot to finish the sentence.  You said 32,000, they stated 32,000 TEAM MEMBERS.   Not all team members are permanent employees.* 

You don't want to give temporary employees higher wages?
*
1,257,592 Million US Dollars.  Again from Hoovers.  For Fiscal year 2015.*

You should check your math. And reread mine.

Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000

*Your data is bullshit.* 

Which I took from the Red Robin website. DERP!

*So, let me understand what you are saying.  You do not need to understand cost of goods sold, or the sales price of the product, both of which are required to understand the quantity of burgers you must increase to cover any added cost.* 

If their profit margin is about 5% and you increase their labor expenses by $128,000,000 over 40 weeks, I guess you could sell another $2.56 billion worth of food. Neat trick considering they only sold $957 million over the 40 week reported period. LOL!

In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.

You think that'll happen?

*I do not get paid enough to help you.*

You're worth every penny, because your error filled posts don't help anyone.
They are amusing though.

*But, given what you have as data, you have absolutely no chance of coming up with accurate information.* 

Tell me again how a higher minimum wage will benefit Red Robin. DERP!


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 27, 2016)

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
I do not teach economics, dipshit.  Never suggested I do.  
What you do not understand, due to crass stupidity, is this is not a valid exercise.  But you could well get laughed out of any management, finance, or economics class.
How long before I have you sobbing?  Well I do feel sorry for you.  But I won't be sobbing.  That is simply your delusions kicking up again.  But it may take a while before I stop laughing at this ignorant exercise you put together.  Sad but kinda funny.
Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.
No idea of the number of employees under minimum wage.
No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.
No idea how many of the employees are US employees 
Etc.
You just made a complete ass of yourself.  But it was funny.  

You have proven my suspicion.  You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

Almost 32,000 employees.

*Actually, under 29,000*
_
Red Robin’s core values and unbridled atmosphere is at the heart of the company’s energizing culture and its nearly 32,000 Team Members across North America._

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Actually, Red Robin says nearly 32,000
Odd, eh me boy.  You forgot to finish the sentence.  You said 32,000, they stated 32,000 TEAM MEMBERS.   Not all team members are permanent employees.  
Perhaps you do not know what Hoovers is, but they are considered one of two expert sources when you want to evaluate any company.  They say the number is 29,000.  

*Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592
*
Translate that into English.
1,257,592 Million US Dollars.  Again from Hoovers.  For Fiscal year 2015. 
*
Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.*

We can only give their minimum wage workers more money?
The management can give anyone they want more money.  They must only give those now paid under the new minimum wage more money. 
Doesn't the multiplier work for all their employees?
Only those that get the increase.  You have to assume those under the new minimum will go to the new minimum,  over a few years, which you again ignored.  But, others will not,  assuming it is a financial hardship to raise their salaries.

*That would be, technically, bullshit.  You have no idea.*

Feel free to correct my math, technically.
Your data is bullshit.  Your analysis is technically like mental masterbation.  

*Again,  you have no idea.  Your data is bullshit.
*
Let's hear your numbers. Because mine was from the company itself.
Fuck off.  I do not get paid enough to help you.  Best of luck finding some one that does.  You have no idea of what you need to get to an accurate result. 

*I do not teach economics, dipshit.*

I'm glad, because you'd be really bad at it.
Well, me boy, again, considering the source, that makes me pretty damn good.


*Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.*

Tell Red Robin, I took their numbers. Links provided.

*No idea of costs of product.*
*No idea of sales price of product.*

I'd ask you why that matters when we're taking about wages, but you'd just say something stupid.

So, let me understand what you are saying.  You do not need to understand cost of goods sold, or the sales price of the product, both of which are required to understand the quantity of burgers you must increase to cover any added cost.  
2.  You do not need to know the number of actual employees.
3.  You do not need to know the number of under the new mw employees.
4. You do not need to know how many meals each such employee serves, on average.
5.  You do not need to know the number of meals each employee could serve if his wage were higher.
You obviously never have, in your life, been involved in due diligence.  You would have been laughable.
Nor did you have any idea of the elasticity of product demand.  The exercise that you are attempting would take a full day, minimum, and maybe much more to come up with a valid result.  I am no expert on the process, but I have been involved in the process both as a company we were looking at to buy, and as a company I worked for that was looking at being purchased.  What you are doing is
You are trying to find a result that you want to obtain, But go ahead.  It is fun, and funny, to watch your endeavors.

*You are totally incompetent and not to be taken seriously.
*
You are either ignorant as hell, or you are simply trying to come up with a result you like.  But, given what you have as data, you have absolutely no chance of coming up with accurate information.  But have a good time.  I am sure you can find some cons weak minded enough to believe your drivel. 
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


*You forgot to finish the sentence.  You said 32,000, they stated 32,000 TEAM MEMBERS.   Not all team members are permanent employees.*

You don't want to give temporary employees higher wages?
*
1,257,592 Million US Dollars.  Again from Hoovers.  For Fiscal year 2015.*

You should check your math. And reread mine.

Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000

*Your data is bullshit.*

Which I took from the Red Robin website. DERP!
what, me boy, is a Team Member, as compared to an employee?
How many mw employees does rr have stationed in the US?
Again, how many employees are mw.
When are you planing to incorporate the mw stair step, over the years, in your little financial model?
And then you can answer the other questions.  Again, your model is a hoot.  But of no value at all.

*So, let me understand what you are saying.  You do not need to understand cost of goods sold, or the sales price of the product, both of which are required to understand the quantity of burgers you must increase to cover any added cost.*

If their profit margin is about 5% and you increase their labor expenses by $128,000,000 over 40 weeks, I guess you could sell another $2.56 billion worth of food. Neat trick considering they only sold $957 million over the 40 week reported period. LOL!
You have no idea what the number of low income employees is.  None at all. This is truly beyond you.

In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.

You think that'll happen?
You still do not know enough to make that projection.  But if it makes you happy, believe your crazy numbers.  
1. You still do not know how many employees will get a increase in pay.
2. You still do not know how many hamburgers they will need to sell to make up any difference.
3.  You still do not know how many of the employees are outside the US.
4.  You have no idea of elasticity of demand.
5.  You do not know how the increased mw will be implimented.  It is not, as you incorrectly assumed, implimented all at once.
and on and on and on.  
You also still do 
You really do like mental masterbation, don't you, me boy.

*But, given what you have as data, you have absolutely no chance of coming up with accurate information.*

Tell me again how a higher minimum wage will benefit Red Robin. DERP!
Well, we have your numbers.  DERP!
And we still have no idea of what the cost of more wages will be.  At all.  None.  Cause, as you well know, we have no idea of how many employees will have their wages raised, how much they will be raised, or when they will be raised.  In other words, we know nothing that we need to know.
According to your numbers, rr should be out of business in a month or two.  But we both know better.  Because we both know your numbers are bogus.  But we do know, that you being a con troll and totally uninterested in truth (that is a requirement for con trolls) you simply worked the data to fit the numbers you were working for.  Which is simply a more advanced way of lying.  
That, me boy, is a difficult question.  You may want to look at the analysis of the major study of Costco, compared to Sam's  Club, for an example of why higher wages are often beneficial to companies.
And, if you ever get the numbers to work over Red Robin, let me know.  Though we both know that will never, ever happen.

*"Costco Is The Perfect Example Of Why The Minimum Wage Should Be Higher*


Ashley Lutz
 Mar. 6, 2013, 10:45 AM


"Big-box warehouse store Costco is often compared with Walmart's Sam's Club. Both stores are places where people go to buy in bulk and save money. 

But while Walmart employees are striking for higher wages and health care, Costco has some of the happiest employees in the business.

Costco pays its employees an average hourly wage of $11.50 to start. After five years, they make $19.50 an hour and get an "extra check," a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months,according to Slate. 

While Wal-Mart's Sam's Club starts employees at $10 an hour, they make $12.50 after about five years, Slate reported. 

Costco workers pay a 12 percent out of pocket premium for benefits, while Wal-Mart workers pay 40 percent. 

This results in lower turnover and more skilled workers, Costco CEO Craig Jelinek said, according to the Puget Sound Business Journal. 

He told advocacy group Business for a Fair Minimum Wage that he supports a national minimum wage increase. 

The bill just introduced in Congress would increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from $7.25 an hour over time.

“Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty,” Jelinek said in the statement. 

Having more knowledgeable employees results in better sales, according to David Worrell at AllBusiness.com.

Costco averages $814 in sales per square foot, while Sam's Club makes just $586 per square foot. 

In a recent earnings announcement, Wal-Mart Stores revealed that sales at Sam's Club were down. 

Investing in employees creates loyalty and better customer service that trickles down to the consumer. 

"Look at people as an investment and hire the best you can possibly afford," Worrell said. "Stretch to your limit to keep them excited about coming to work ... then watch as they actually perform." "
Costco Is The Perfect Example Of Why The Minimum Wage Should Be Higher
Just does not fit well with the conservative dream.  Better to underpay the employees, and make them gratefull to even have a job, eh me boy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2016)

In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.

You think that'll happen?

*You still do not know enough to make that projection. But if it makes you happy, believe your crazy numbers. 
1. You still do not know how many employees will get a increase in pay.
*
Ummm...it doesn't matter how many get an increase. It could be 1, it could be 29000, it could be 32000, but with a 5% profit margin, every dollar in increased wage cost will take $20 in increased sales to recoup that higher expense.
Moron.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]

What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things! Sorry you think it is amusing to demand a source.  The problem is that you were wrong multiple times.  So, these musings you posted are the thoughts of a dish washer with a long ago history degree.  Sorry.  I have no reason to believe you.  Responsible people are not afraid to prove what they say.  Those who lie are.   I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college.  Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college.  Nice bunch of personal attacks.  Having had two classes in econ does not make you an expert on the subject.  I have a degree in economics, and though I may be a few light years ahead of you, I do not disrespect people by posting untrue things and expecting them to believe me.  Here is a news flash, me boy.  There are people out there who know way more than either of us.  And they publish.  You need to back up what you say useing those sources, or simply admit you are posting what you choose to post.  Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. Prove it, me boy.  As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President?  You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments.  The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership.  Care to try again?
No need to me boy.  You missed the absolutely obvious fact that the bill was a republican bill, written by republican congressmen and passed by a republican president.  Which you finally had to admit.  As for amendments, that would be normal.  But it was never aimed at blacks.  It was aimed at companies who tried to hire workers at lower than local wages.  As even non history majors know.  What did you get when you graduated, a comic book?  Everyone knows what Davis Bacon is.  It is still in effect, has been modified many, many times, and republicans hate it these days.  Because it does not permit large contractors from paying below normal wages.  

Now, relative to my econ degree, which you are questioning again.  As you have done for years.  Find a mutually impartial member, or a bank official, and I will send you a copy of my econ degree.  Or, if you are actually capable, simply call the college and ask if my degree is correct and valid.  If my degree is valid, you owe me $500, if I can not produce, you get $500.  But, since I have no reason to trust you, our bets ($500 each) go in a mutually agreeable escrow.  Really simple.  Or, do as you always have before when I provide you a chance to back up your unsubstantiated insults, and run.  And you will, of course, run.  [/QUOTE]

When did I ever claim to be an "expert" in the field of economics?  My concentration was in history and business administration.  What's pathetic is that I know more about economics with the two classes I took...100 level Macro and Micro Economics...than you do and you claim to have taught the subject at the college level!

You can always tell the real posers on this board.  Whenever they get exposed they do two things almost without fail.  First they insult whoever exposed them...accusing them of things like being a lowly dishwasher.  Second...they invariably want to make a big wager on their telling the truth...like anyone has EVER paid off on a chat site bet in the entire history of the internet!

Here's a bit of advice, Georgie.  Stop pretending to be something that you obviously AREN'T and people will stop abusing  you on chat sites.  Oh and the "me boy" stuff?  That  tired phrase makes you sound even more stupid than your posts on economics.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.


  [/QUOTE]

That would be because you want to believe that.  Your numbers are totally screwed.  
How many workers will need to have their wages increased to reach the new mw?
What will be the new minimum wage?
What is the current wage that they will need to raise from, on average?
You think that'll happen
Listen carefully.  I do not need to "think" anything.  I know the following:
1. You do not know any answer to the above questions,
2.  You do not know several other variables.
3. You really want to believe that the $20 additonal sales concept that you have worked out with bad numbers, because A.  You are a con troll and  B. You do not have a problem with lying (sorry, because of A, B is redundant.)
*You still do not know enough to make that projection. But if it makes you happy, believe your crazy numbers.
1. You still do not know how many employees will get a increase in pay.
*
Ummm...it doesn't matter how many get an increase.
It could be 1, it could be 29000, it could be 32000, but with a 5% profit margin, every dollar in increased wage cost will take $20 in increased sales to recoup that higher expense.
So, because doing the amount of business they do with the number of people they employ you think there is a set percent of revenue to cover expenses for any new expense.  Moron.  That is nonsense.  The theory of a challenged mind.  The challenge, me boy, being to prove the revenue to cover expenses is impossible.  Moron.  Which is why your numbers are garbage and your little financial model is simply a joke.

And finally, o prove you are a  congenital idiot,  you believe that it makes no difference how many get an increase in pay.  Because you do not think the numbers change.  So, if you only have 1 who needs a $5 increase, you think that you will need to raise revenues $100 to cover his $5 raise.  Moron.
Because, moron, you think there is some magic to the 5% profit margin.  
You see, moron, if you are correct, every time they raised wages or hired new employees they would have gone out of business.  And since your margin never changes in your financial "model", Costco is obviously bankrupt and probably out of business.  Got it, moron.
I wonder, since your financial model is obviously golden, why costco keeps raising their pay rate and being more profitable.  
Ah, but as a thinking person, I read the costco model, and I studied other companies who dis something similar and I learned why.  You, on the other hand, being a con troll, simply read the con talking points and believe you know the answer.  Moron,  And I keep driving by the costco building and it is still there.  You should stop by and tell them they need to close shop,  Moron.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.
> 
> You think that'll happen?
> 
> ...


*  [/QUOTE]*
Ummm...it doesn't matter how many get an increase. It could be 1, it could be 29000, it could be 32000, but with a 5% profit margin, every dollar in increased wage cost will take $20 in increased sales to recoup that higher expense.
Moron.
Watch out, me boy.  Saying ummmm is a pretty sure sign you are a moron. 
Jesus, it must be nice to be brain dead.  You seem to believe your model is correct, moron.
In the costco model, and many others, they hire a new employee and he more than covers his cost.  In your small mind, that never happens. It is impossible.   They hire a new person, they only increase their expenses, revenue does not increase because their employees are not productive.  Which, as a con, allows you to believe that they will be driven out of business.  Moron.
And in your little "model" you think that any cost at any revenue level is subject to the 5% cost to revenue rule.  Because you like that idea.  Though you have no way to prove it is true.  Moron.

Tired of the moron bit.  You started it, I thought it was juvenile, but thought I would show you why.  Get it yet?  Tired of it yet?  Or do you want to just keep it going?.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things! Sorry you think it is amusing to demand a source.  The problem is that you were wrong multiple times.  So, these musings you posted are the thoughts of a dish washer with a long ago history degree.  Sorry.  I have no reason to believe you.  Responsible people are not afraid to prove what they say.  Those who lie are.   I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college.  Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college.  Nice bunch of personal attacks.  Having had two classes in econ does not make you an expert on the subject.  I have a degree in economics, and though I may be a few light years ahead of you, I do not disrespect people by posting untrue things and expecting them to believe me.  Here is a news flash, me boy.  There are people out there who know way more than either of us.  And they publish.  You need to back up what you say useing those sources, or simply admit you are posting what you choose to post.  Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. Prove it, me boy.  As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President?  You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments.  The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership.  Care to try again?


  [/QUOTE]

When did I ever claim to be an "expert" in the field of economics?  My concentration was in history and business administration.  What's pathetic is that I know more about economics with the two classes I took...100 level Macro and Micro Economics...than you do and you claim to have taught the subject at the college level!
Jesus, me boy.  Maybe a tape recorder  would help you out.  You just said you know more about economics than I do.  Then you made a vague claim about my teaching college at the college level, trying to suggest I was in charge of an college econ class.  A lie and an insult in a single paragraph.  And I have a degree in economics, and 50 years of study of the subject.  You have two fucking classes.  But you make a stupid claim like that simply to hurl insults.  If you want to challenge what I say, challenge away and we can argue the point, but your insults are stupid and childish.
No you don't. know more than I about economics, in my opinion.  You are simply ....Whats the word.  Yeah, that's it. Your simply fucked up in the brain.  What was that about the Davis bacon law?  Where is a single comment you got both history, and economics wrong. You showed no understanding, me con troll.  You simply have the ability to post con talking points.  And to believe them,  apparently.


You can always tell the real posers on this board.  Whenever they get exposed they do two things almost without fail.  First they insult whoever exposed them...accusing them of things like being a lowly dishwasher.  Second...they invariably want to make a big wager on their telling the truth...like anyone has EVER paid off on a chat site bet in the entire history of the internet!
The real poser on the board is the guy claiming he know more about something than someone else but can not produce.  You are an economic lightweight, you simply post dogma, and when it is proven you have lied, or your posts are wrong, you just keep on posting garbage that you can not back up.  Saying you are smart, dipshit, does not make you smart.  Saying you know something does not prove you know something.  You, like anyone, need to prove your statements.  That you do not, that you can not provide a link, proves to everyone that you are a joke, simply out to through insults and lies at anyone who disagrees with you.
Here is the deal, me boy.  You call me a liar, but refuse to put up.  I have a couple degrees in my far off history.  Economics and an MBA.  You have a degree in history, though you can not prove it.  And I, like others, believe you.  But you are out to sling mud.  So, put up the $500 if you want to prove me wrong.  You will end up losing $500, but that is the problem with throwing mud.  
You can make a wager pay, or you can be stupid like you are.  Simple enough.  But as I said, you would run and you are.   You have no integrity, os.  You lie all the time.  But if your bet is in escrow and my money is in escrow, and the proof or lack of proof is simple, then it pays.  And probably has thousands of times in the past to others who have made bets to show their belief in their statements.  Your problem, me poor ignorant con troll, is that you do not believe anyone is honest, and you made a claim you have no way to prove.  And lastly, you are a COWARD.  People with honor may make incorrect statements, but they have the integrity to prove their statement, or to see it was wrong and pay up,  or to apologize.  I knew you would do none of those things.  You simply make unsubstantiated attacks with charges you can not prove, Because you have no ability to make arguments relative to a thread,  and so you simply start with your accusations and lies.  And then you run away.  Saying you think I would not pay up.  Your correct in that,  I would, if I could not prove my degree.  But I can.  And will.  And you will simply run like the coward you are.


Here's a bit of advice, Georgie.  Stop pretending to be something that you obviously AREN'T
and people will stop abusing  you on chat sites. As you know, me boy,  I never, ever lie.  You make charges, I offer you a chance to prove your attack on me, and you run away like a sniveling coward.  And here is the thing.  No one challenges what I say, except YOU.  And you, me boy, are a coward.  With no integrity.  Here is the deal.  I could say you have no history degree.  I would not do so, but I could.  And I could simply ask your name on your degree, it's date, and the college.  Student number if you had one.  And you know what, I could find out.  I already gave that info to you, and you tried saying you called there about another issue you were arguing.  Turns out you did not call, you were lying.  But you could.  Call administration.  I have done so in the past when I hired new employees, and it was never a problem.  Or you could take the bet and find out.  But what we all understand about you, Oldstyle, is you prefer to simply keep on making attacks and lying.  Because you can not make rational arguments relative to the subject being discussed in any thread.  Because, again, you are simply a sniveling coward and a liar.  
 Oh and the "me boy" stuff?  That  tired phrase makes you sound even more stupid than your posts on economics.   Right, me boy, lets see if we can find your enlightened post on economics.  Oh, yeah.  You said the Davis Bacon was an FDR law.  But it was a law passed before FDR took office.  I said it was signed into law by Hoover.  Who was correct on that, me boy.  Must have been you, cause you are very smart on economics.  But, oddly enough, it was a simple economic history event.  Your expertise, history and economics   Remember, it was your statement that the Davis Bacon act of 1931 was an FDR law meant to hurt blacks.  But you you had your history wrong, since the law was passed a couple years before FDR took office.  Both your economic knowledge, and your knowledge of history, failed you, me boy.  And that required me to prove your error.  You were off by over 2 years, and a whole new political administration.  And, you did not seem to know that the law was not aimed at blacks at all, but at contractors who underpaid.  You said it was FDR who caused blacks to loose jobs, but in fact it was employers who did not hire blacks.  Not FDR.  There was nothing in the law aimed at blacks, but it did not protect them either.  It took years before laws protected blacks.  

Your attempt at attacking FDR was ignorant and you provided no proof.  You did, however, in that part of your post and others, prove you needed to provide proof, and links, to try and prove your charges.  But you would not do so.  Instead expecting those that read your post and it's multiple attacks to find the truth.  Tacky.  Very tacky.

But then you have proved what I said you would prove.  You are a lying coward.  You simply like to make attacks and lying charges.  You know you can not prove them, because they are wrong.  But you do know this.  I never ever lie.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



When did I ever claim to be an "expert" in the field of economics?  My concentration was in history and business administration.  What's pathetic is that I know more about economics with the two classes I took...100 level Macro and Micro Economics...than you do and you claim to have taught the subject at the college level!
Jesus, me boy.  Maybe a tape recorder  would help you out.  You just said you know more about economics than I do.  Then you made a vague claim about my teaching college at the college level, trying to suggest I was in charge of an college econ class.  A lie and an insult in a single paragraph.  And I have a degree in economics, and 50 years of study of the subject.  You have two fucking classes.  But you make a stupid claim like that simply to hurl insults.  If you want to challenge what I say, challenge away and we can argue the point, but your insults are stupid and childish.
No you don't. know more than I about economics, in my opinion.  You are simply ....Whats the word.  Yeah, that's it. Your simply fucked up in the brain.  What was that about the Davis bacon law?  Where is a single comment you got both history, and economics wrong. You showed no understanding, me con troll.  You simply have the ability to post con talking points.  And to believe them,  apparently.


You can always tell the real posers on this board.  Whenever they get exposed they do two things almost without fail.  First they insult whoever exposed them...accusing them of things like being a lowly dishwasher.  Second...they invariably want to make a big wager on their telling the truth...like anyone has EVER paid off on a chat site bet in the entire history of the internet!
The real poser on the board is the guy claiming he know more about something than someone else but can not produce.  You are an economic lightweight, you simply post dogma, and when it is proven you have lied, or your posts are wrong, you just keep on posting garbage that you can not back up.  Saying you are smart, dipshit, does not make you smart.  Saying you know something does not prove you know something.  You, like anyone, need to prove your statements.  That you do not, that you can not provide a link, proves to everyone that you are a joke, simply out to through insults and lies at anyone who disagrees with you.
Here is the deal, me boy.  You call me a liar, but refuse to put up.  I have a couple degrees in my far off history.  Economics and an MBA.  You have a degree in history, though you can not prove it.  And I, like others, believe you.  But you are out to sling mud.  So, put up the $500 if you want to prove me wrong.  You will end up losing $500, but that is the problem with throwing mud.  
You can make a wager pay, or you can be stupid like you are.  Simple enough.  But as I said, you would run and you are.   You have no integrity, os.  You lie all the time.  But if your bet is in escrow and my money is in escrow, and the proof or lack of proof is simple, then it pays.  And probably has thousands of times in the past to others who have made bets to show their belief in their statements.  Your problem, me poor ignorant con troll, is that you do not believe anyone is honest, and you made a claim you have no way to prove.  And lastly, you are a COWARD.  People with honor may make incorrect statements, but they have the integrity to prove their statement, or to see it was wrong and pay up,  or to apologize.  I knew you would do none of those things.  You simply make unsubstantiated attacks with charges you can not prove, Because you have no ability to make arguments relative to a thread,  and so you simply start with your accusations and lies.  And then you run away.  Saying you think I would not pay up.  Your correct in that,  I would, if I could not prove my degree.  But I can.  And will.  And you will simply run like the coward you are.


Here's a bit of advice, Georgie.  Stop pretending to be something that you obviously AREN'T
and people will stop abusing  you on chat sites. As you know, me boy,  I never, ever lie.  You make charges, I offer you a chance to prove your attack on me, and you run away like a sniveling coward.  And here is the thing.  No one challenges what I say, except YOU.  And you, me boy, are a coward.  With no integrity.  Here is the deal.  I could say you have no history degree.  I would not do so, but I could.  And I could simply ask your name on your degree, it's date, and the college.  Student number if you had one.  And you know what, I could find out.  I already gave that info to you, and you tried saying you called there about another issue you were arguing.  Turns out you did not call, you were lying.  But you could.  Call administration.  I have done so in the past when I hired new employees, and it was never a problem.  Or you could take the bet and find out.  But what we all understand about you, Oldstyle, is you prefer to simply keep on making attacks and lying.  Because you can not make rational arguments relative to the subject being discussed in any thread.  Because, again, you are simply a sniveling coward and a liar.  
 Oh and the "me boy" stuff?  That  tired phrase makes you sound even more stupid than your posts on economics.   Right, me boy, lets see if we can find your enlightened post on economics.  Oh, yeah.  You said the Davis Bacon was an FDR law.  But it was a law passed before FDR took office.  I said it was signed into law by Hoover.  Who was correct on that, me boy.  Must have been you, cause you are very smart on economics.  But, oddly enough, it was a simple economic history event.  Your expertise, history and economics   Remember, it was your statement that the Davis Bacon act of 1931 was an FDR law meant to hurt blacks.  But you you had your history wrong, since the law was passed a couple years before FDR took office.  Both your economic knowledge, and your knowledge of history, failed you, me boy.  And that required me to prove your error.  You were off by over 2 years, and a whole new political administration.  And, you did not seem to know that the law was not aimed at blacks at all, but at contractors who underpaid.  You said it was FDR who caused blacks to loose jobs, but in fact it was employers who did not hire blacks.  Not FDR.  There was nothing in the law aimed at blacks, but it did not protect them either.  It took years before laws protected blacks.  

Your attempt at attacking FDR was ignorant and you provided no proof.  You did, however, in that part of your post and others, prove you needed to provide proof, and links, to try and prove your charges.  But you would not do so.  Instead expecting those that read your post and it's multiple attacks to find the truth.  Tacky.  Very tacky.

But then you have proved what I said you would prove.  You are a lying coward.  You simply like to make attacks and lying charges.  You know you can not prove them, because they are wrong.  But you do know this.  I never ever lie.[/QUOTE]

The difference between you and I, Georgie is that when I post something related to history...I sound like someone who studied the subject in college.  When you post something about economics you sound like George Costanza pretending to be an architect!  I've always thought you were full of shit ever since you didn't know what I was referring to when I mentioned the "Chicago School" and asked what school of economics it was that you were basing your contention on.  There is no way an economics major doesn't know that someone talking about the "Chicago School" isn't referring to a brick and mortar college in Chicago but that's what you did!  You might as well have fired off a flare announcing you were a poser!  Then you claimed to have taught economics at the college level while an undergrad...I guess to "prove" you weren't lying?  Undergrads don't teach college courses.  People that went to college know things like that.  Then there was the abysmal quality of your writing and grammar.  When I pointed out that you have the writing skills of an 8th grader...you claimed it was because your "secretary" always proofed your writing.  You tell one lie and then have to tell another to cover the first one.  You can't help yourself.  You "never ever lie"?  It's all you do!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2016)

*That would be because you want to believe that. Your numbers are totally screwed.*

It's simple math, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

Take the increased expense, $1, divide by the profit margin, 5.1%.
$19.61

Unless you have some reason that the wage hike is going to increase the profit margin?

*
I do not need to "think" anything.*

That's nice, because you're not very good at thinking.

*You really want to believe that the $20 additonal sales concept*

Yup, because...math.

*that you have worked out with bad numbers*

Red Robin's revenue and profit numbers were bad? LOL!

*you think there is some magic to the 5% profit margin.*

Not magic, current reality.
*
And since your margin never changes in your financial "model", Costco is obviously bankrupt*

You want to compare a burger chain with $1.28 billion in revenue, 28,933 employees, to a discount store with 126,000 employees and $118.72 billion in revenue?
You're even dumber than I first thought.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2016)

*
Saying ummmm is a pretty sure sign you are a moron.*

That's the clue that I'm talking to a moron.
*
You seem to believe your model is correct*

Yes, my amazing complex model which divides added expenses by profit margin.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

"]*That would be because you want to believe that. Your numbers are totally screwed.*
[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]
It's simple math, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

Take the increased expense, $1, divide by the profit margin, 5.1%.
$19.61
Yup.  That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees, makes my statement correct.  Yours is simple math.  And the math will not project the correct answer for the increased labor costs.  Or, in short, your numbers are totally screwed.

Unless you have some reason that the wage hike is going to increase the profit margin?
Simple, me boy.  You appear to be a  numbers guy.  But you want to believe that a profit margin developed using average current costs, and average current productivity of assets (real and human) are always subject to an overall historical average.  Turns out it does not, and never has, worked that way.  Put in a refrigerator, you get one profit margin.  Put in a person in one area, you get another profit margin.  Put in a person in another area, you get another profit margin.  
So, this is simple to understand to thinking people, probably not con trolls.  But the average profit margin does not apply to people.  Unless, as a company, RR likes less profitability. In accounting, you can use the concept of an average profit margin to explain things on a balance sheet.  But this is not an exercise in producing back looking financials, but of producing forward looking projections.  You are, me boy not good at that at all, unless your "financial model" is just you trying to prove a point.  
I did nor of that in  college and working life than I care to remember.  Problem is, I found it boring.  I would rather get a root canal than spend time with a financial modeling exercise.  Just like economometric modeling, it gets really boring quickly, and generally produces bad (ie, incorrect) results.  I found those with open minds looking at new opportunities to be of more use, and to be much more interesting. Thinking you can apply average profit margins to specific cost components is not smart.  In fact it is really stupid.  Your model is not a model, just a description of averages from the past.  

*
I do not need to "think" anything.*

That's nice, because you're not very good at thinking.
Do you spend a lot of time thinking about things you have already thought about?  Stupid statement.  

*You really want to believe that the $20 additional sales concept*

Yup, because...math.
No, because it is stupid person math.  The math of a con troll who, as typical, want to believe what he is told to believe.  Con trolls always believe con dogma, cause it is what they want to believe.  And, me boy, you have been told raising wages to a new mw is BAD,  And it makes you angry (all cons like to be angry) and you want to be part of the group (non thinking con group).  And you want to have the same beliefs as your group.  So, you do.  Makes you boring and wrong.  Except you are in the group.  
*that you have worked out with bad numbers*

Red Robin's revenue and profit numbers were bad? LOL!
Nah.  You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.  We shall all watch. I know it will not, you think it will.  Because you believe RR is doomed by  their average cost numbers.  Because that proves your point, and it proves what you want to believe.  But you will be wrong.  Because labor costs are unknown to you.  You could get them, but you will not, because they could really mess up your model.  Your numbers are bad, as in incorrect and not material to the issue.  Or, in short, bad.  Because, as an example, plant and equipment have the same profit margin as a new refrigeration unit as a new accountant as a new server.  Yup, if I were you, I would use that average number based on historical numbers cause it proves what you want it to prove in your little con mind.  To the thinking person, or to anyone who is capable and wants to do a representative model, the numbers that matter are not average over time and expense category, but marginal numbers for the cost area in question.  

*you think there is some magic to the 5% profit margin.*

Not magic, current reality.
We are not talking current, me boy.  We are discussing what will happen with the increase in wages in the future as the result of a specific cost increase.  You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs.  And certainly not one for the future.  So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.  To difficult?
*
And since your margin never changes in your financial "model", Costco is obviously bankrupt*

You want to compare a burger chain with $1.28 billion in revenue, 28,933 employees, to a discount store with 126,000 employees and $118.72 billion in revenue?
You're even dumber than I first thought.
Really, with your model and projections, you should not call people dumb.  
But then we know, me boy, that your model is projecting what you want it to. and cons always prefer what they want to believe over fact.  Good for you.
Costco, me con troll, is not the only company out there to experience what they have.  You see, they are really smart people.  Unlike the average con troll, they were quite enlightened.  And the principles they found are not unique to discount chains.  (they are not made up of "a discount store", dipshit).  But, as a con troll, you would not like the study results of costco.  It would not fit in at all well with your belief system, which is to believe what you are told.  Dumb?  Yeah, that would be thousands and thousands of people who like myself, have found the Costco model to be really, really interesting.  But for con trolls, hell, it is not what you want to try to understand, cause it would take you away from what you WANT to believe.  The 5% profit margin is your thing.  5% or die. One thing that I can not be sure of, but would be willing to bet on if there was a way, is that RR has been and probably still is studying the costco model very carefully.
Some day, when you are near a costco, go inside and take your conservative head out of your conservative ass and watch the workers there.  If you can clear the shit out of your brain, you could have an epiphany.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Saying ummmm is a pretty sure sign you are a moron.*


  [/QUOTE]

That's the clue that I'm talking to a moron.
Who said ummmmmmmm?  If it was you, then you are the moron.  But the below response to your stupid statement below proves it in more detail
*
You seem to believe your model is correct*

Yes, my amazing complex model which divides added expenses by profit margin.
Yes, the one that uses average costs that include the cost of buildings, refrigeration units, all food purchased, inventories of dishes and silverware, and so on.  Take that total cost, and use it to find the profit margin relative to new employees.  Now, to most, that would appear to be really, really stupid.  To the con mind, it proves you need to never raise wages because it will increase all those costs.  Now, some would say, take your labor costs for the class of employee you are going to increase costs for, then see what happens when you add such new employees to your costs, then you will have a clue of what the increased costs would be.  You will find, of course, that such additions would have little effect on costs at all.  If you look at the margin, which is the only thing that matters, costs will include the added wages, and very little else.  Your corporate profit margin is good for creating balance sheets, but average costs are of no value in forward looking projections.  Period.  If it did, pretty much all companies need to seriously consider shutting down operations.  And those projections and the employees making those projections would likely be among the first to go.  Which is why your numbers are garbage.  They simply waste peoples time and nothing more.  Nothing more, because no one believes them.


----------



## OldLady (Oct 28, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> It all depends on how much you raise it
> 
> A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already
> 
> ...


If it only applies to 3% of workers, why is everyone freaking out about it?


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

OldLady said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends on how much you raise it
> ...


If it only applies to 3% of workers, why is everyone freaking out about it?

Simple.   It is not for a valid reason.  It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER,  And their con supporters believe the same, because that is what they are told to believe.  So there is a huge push in the world by cons to suggest that the raise in the minimum wage will create economic armageddon.  Because, for cons, that is what they have been told to believe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2016)

* That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees*

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.

*You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.* 

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
*
You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.* 

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 28, 2016)

OldLady said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends on how much you raise it
> ...



as I said it depends on how much you raise it


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees*
> .


  .[/QUOTE]
Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
What expense.  You provided an asset of  $1M.  The offset to that asset is to sh equity.  There is no expense to offset.  

*You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.*

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
But you have no reason to believe they will.  You are projecting how many people they will increase wages for, and you are projecting how much per person, on average, they will need to increase wages by.  Kind of makes it obvious to rational people that your model is backwards.  It is making your point rather than providing any rational understanding. 

*You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.*

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."
I have no way to calculate it.  Nor do I care to spend the time to try to find it.  Nor do you have that data.  But you seem to have now admitted it is required to provide any realistic understanding of what is going to happen.  In other words, your data is garbage, and so is your model.  And you have admitted your wasting time  just being dishonest


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees*
> ...


Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
What expense.  You provided an asset of  $1M.  The offset to that asset is to sh equity.  There is no expense to offset.  

*You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.*

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
But you have no reason to believe they will.  You are projecting how many people they will increase wages for, and you are projecting how much per person, on average, they will need to increase wages by.  Kind of makes it obvious to rational people that your model is backwards.  It is making your point rather than providing any rational understanding. 

*You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.*

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."
I have no way to calculate it.  Nor do I care to spend the time to try to find it.  Nor do you have that data.  But you seem to have now admitted it is required to provide any realistic understanding of what is going to happen.  In other words, your data is garbage, and so is your model.  And you have admitted your wasting time  just being dishonest.
So why were you wasting people's time with a financial model that did not have required components, and was therefor garbage?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees*
> ...





> Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
> What expense.  You provided an asset of  $1M.  The offset to that asset is to sh equity.  There is no expense to offset.
> 
> *You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.*
> ...


*
What expense.  *

The extra $1,000,000 you paid the CEO.

*You provided an asset of  $1M.*

No, paying the CEO is not an extra asset to the firm.

*The offset to that asset is to sh equity.*

No, it's a reduction in firm cash. That reduces equity.

*There is no expense to offset.*

The extra payment to the CEO is an expense.

If this is an example of your knowledge, you should close your account today.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> .  It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER, .


the beauty of capitalism is that is does not matter what A,B or C wants. Either the capitalist provides the best jobs and products possible or he is driven into bankruptcy. If you doubt it start a business with sub standard jobs and products and let us know how you do. This is Econ 101, class one, day one.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
What expense.  *


*You provided an asset of  $1M.*

No, paying the CEO is not an extra asset to the firm.
You did not make clear who was paying the ceo nor for what.  "You" is ambiguous. If the company  pays the ceo a bonus of $1M, such a payment would be a bonus and  handled by debiting the bonus expense account and crediting the cash account, both for $1M.  Period.  End of transaction.  

*The offset to that asset is to sh equity.*

No, it's a reduction in firm cash. That reduces equity.
Yes.  I assumed you was me.  If the company pays the ceo a bonus, see my response above.

*There is no expense to offset.*

The extra payment to the CEO is an expense.

If this is an example of your knowledge, you should close your account today
Next time you are discussing a company giving a ceo a bonus, try calling it what it is.  As would anyone who has a clue.  dipshit.
And, for your future knowledge, "you" would have been valid if you were talking to someone working for the company.  But not to me.  
If you said the company was paying the ceo a bonus, you would have had the correct response.   You see, you is not the company.  You is the person reading the post.  And I thought you were talking about giving the ceo a payment for the company, not a bonus for the ceo as an extra payment.    To make it simple, you need to use standard language.  Like "what if the company pays the ceo a bonus of  $1M".  Simple standard language.  And Bonus payments are simple.   The give away that you were not talking about a bonus was that you did not mention accruals.  Any large company, such as RR, pretty much always accrues payments for  a bonus.  Knee jerk bonuses just do not happen.  In other words, it would already have been paid for, waiting to be paid BY THE COMPANY.  One time incentives are usually done with stock options or stock outlays.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Wrong. If *you gave the CEO* an additional $1,000,000 *you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more* stuff to recoup the added expense.

Clearly talking about the company with the 5% profit margin.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > .  It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER, .
> ...



That's a class that Rshermr obviously never took so it's a concept he can't grasp!  When liberals start ranting about "Corporatists" (sic) then you know that they are clueless about the subject and are simply parroting something they read at Think Progress or saw on MSNBC.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Wrong. If *you gave the CEO* an additional $1,000,000 *you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more* stuff to recoup the added expense.

Clearly talking about the company with the 5% profit margin.  WRONG.  If you are talking about bonuse paid by the company, you do not say YOU gave the ceo anything.  You would have said what if *RR* paid the* ceo* a *bonus* of $1M.  
Stupid, stupid concept.  You never just pull a million out to pay a bonus.  It is always paid for in advance, over time, in the form of accruals.  Dipshit.  And saying you to me, as I have said, is not english for the company.  Perhaps a remedial english class would help, me boy.  Again, if you said what if the company paid a bonus of $1M it would have made sense. Though again, it would have been from an accrual account and already paid for.   Or did you think that I had gone to work for RR.  Really, the idea that rr or any other company would just arbitrarily pull out $1M for an arbitrary bonus shows you have no idea of how business happens.  Perhaps you should start a thread about the evils of paying random bonuses to ceo's.  

But the real issue is that we were talking about *minimum wage.*  A ceo bonus is not a rational part of that discussion.  *OR PERHAPS, WITH YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT, YOU THINK RANDOM BONUSES ARE PAID TO MINIMUM WAGE EMPLOYEES*.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Wow.  What a surprise. The history major makes a set of ignorant charges and attacks on me because I used the word corporatist.  For your edification, a corporatist is a person who has corporate values and typically politically pushes those values.  
If I were clueless about capitalism or corporatists, I would be like you and believe that the word has some nefarious meaning.  It is, me boy, part of the english language and used to indicate a person who speaks from the corporations point of view, not that of the general population of the country involved. 
And, if I had no econ classes, and no econ degree, maybe, like you, I would be reduced to making personal attacks and totally unable to discuss economics rationally at all.  And, like you, I would want to make statements claiming someone had no such degree, but run like a frightened child when provided the opportunity to prove your unfounded claim, and make $500 simply, because you are a sniveling coward only capable of hurling insults and lies, and you know you have no chance of winning because you lied.  And so Oldstyle just keeps running away from the opportunity to prove his claim, because he lied.

And, you know nothing about what sources I use.  While you spend your time with bat shit crazy con web sites, I avoid any source I find to be irrational.  Including your nut case conservative web sites and fox entertainment.  I never follow left or right sources, and never remember even seeing think progress.  MSNBC is part of the microsoft network, and NBC networks, combined.  And like all major networks, is hated by the conservative sources as mainstream media.  
MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political commentary from NBC News on current events. The network also carries a nightly 'opinion' programming block during prime time hours.
MSNBC - Wikipedia

You would, had you paid any attention, know that I never use msnbc or any other conservative hated source to prove points.  That is simply because there are sources out there that are generally believed by all to be impartial.  Except, of course, for con trolls like yourself who believe any media source is slanted.  
Any other attacks on me you would like to make while you are at it???  Got that $500 together yet, or are you still running?
By the way, suggesting that I did not take an econ 101 class so did not know about capitalism is really stupid.  Any econ 101 class you will find included in depth discussions of capitalism and communism as well as capitalism.  Perhaps you and eddie are confusing econ texts with Wealth of Nations.  But even that publication, and the econ texts, discuss the fact that capitalism does not function well at all with monopoly power.  
Your welcome for the little lesson.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Pointing out that you don't know diddly about economics even while you claim to have taught the subject at the college level isn't making an "ignorant charge", Georgie...it's simply telling it like it is!  I freely admit that I only took Macro and Micro Economics which gives someone the basics of the subject...but what's AMAZING (eye roll) is that I learned about things like the Chicago School...and you somehow didn't!


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Pointing out   You are a history major with two classes in econ.  You have no stones to "point out" anything   that you don't know diddly about economics even while you claim to have taught the subject at the college level isn't making an "ignorant charge"   Your lying again.  What I claimed was that I assisted an econ professor, not that I took over or taught my own econ class.  As you well know.  Your charge is indeed ignorant.   Highly ignorant.  What I know about economics is proven by the fact that you do not make economic arguments often. About once a month, at best.  And in every single case, you are proven wrong.  And like here, you simply go on with stupid personal attacks which are lies.  , Georgie...And insults, like using the moniker Georgie.  What, me boy, are you about 10 years old.  Just a child.  it's simply telling it like it is!  You pretty much never 'tell it like it is."  Like in this post you lie. Over and over.  Then you lie about your lies.   I freely admit that I only took Macro and Micro Economics which gives someone the basics of the subject...but what's AMAZING (eye roll) is that I learned about things like the Chicago School...and you somehow didn't!
And another lie, and another attack.  I have known about the various schools of economics, including the Chicago School, since most were formed. Over 45 years now.  As I did at the time.  And you have made this charge multiple times, though it has been proven a lie several times.  Because you are a con troll and have no integrity.  But the truth is, you are simply looking for ways to attack.  And always with lies.  
Your attacks, all based on nothing, include:
1.  That I said I taught a college economic class in college.  You have made that attack at least 30 times.  And you have known the truth always.  Which is I only said I helped a college professor, who had responsibility for the class and taught it.  You knew the name of the college, the name of the class, and the name of the professor.  You simply like to make the attack, because you are a piece of shit.
2.  You said over and over, again over 30 times, that I have no degree in economics.  Again, with no evidence.  Even though you could make a call to the school admin office, and they would tell you if I did or did not.  And I offered to put $500 dollars in escrow that you could win if you were correct, or I would get if you are wrong.  And you ran like the coward you are.  You know you are lying, but you have no integrity.  Because you are a piece of shit.
3. You said that I claimed to be an executive at British Petrolium.  Several times.  When all I said was that I worked with some BP executives, as a sales manager with a Software company.  Just another trumped up charge, with nothing to back you up.  And again I brought forward the posts to prove you were lying.  As I did with the first two charges.
4.  You said I did not know what the Chicago School was, when that was never true.  Just another lie.  Because you have no integrity.  I again proved that charge to be a lie by bringing forward from what was actually said.  But you simply go on saying the same thing, over and over.  
5,  Another really stupid attack was that I lied when I said I had a personal secretary.  Which was again totally unsupported.  Truth was, I worked for over 8 years for a company as a VP of Sales and Marketing.  During that time, I had a personal secretary that helped out with admin and support for the sales force.  Those salesmen were all high level guys, all degreed, across the nation.  We worked with large organizations, primarily banks, with IBM mainframes.  They expected professionalism.  You could and would not ever lie to them.  And my secretary was indispensable.  Totally.  I offered for him to talk to her, but he simply turned and ran.  
I am 70 years old.  I spend my 48 years of work it was in a very reputable field.  Anyone who lied like Oldstyle would have been looking for a new job.  Integrity was expected by the companies I worked with and my management.  So, running into a liar like oldstyle is a real interesting thing.  Apparently, in his world, lying is just fine.  
That is just a few of your personal attacks, I could have given you many more. 

I have a Bachelors degree in economics, which I can prove easily enough.  But then, you know that, Oldstyle.  Otherwise you would take the bet.  Or, simply call the college admin office.  But you prefer to simply post untrue attacks, and avoid discussing economics.  And you get things wrong.  We could discuss your post of a couple of days ago, where you had both history, and economics wrong, when you stated that the Davis Bacon act that was passed by Republican President Hoover was passed by FDR with the purpose of hurting blacks.  That Is an attack on your veracity, but it is based on truth, which you can not argue.  And I proved.  Funny thing was, it was your post with no source and no link, and you defended it by suggesting you were so smart that you did not need sources to prove you statements.  And also funny was the fact that multiple charges you made in that post were not just untrue, but stupid.  
I have watched you lie, time after time, for about 3 years now. Same lies, over and over.  Once, you posted over 30 times to a thread without ever once addressing the subject of that thread, or without once posting an economic argument.  None.  Just straight personal attacks.  You got caught lying.  And those of us dealing with you noticed you dropped out for several months.  I see, now that you are back, there are no changes.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 29, 2016)

Dude, you didn't have a CLUE what I was talking about when I asked you what school you were basing your economic argument on!  I had to explain to you what the Chicago School referred to!!!  How do you have a degree in economics and not know basic information like that?  It would be like someone claiming to be a licensed electrician and not knowing what an amp was!

You're an internet poser who makes up shit about yourself because you obviously have issues about your self worth.

I dropped out for several months?  When?  I post here regularly.  Yet another thing you can't get right.


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 29, 2016)

So, in red is what Oldstyle starts out with.  A charge of incompetence against me, which is funny in itselfI put his comment in red, to make it obvious)
Dude, you didn't have a CLUE what I was talking about when I asked you what school you were basing your economic argument on!  I had to explain to you what the Chicago School referred to!!!  How do you have a degree in economics and not know basic information like that?  It would be like someone claiming to be a licensed electrician and not knowing what an amp was!   [/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]
So, you say I did not know what the Chicago School referred to.  Lets see what was actually said, me boy. You should know what is coming.  We already did this before. This is again going to prove you lied and are lying.  And below is an exact copy of the post in question, which I posted here for your education: 
"LETS TALK FOR JUST A MINUTE ABOUT INTEGRITY, OLDSTYLE. Remember your posts saying that you mentioned the Chicago School of Economics to me, and me not knowing what it was? Remember that claim, time after time, over 100 times, saying that I was ignorant of economics because I did not know the Chicago School of Economics was not brick and mortar. You should remember, me boy. Because you made that claim over 100 times. Problem is, here is your post:
So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

"Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one,"
*That is Post 398. December of 2012. Thread: How is Austerity Doing in Europe*

*You asked about any school of economics that advocates...... No mention, me boy, of the Chicago School of Economics.* And, me boy, *your post was in DECEMBER OF 2012. OVER THREE YEARS AGO. *You know that because you have tried this lie over 100 times. You know you did not ask about the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, you were talking about a school of economics that ADVOCATES. In my educational schooling, we referred to what you call a school of economics as an economic theory. And, me poor ignorant tool, neither schools, nor economic theories advocate for anything. That is still the proper name.
So, here again is proof that you are a liar. If you had said Chicago School of Economics, I would have recognized that you were talking about an economic theory. You did not. You lied about that as you so often do. At least a hundred times over the past 3 years. And to make the point further, you changed what you said, and what I said, to fit your plan to attack me. Really, do you even know what integrity is?"
That post was #1451 from January 13 of this year.
So, I have already proven you lied relative to this little attack of yours.  And now I have proven it again.  You did not mention the Chicago school of economics, me boy.  Just another lie which you continue to make.  Over and over and over.
Then, Oldstyle having been shown to be an outright liar, says of me:
You're an internet poser who makes up shit about yourself because you obviously have issues about your self worth.
So now you are trying to indicate you are a psychologist.  Even though you were shown to be an outright liar. You are therefor saying you are a lying psychologist.  Funny.
Never, me boy, do I lie.  Nor do I pose.  .  You lie, which I have proven many times and continue to prove.  Some people, like yourself, just have no integrity. Or class.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> So, in red is what Oldstyle starts out with.  A charge of incompetence against me, which is funny in itselfI put his comment in red, to make it obvious)
> Dude, you didn't have a CLUE what I was talking about when I asked you what school you were basing your economic argument on!  I had to explain to you what the Chicago School referred to!!!  How do you have a degree in economics and not know basic information like that?  It would be like someone claiming to be a licensed electrician and not knowing what an amp was!


  [/QUOTE]
So, you say I did not know what the Chicago School referred to.  Lets see what was actually said, me boy. You should know what is coming.  We already did this before. This is again going to prove you lied and are lying.  And below is an exact copy of the post in question, which I posted here for your education: 
"LETS TALK FOR JUST A MINUTE ABOUT INTEGRITY, OLDSTYLE. Remember your posts saying that you mentioned the Chicago School of Economics to me, and me not knowing what it was? Remember that claim, time after time, over 100 times, saying that I was ignorant of economics because I did not know the Chicago School of Economics was not brick and mortar. You should remember, me boy. Because you made that claim over 100 times. Problem is, here is your post:
So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

"Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one,"
*That is Post 398. December of 2012. Thread: How is Austerity Doing in Europe*

*You asked about any school of economics that advocates...... No mention, me boy, of the Chicago School of Economics.* And, me boy, *your post was in DECEMBER OF 2012. OVER THREE YEARS AGO. *You know that because you have tried this lie over 100 times. You know you did not ask about the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, you were talking about a school of economics that ADVOCATES. In my educational schooling, we referred to what you call a school of economics as an economic theory. And, me poor ignorant tool, neither schools, nor economic theories advocate for anything. That is still the proper name.
So, here again is proof that you are a liar. If you had said Chicago School of Economics, I would have recognized that you were talking about an economic theory. You did not. You lied about that as you so often do. At least a hundred times over the past 3 years. And to make the point further, you changed what you said, and what I said, to fit your plan to attack me. Really, do you even know what integrity is?"
That post was #1451 from January 13 of this year.
So, I have already proven you lied relative to this little attack of yours.  And now I have proven it again.  You did not mention the Chicago school of economics, me boy.  Just another lie which you continue to make.  Over and over and over.
Then, Oldstyle having been shown to be an outright liar, says of me:
You're an internet poser who makes up shit about yourself because you obviously have issues about your self worth.
So now you are trying to indicate you are a psychologist.  Even though you were shown to be an outright liar. You are therefor saying you are a lying psychologist.  Funny.
Never, me boy, do I lie.  Nor do I pose.  .  You lie, which I have proven many times and continue to prove.  Some people, like yourself, just have no integrity. Or class. [/QUOTE]

You didn't have a clue what I meant by a "school of economics"...you thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college that taught the subject!  Nobody would have to EXPLAIN to a real economics major what they were referring to when they asked what economic school they were basing a premise on!  You're a moron, Georgie.  You constantly try to pass yourself as someone who's smart and you constantly fail to pull it off!


----------



## Rshermr (Oct 30, 2016)

So Oldstyle, caught lying, tries new lies and personal attacks:
You didn't have a clue what I meant by a "school of economics"...you thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college that taught the subject! What is funny, me boy, is you just go on attacking. I did not lie to you, ever. And you just keep attacking. You said, over and over and over, that you said the Chicago School of Economics.  Well over 50 times you made that lie. But as I proved, you did not ever use the words. Chicago School of Economics. Ever. . So, you say, providing your word of a liar, that I do not know what a school of economics is. Apparently you are having problem with the definition of a school of economics. That is because you are ignorant of economics terminology. What you have been trying to refer to is a school of economic *thought. A school of economics is generally a physical school, or more often, a department of economics. You might use school of economics for a school of economic thought, but only if you are ignorant, or have been talking about schools of economic thought in a current conversation. The proper term has been, and still is, economic theory. The other often used term is School of Economic thought.   Or you could actually use a name of the economic theory. like "Keynesian school of economics" thought, or "Chicago School", etc.  *
*Here, me poor ignorant con troll, are examples meant to educate you.*

*DEFINITION of 'Chicago School'
An economic school of thought that originated at the University of Chicago in the 1940s.
Read more: Chicago School Definition *

*Chicago school of economics*
*The Chicago school of economics is a neoclassical school of economic thought*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Chicago*_*school_of_economic thought*

*Mainstream modern economics can be broken down into four schools of economic thought: classical, Marxian, Keynesian, and the Chicago School.*
Fours Schools of Economic Thought: Classical, Marxian, Keynesian, and the Chicago School.
*
“Fours Schools of Economic Thought: Classical, Marxian, Keynesian, and the Chicago ..” *Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 31 Oct. 2016 from Fours Schools of Economic Thought: Classical, Marxian, Keynesian, and the Chicago School.

Nobody would have to EXPLAIN to a real economics major what they were referring to when they asked what economic school they were basing a premise on! You just made three mistakes. First, you do not ask someone what school of economics does anything, me boy. What you are trying to say is school of economic thought. Or economic theory. Second, you just been proven a liar, by me, again. And no one believes liars. And lastly, when you suggest you were asking me what economic school they were basing a premise on you lied again. You said no such thing. Your sentence, in 2012, was precisely; "Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one," Your sentence was ignorant, and ambiguous. But primarily stupid. *And you have been pushing that same lie, and attacking me falsely, for nearly Four Years, me ignorant con.* 

You're a moron, Georgie. Ah, another baseless attack. I suspect you are simply angry that I showed you to be lying again. And, if someone is a moron, it is you. Though I believe you are simply ignorant. And driven by the con agenda.   Or perhaps you are a drunk.  Or have substance abuse problems.

You constantly try to pass yourself as someone who's smart. I simply tell the truth. I never ever try to pass myself off as anyone. But thanks again for the baseless attack. It show what you are. Most ignorant people are glad when they get the truth about their mistakes. Only dipshits make baseless attacks. Dipshit.

So, I just proved you a liar again. Then, when attacked I proved you were wrong, and ignorant. So, maybe you should simply give up on economic conversation. You are really bad at it.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 31, 2016)

*Bush cost US over 16 million Jobs!!! *
Job creation was best under Clinton & Democratic Congress! It Slowed when Republicans took Congress in 1995. Then Bush Brothers had 58,000 Florida Democrat Voters purged from rolls in 2000 to steal the election. They caused damaging economic confusion, massive protest, riots & the recession 6 months after they stole the election. Then Bush caused a Depression that was 3 times larger in 2008 & left it ablaze for Obama.
*Obama created over 8 million Jobs!*

*




*


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 31, 2016)

KissMy said:


> *Bush cost US over 16 million Jobs!!! *
> Job creation was best under Clinton & Democratic Congress! It Slowed when Republicans took Congress in 1995. Then Bush Brothers had 58,000 Florida Democrat Voters purged from rolls in 2000 to steal the election. They caused damaging economic confusion, massive protest, riots & the recession 6 months after they stole the election. Then Bush caused a Depression that was 3 times larger in 2008 & left it ablaze for Obama.
> *Obama created over 8 million Jobs!*
> 
> ...



So tell me, Kiss...how ARE things in that alternate universe you live in?


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 1, 2016)

I am stunned (but not surprised) to find some posters still trying to pass off this (not so) new-and-improved version of the "Worker's Paradise" which failed so miserably in the 20th Century and continues to disincentivize ambition, creativity and productivity while destroying people's lives and even whole countries (see: USSR). 

One of those posters earlier quoted "facts" from epi.org (a union propaganda stink tank) to support his promotion of more federal gov't meddling in our labor market which brings us, once again, to the underlying agenda of the min wage movement ... its impact on min wage plus based union contracts.

Any increase in the min wage automatically triggers a wage increase in the entire pay scale for those union workers (which in turn justifies higher union dues). This isn't rocket science. There is nothing noble about those who promote gov't induced economic dislocation and instability but rather plain old self-interest. 

We know that artificially induced product price increases - such as those occasionally precipitated by OPEC or the devaluation of currency - cause inflation and the cost of labor to rise (see: Greece). Conversely, an artificially induced rise in wages causes product and service industry prices to rise. Again, this isn't rocket science. 

Unless those earning above the min wage are just happy to see a few million Americans get a (gov't required) raise, they too will demand more and unless those who profit from their biz are willing to get less, the unintended consequence will be rampant inflation (see: Venezuela) leaving those at the bottom still unable to afford what they currently can't afford.

The bottom line? Gov't meddling in our labor/employer market will almost certainly blow-up in our face.


----------



## Rshermr (Nov 1, 2016)

SAYIT said:


> I am stunned (but not surprised) to find some posters still trying to pass off this (not so) new-and-improved version of the "Worker's Paradise" which failed so miserably in the 20th Century and continues to disincentivize ambition, creativity and productivity while destroying people's lives and even whole countries (see: USSR).


[/QUOTE]
Funny.  You think a raise in the minimum wage is the same as a communist nation.  Or are you simply proving yourself to be an idiot so all can understand what you are.

One of those posters earlier quoted "facts" from epi.org (a union propaganda stink tank) to support his promotion of more federal gov't meddling in our labor market which brings us, once again, to the underlying agenda of the min wage movement ... its impact on min wage plus based union contracts.  Sure. 

Any increase in the min wage automatically triggers a wage increase in the entire pay scale for those union workers (which in turn justifies higher union dues). This isn't rocket science. There is nothing noble about those who promote gov't induced economic dislocation and instability but rather plain old self-interest.
Right out of the bat shit crazy con web sites, but unprovable.  Cause, of course, it is bull shit.  And, it seems to be rocket science for you.

We know that artificially induced product price increases - such as those occasionally precipitated by OPEC or the devaluation of currency - cause inflation and the cost of labor to rise (see: Greece). Conversely, an artificially induced rise in wages causes product and service industry prices to rise. Again, this isn't rocket science.
Brilliant.  Now you are equating opec with the us government.  

Unless those earning above the min wage are just happy to see a few million Americans get a (gov't required) raise, they too will demand more and unless those who profit from their biz are willing to get less, the unintended consequence will be rampant inflation (see: Venezuela) leaving those at the bottom still unable to afford what they currently can't afford.  Again, you have no proof because it is simply a talking point, and talking points are almost always nonsense.  As are those who push them.

The bottom line? Gov't meddling in our labor/employer market will almost certainly blow-up in our face.
Just like before, eh.  Thing is, being a con troll like yourself is simple.  All  you need to do is to do is believe what  you are told, and cut and paste.  

Right.  Just like every other raise of the minimum wage.  It will be a disaster. Problem is, it has never worked out the way you suggest.  Never.  Maybe you should go check out the impartial studies of all those raises in the MW, and show when your projections ever happened.  Instead, that is, of quoting conservative talking points.  But then, you never worry about the truth, eh

*Minimum Wage *
Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour  before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015.

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour  before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.

Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage.

Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.

Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips.

Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.

Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase.

Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices.

Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office.

Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support.

Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it.

Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.


----------



## Rshermr (Nov 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > *Bush cost US over 16 million Jobs!!! *
> ...



So, lets see what the BLS says about job creation.  I suspect con trolls will not like it, cause the highest three are democrats.  And Carter is number two, after Clinton.  Then, Obama is over a million per year,* or something over 9 million during his administration.*  Just like Kiss My said.  And exactly what Oldstyle tried to discredit.  






Jimmy Carter and Lyndon B. Johnson aren't very far behind Bill Clinton in terms of average monthly job gains during their respective tenures as commander-in-chief.
ANDREW SOERGEL FOR USN&WR; SOURCE: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/da...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 1, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > I am stunned (but not surprised) to find some posters still trying to pass off this (not so) new-and-improved version of the "Worker's Paradise" which failed so miserably in the 20th Century and continues to disincentivize ambition, creativity and productivity while destroying people's lives and even whole countries (see: USSR).
> ...



You misunderstand me (but I'm not surprised). I am opposed to federal gov't meddling in our labor/employer market. States, and better yet municipalities - if anyone at all - should be the arbiters of what their communities want and need in this particular matter.

Your DOL feature story has a pernicious leftist slant. For instance it claims:
Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour  before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015.

Of course, it fails to mention that 48 states do not require full min wage for restaurant workers (Alaska being the other oddity) and as our largest and wealthiest state, Cali restaurant sales should outpace all states.

Your problem is you are far too married to your all-powerful, all-knowing central-gov't, socialist ideology and your over-inflated view of your "knowledge" and POV. Others, you may have noticed, have different POVs but you seem convinced that only you know the truth and the way and all others are "idiots." Carry on!


----------



## Rshermr (Nov 1, 2016)

I am stunned (but not surprised) to find some posters still trying to pass off this (not so) new-and-improved version of the "Worker's Paradise" which failed so miserably in the 20th Century and continues to disincentivize ambition, creativity and productivity while destroying people's lives and even whole countries (see: USSR).: 35716"] Funny.  You think a raise in the minimum wage is the same as a communist nation.  Or are you simply proving yourself to be an idiot so all can understand what you are.[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

You misunderstand me (but I'm not surprised). I am opposed to federal gov't meddling in our labor/employer market. States, and better yet municipalities - if anyone at all - should be the arbiters of what their communities want and need in this particular matter.

Your DOL feature story has a pernicious leftist slant. For instance it claims:
Jesus, dipshit, you need a few years of study of the english language.  I showed you no "feature story".  That would be the definition of a really, really ignorant and stupid person.  You presented a bunch of conservative talking points all  with out backing, and I simply posted proof  that your talking points were lies.  Simple to do.  
Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour  before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015.
Sorry, me boy.  What you see as a leftist slant is simply the truth.  Truth is not slanted.
Here is the inconvenient truth regarding tips:

*"What is the minimum wage for workers who receive tips?*
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires payment of at least the Federal minimum wage to covered, nonexempt employees.  An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13 an hour in direct wages if that amount plus the tips received equals at least the Federal minimum wage, the employee retains all tips and the employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the Federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference.
Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the Federal and state wage laws, the employee is entitled to the provisions which provides the greater benefits."
https://www.*dol*.gov/whd/regs/.../whdfs15.htm
United States Department of Labor

Of course, it fails to mention that 48 states do not require full min wage for restaurant workers (Alaska being the other oddity) and as our largest and wealthiest state, Cali restaurant sales should outpace all states.
It does, me poor ignorant con troll.  No other state is even close. 
Fact Sheet - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - U.S. Department of Labor 

Your problem is you are far too married to your all-powerful, all-knowing central-gov't, socialist ideology and your over-inflated view of your "knowledge" and POV. Others, you may have noticed, have different POVs but you seem convinced that only you know the truth and the way and all others are "idiots." Carry on!

Not at all.  I have the view that you are a con troll, which is based on your statements  I have no social ideology.  I neither adhere to or run from socialist concepts.  But yes indeed, there is a major difference between  you and I.  Here:
1.  You post con talking points, which are generally known by rational people as, technically, bullshit.
2.  You are unable to provide a link to prove your talking points, because the source would be a completely partial, well known, bat shit crazy conservative source.
3.  You have such little respect for those you post toward that you don't feel you have to prove anything.  That is because you are stupid and incapable of doing so.
4.  I back up what I say with impartial sources because I feel I owe it to others to show where my facts are coming from.  

Or in short, you are a con troll.  I am not.
And I have found, without exceptions, con trolls can always be proven to be liars.


----------



## KissMy (Nov 4, 2016)

*Obama Growing Jobs Much Faster than Working Age Population!*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 6, 2016)

KissMy said:


> *Obama Growing Jobs Much Faster than Working Age Population!*


 Obama is socialist anti business so how could he grow jobs???


----------



## Rshermr (Nov 7, 2016)

KissMy said:


> *Obama Growing Jobs Much Faster than Working Age Population!*


True graph.  True statement.  Because you are a thinking person, and use valid sources for your information.  Ed, the con troll, should be along to say something stupid shortly.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Funny.  You think a raise in the minimum wage is the same as a communist nation.  Or are you simply proving yourself to be an idiot so all can understand what you are.


 it is communist since it is just 1 of the 1000 interventions a liberal will want because he lacks the IQ to understand how capitalism works.


----------



## Slashsnake (Nov 7, 2016)

There's a rather simple answer to this.

Person A makes $9.50 an hour. Person B makes $14 an hour. Person C makes $25 an hour.

Person A Gross Pay = $380
Person B Gross Pay = $560
Person C Gross Pay = $1000.

Person A will get a $4.50/hour raise, persons B&C will get a $0.00/hour raise while prices double. So more people will be making minimum wage than ever. Nearly 50% of the population actually. I barely know anyone who makes more than $14 an hour...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 7, 2016)

Slashsnake said:


> There's a rather simple answer to this.
> 
> Person A makes $9.50 an hour. Person B makes $14 an hour. Person C makes $25 an hour.
> 
> ...



yes prices will go up by the exact amount of the wage increase and no net benefit  will be possible. Everybody earning the minimum wage will kill incentive  to improve your skills.


Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:
1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.
> 
> It's the value of the work that determines the pay.


In the short run.  More jobs will be necessary in the long run, to meet any increase in demand from labor having more money to spend.

pay is determined by forces acting on our markets.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Onyx said:


> Simple.
> 
> No independent restaurant startup would ever be able to compete. The rate of failure for restaurant startups is already 9 out of 10.


special pleading much?  that applies to all startups, not just the restaurant sector.

If, a person can Only make it on the back of cheap labor, do they really have a worthwhile product?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Onyx said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...
> ...


only lousy capitalists say that; good capitalists make like Henry Ford.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

xband said:


> nicoleivy5 said:
> 
> 
> > Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> ...


Henry Ford thought the opposite, and doubled wages for autoworkers, not minimum wage workers.  If Only there were Good Capitalists to be found in modern times.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Onyx said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > You are paid due to your skill and what the market will bear.
> ...


Why not, not even the fantastical right wing wants to privatize our military.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Onyx said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically
> ...


In the age of corporate welfare?  How, one sided of you.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


yes, it matters.  the cost of social services is about fourteen dollars an hour.  a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.  it is about privatizing costs and not socializing costs; only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...
> ...


why would fewer stores open or demand decrease, with an increase in spending due to a minimum wage increase?  

do the laws of demand and supply stop working, whenever the right gets involved?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Mr Clean said:


> The economy would crash just like it has every time the minimum wage has been increased over the last 70 years or so.
> 
> You'd think they would learn by now.,


Except, it is Only right wing fantasy.  There have been no crashes due to a minimum wage increase.  

Only crashes that got the wealthiest, bailed out.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...
> ...


Because, there are not enough Good Capitalists to, go around.  Henry Ford doubled wages; modern capitalists only whine about having to improve efficiency.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Or, improving efficiency like Henry Ford, and be able to double wages, as a result.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Onyx said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > As long as employers can get away with paying crap, that is what is going to happen.
> ...


no.  under capitalization is a leading cause of failure.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Which employees?  _From 2009-14, CEO compensation rose 54.3%, while private-sector production/non-supervisory workers rose 0.0%._


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Onyx said:
> ...



Social services have nothing to do with the market value for the labor required to do a specific job.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


There is no shortage; only underpayment.  Do the laws of demand and supply mean nothing, to the fantastical, right wing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...
> ...


Increasing the cost of labor will lead to capital seeking gains from efficiency.

Henry Ford did not have a problem doubling autoworker wages, not minimum wages.  

Inflation happens, only the right wing complains when it actually is due to the least wealthy having more money to spend.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



There is most definitely a shortage of skilled labor in this country
.
Survey shows growing US shortage of skilled labor


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



no, i don't.  wages need to outpace inflation, that is all.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Funny how you Progressives are always talking about how you're "here" for the Middle Class...yet all of your policies to help the poor end up with the Middle Class footing the bill.



I am trying to get it from the one percent.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Raising the.min wage HISTORICALLY damages the.middle.class, by devaluing their work, and.making it almost impossible to start a business.


no, it doesn't.  that is just, right wing propaganda.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Only the right wing has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost. 

We should be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, via unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Slashsnake said:


> There's a rather simple answer to this.
> 
> Person A makes $9.50 an hour. Person B makes $14 an hour. Person C makes $25 an hour.
> 
> ...


What prices will double?  Only the fantastical right wing prefers fantasy to facts.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > There's a rather simple answer to this.
> ...


No, they won't.  The right wing just has stale propaganda and rhetoric, that is easily disproved, every time it comes up.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


it has to do with a profit motive.  the rich simply get richer faster by making the poor work harder for less.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Grandma said:
> ...



*why would fewer stores open or demand decrease*

If you increase the expenses related to open a store, fewer stores will open.
Raise the expenses of current stores and they will raise prices which will decrease demand for their products.
*
do the laws of demand and supply stop working, whenever the right gets involved?*

No, but the left fails to understand those laws of supply and demand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> > Simple.
> ...




*If, a person can Only make it on the back of cheap labor, do they really have a worthwhile product?*

If Daniel isn't satisfied with the wages offered, let's shut down that business and give their employees $0?
Very smart, comrade.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*Or, improving efficiency like Henry Ford,*

Firms that improve efficiency don't need a government mandate to raise wages.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


9 out of 10 startups fail anyway.  under capitalization is one major reason.  

if all you have to make money is cheap labor, how good of a Capitalist can you be.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Onyx said:
> ...


nothing but red herrings to look tough?  diversion is usually considered a fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


maybe not, but social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...




http://www.bea.gov/itable/iTable.cf...=1&904=2009&903=58&906=a&905=2016&910=x&911=0

Go to personal income and outlays. Table 2.1
From 2009-2014, employee compensation rose from $7.787 trillion to $9.693 trillion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*9 out of 10 startups fail anyway. under capitalization is one major reason.* 

Raise expenses, that'll help with capitalization.

*if all you have to make money is cheap labor, how good of a Capitalist can you be.*

I agree, lets outlaw all jobs under $10 an hour. That'll help the low skilled workers employed by bad capitalists.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You don't want to put some employers out of business?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Here is what I am quibbling about:  _From 2009-14, CEO compensation rose 54.3%_


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


If you don't plan for expenses you are planning to fail.  Why not do it yourself?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not enough "corporate raiding" in it for you?  capitalism has a _natural_, rate of unemployment.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No it has to do with what the public will pay for a product or service

Tell me do you think the people who produce ultra high end goods pay their people minimum wage?
They don't because in order to get the ultra high price the work must be of the highest quality


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So what?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...




Prove it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And if you force them to fail....you're helping employees how exactly?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Let's raise that rate for low skilled employees. Right?


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you Progressives are always talking about how you're "here" for the Middle Class...yet all of your policies to help the poor end up with the Middle Class footing the bill.
> ...



And how is that attempt working out for you?

You can SAY that progressive policies are designed to "get" money from the 1% but in reality they never do so the Middle Class ends up footing the bill for new entitlements for the poor.  Face reality, Daniel...the rich are taught from childhood how to protect wealth from being taken by the government.  You think you can pass legislation that will outsmart them?  Sorry to break this to you but my money is on their being MUCH smarter than you are!


----------



## Oldstyle (Nov 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Grandma said:
> ...



Henry Ford doubled wages and cut hours from 9 to 8 a day because he found he couldn't keep good workers on his new fangled assembly line for the old rate due to the boredom and stress of repeating the same task over and over again at high speed.  The assembly line concept improved production so dramatically that Ford could afford to double workers pay and still make a large profit.  That was a business decision made by Ford that made sense on the bottom line.  Do you really feel that increasing minimum wage across the board will have the same affect?  You might want to note that Ford tried increasing wages to counter the Great Depression and it was an utter failure.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 29, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


It has to do with profits.  Socializing costs helps corporate profits.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Raining the MW is socializing costs and artificially inflating then to boot


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


no, it isn't.  it is privatizing costs since the People will be spending their own money.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No it is an artificial inflation of pay which will result in a very ral increase in costs across the board as well as the decline of the purchasing power of everyone already making 15 an hour or above

The average hourly wage in almost ever sector is already above 15 an hour so a drastic MW hike would reduce the purchasing power of more people than it would increase
Table B-3.  Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


only in the short run; in the long run, it will "increase the size of the pie" through a positive multiplier effect.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No it won't.
Artificially high pay drains the economy.  The only multiplier will be the increase in cost for absolutely everything across the board


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




So in your world a person today making $15. Would make now $30 an hour?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Yes, it will.  That is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Why do CEOs have the highest pay in the world?

A positive multiplier effect grows the "size of the pie". 

It really is that simple, except to the fantastical right wing, stuck in pre-WWII Germany for their economic models.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Why would I think that?  

Only the fantastical right wing, has nothing but strawman arguments they can easily beat down, "to look tough".


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The only positive multiplier will be the price increases across the board and the reduction of purchasing power for the people who already make close to 15 an hour or more (which btw is far more people than make MW)

And FYI what a CEO gets paid has absolutely no bearing on how much you can get paid


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Isn't that a logical extension of your positive multiplier theory?

SOme people make more so everyone makes more?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


what price increases across the board?  the minimum wage sector is not that big.

are you claiming, that employees making fifteen dollars an hour will complain, if the one dollar menu becomes a two dollar menu?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


And FYI what a CEO gets paid has absolutely no bearing on how much you can get paid.

_Artificially high pay drains the economy. The only multiplier will be the increase in cost for absolutely everything across the board.  _

were you only, campaigning?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Really?

If you raised everyone's pay to 15 an hour you do't think that would result in multiple across the board price increases?

Don't tell me you're one of those idiots who think labor costs don't matter in the end price


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It will be more than that. You are not taking into account that a business overhead includes not just labor but also a myriad of products and services that all are factored into the final cost

And when absolutely everything goes up in price even if it is just a couple dollars anyone making close to 15 an hour or more will see a reduction in their purchasing power


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



eventually; you make it seem like it will be detrimental.

you already paid double the price for fuel; where was the catastrophe.

not enough corporate raiding in it for you, when it is just about helping the poor?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


are you claiming, that employees making fifteen dollars an hour will complain, if the one dollar menu becomes a two dollar menu?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


we already went through it with fuel inflation; everybody uses fuel.  why only special pleading when dealing with the poor?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Fuel prices for the most part have far less to do with MW and far more to do with international markets.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Who doesn't use fuel?  How many people actually work for the minimum wage?

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


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I'm not "right wing" whatever that means today

You can't seem to understand that a company relying on labor paid less than 15 an hour will not have to raise prices more than the increased cost of their labor alone.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 3, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.
> 
> It's the value of the work that determines the pay.



LMAO  General statements such as these ^^^ have no value whatsoever.  A struggling business may cut jobs, a thriving business may make adjustments.  A government which raises the minimum wage, may provide targeted tax incentives.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.
> ...


So now you want the government to give tax breaks to businesses? 

MAke up your fucking mind


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



I've never opposed targeted tax adjustments or incentives.  I do oppose bullshit tax cuts to those not in need,  tax cuts solely for political purpose and posts such as yours which are mendacious idiot-grams - F.O.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


no firm is too small to fail.  if cheap labor is the Only way they can succeed, how good can their product be.

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages.  Inflation was not a problem.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.
> ...


I think we should pay unemployment compensation at one dollar an hour less than the minimum wage, simply for the sake of employment at will.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



Policy changes such as the one you're recommended have consequences beyond those intended.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You'd be surprised
Tell me do you always buy the most expensive item in the store?

It's not the 1920s anymore either
If you think Ford paid more than he could at the cost of his bottom line then you don't know shit about business


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


like what?  solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> like what?  solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis?



what does it mean to solve for poverty on at-will basis? Is this strange English or what?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > like what?  solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis?
> ...


it only seems strange if you have lousy reading comprehension.

it means we don't need as much welfare, as we currently know it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




I always think it must suck to be you, always wanting what some one else has. What someone makes never crosses my mind.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




End welfare...then they will get job.

.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


equal protection of the law?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


only the right wing is that, fantastical.  how well did your advice work during the Great Depression?

capitalism, dear; died in 1929.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 4, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


What does someone getting aid more than you have to do with equal protection under the law?

Oh yeah, nothing


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 4, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


employment at will.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 5, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


All employment is employment at will

you don't seem to understand that the employer not the employee owns the job


----------



## hadit (Dec 5, 2016)

Slashsnake said:


> There's a rather simple answer to this.
> 
> Person A makes $9.50 an hour. Person B makes $14 an hour. Person C makes $25 an hour.
> 
> ...


62% of American workers make $20/hr or less.  All of them will demand a raise if the MW is jacked to $15/hr.  Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature think their would be no negative effects from such an event?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 5, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> capitalism, dear; died in 1929.


capitalism is when there is little govt intervention not when there is massive govt intervention like in 1929.

Bernanke is world's expert. He said " we[federal govt] did it[cause Great Depression], and we won't let it happen again"


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 11, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


you don't seem to understand that the law is the same regarding employment at will.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 11, 2016)

hadit said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > There's a rather simple answer to this.
> ...


yes, our standard of living will go up and we will be privatizing costs not socializing costs.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 11, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...



Arbitrary salary increases will not do that.

All that will happen is that costs across the board will go up while most people's incomes will not thereby resulting in a decrease in purchasing power, less demand for products and services produced by lower paying industries and less demand for those industries means less employment in those industries


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it is not arbitrary or capricious, like charity.  

A minimum wage that competes favorably with the cost of social services is simply, more rational for rational choice theory purposes.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You assume everyone working for less than 15 an hour is receiving some sort of welfare. That's simply untrue


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


Baloney.  You might as well try to eliminate poverty by raising the MW to $100/hr overnight.  We will never do that because it is beyond obvious that most jobs would disappear.  Thus, there is a limit beyond which you can't impose an artificial wage increase without negative impact.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


i am saying social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison, according to some estimates.  It is the rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to induce labor to work instead of apply for social services.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And not everyone making less that that receives social services.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


So what if most jobs disappear.  The left has a solution not merely a fossil plan from the fossil record, like the right with their insistence on sinking more costs into fossil fuels, instead of advancing fusion (an energy with a future).

A more efficient economy can simply compensate unemployed labor for _Capitalism's_ natural rate of unemployment, through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


So basically what you're doing is turning businesses into welfare agencies.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


A "solution" in which most jobs disappear is not a solution, unless you want to call it a "final solution".  Tell us straight, do you honestly think raising the MW to $100/hr tomorrow would eliminate poverty in the US?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


that is what social services cost, for rational choice theory purposes, not diversionary anecdote purposes.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


nope; simply advocating for fixing more rational Standards for our Union.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


So if people who are making less than 15 an hour aren't receiving social services why do we need to offset the cost with a higher wage


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*So what if most jobs disappear.*

LOL!
Excellent!!!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



no one is stopping you or anyone else from making 15 an hour.  It's actually quite easy.  Become skilled in an area that pays 15 an hour for labor.
If you want to stuff burgers in a bag for the rest of your life it's your problem


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


no, it wont.  the left is learning how to use Capitalism, for all of its worth.  we still have Capitalism's "natural rate of inefficiency" that can Only be "bailed out" by Socialism's, "true love" for free.

we simply need equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


you make it seem like you could not pursue some hobby or entrepreneurial venture, on unemployment.  you could stay poor as long as you want, as long as you don't complain about how rich the rich can get, by solving simple poverty in our republic.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Forcing businesses to pay artificially high wages is giving employees more than they actually earn, ie, welfare.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yes, you can quit at any time for any reason or be fired at any time for any reason.  Anything beyond that should require a contract.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Lower social services...


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it is politics, not welfare.  and, it is not, artificially high; it is just right wing fantasy, that is all.

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


yes, you can quit; but try collecting unemployment compensation.  edd should have to prove, for-Cause employment to deny benefits.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Raising the MW will never ever solve poverty...I never know why you dont comprehend that..you are a another one that dont have a clue what wealth is.

If you make MW you will always be poor no mater what the number is .


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


this is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics.

what you are saying, in effect, is "lower our standard living to lower our costs". 

we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to compete favorable with our First World forms of welfare.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Do what us normal people do get another job first before you quit



.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


reading comprehension issues as well?  it is about a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation that is one dollar an hour less, for rational choice purposes.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


still missing the point; wage slave.  try collecting unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




No the left has no clue about economics..so tell me did GOD set the social Service rate?


Again for the millionth time 50% of working americans make $15 or less..


Will workers now making $15 an hour then be making $30 an hour? No they mighy get a $3 dollar raise


Its just trickle up poor..


You dont want admit it because you want socialism.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Again you have a reading comprehension problem? Who made it $14 an hour for social services? God?


Republicans?


Or liberals?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




I can tell by your post now, this is not about $15 an hour minimum wage..thats a ruse to you


You really want socialism where 90% of workers make around the same..


Admit it.


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


social services cost x; why shouldn't a minimum wage cost x+1.  you make it seem, like you would rather whine about the cost of social services than try to induce people to want to work.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


that is what social services cost, approximately.  we have a First World standard of living to consider.

is the right really advocating to help the rich get richer, by lowering our Standard of living?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


nothing but diversion?

wages should compete favorably with the cost of social services.

that has to do with rational choice theory.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Again who made it $14 an hour? 



.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That uncouples wages from the value of the work performed.  It would be more honest for the government to make up the difference between the real wage and the "living wage".  If the "living wage" in your area is $15/hour and you earn $7, then you get welfare benefits of $8/hr.  Not saying it would be sustainable, but it would be more honest.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No.  Not "compete", "compliment".  If society deems a standard of living to be necessary, society makes up the difference.  If you make $3/hr less than the standard, you get welfare benefits of $3/hr.  Let's be honest and make it welfare instead of forcing business to do it for us.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Whos standard of living? I can live on $20 bucks a week in food because I have venison in my freezer and some pork from my farmer neighbor..


Yea we know people need kit katt bars and soda pop to survive..


.so again who made it $14 an hour?



Since you dont want to answer that question..



It was the democrats paying off the poor for votes and to not riot..


Nothing more nothing less



Quit trying to bullshit me K? you are starting to post like a propaganda tool.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


If you voluntarily leave a job, why should society continue to pay your wage?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


according to one estimate.  does it really matter now?  advocacy for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is already underway.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Yea I made a thread about it


Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


not at all; its merely fixing the value at the new equilibrium.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Not national



Again why dont you admit you want socialism?


You know, because I told you a million times 50% of workers make $15 or less.

So just admit it already


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


it is about privatizing costs.  it really is that simple.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Its trickle up poor and you dont have a clue about economics..thats a fact, you dont know shit about profit margins, you dont have a clue that over 80% of bussiness are small..


Your so fucking dumb on economics that you dont even know how stupid you really are.


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


according to one estimate, it varies by region, actually.  

we already have socialism.  capitalism died in 1929.  socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Baloney.  There are prices and there are costs.  You can move the price all over the place, but you can't arbitrarily move costs.  If it's only worth $8/hr to me to have the floor in the back warehouse swept, forcing me to pay $15/hr to have it done doesn't change the value of the work.  I simply will have it done rarely or not at all, thus eliminating a job that I would have been willing to pay for at a lower rate.  That high school kid looking to make a little money and break into the job market is just out of luck.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Here you go again assuming facts not in evidence.  You don't know how many people making less that 15 an hour receive social welfare services.

Try this.  If you are so unskilled as to only earn 8 an hour and  you need 500 a week to pay your bills then you work a second job so the money you can earn for your skill level is enough to pay your bills.  Then you make your labor worth more so you can work less hours and still pay your bills

It is not written anywhere that merely working 40 hours a week will earn you enough to support your lifestyle


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


so what; Henry Ford doubled wages and did not whine about regulations or taxes; only corporate welfare addicts, do that.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Come on a little bit more of the truth from you...


Tell us the truth you want socialism



.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


yes, costs can be regulated.  only the right appeals to ignorance instead of economics.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No, what you are advocating is privatizing welfare, because you are adding on the cost of welfare to the wage.  That's not honest, and just tries to camoflage what you're doing.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


and it will never happen


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



so ow you want the government to regulate costs as well as wages?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



any third worlder can do that.  have you no "pride of ownership"?

you should be able to quit or decline work; and qualify for unemployment compensation.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Wrong again.  If it costs me $10/unit to manufacture something, government forcing me to set the price at $8/unit doesn't change my cost, it eliminates my company.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




The only two reasons you would need $500a week to pay your bills if you only make $8 an hour is because


1. You live beyond your means

2. You are a dumb ass living in a blue city or state and vote for high tax Democrats



Thats it moron.



.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


we already have socialism. capitalism died in 1929. socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

only the right wing subscribes to fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


it is already happening.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Incorrect.  That would be welfare, NOT unemployment compensation.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 12, 2016)

The immediate effect would be a great clamour to double welfare benefits as the present payouts would be insufficient to cope with the rapid inflation that WILL follow an abrupt, overly large jump in minimum age.  Worse, more people would need those benefits as they will be out on their tender little asses from any jobs they might have had.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


only the right wing is that fantastical; minimum wages are already a form of regulation.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Ford was making enough money that he could afford to do that.  Most companies do not have that luxury.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



If you quit or decline work you are not unemployed against your will which is what unemployment insurance is for
and you forget that employees don't own the business where they work so by definition they can have no pride of ownership.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Which is why MW should be done away with


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Prohibition is worse. 

In any Case, fixing Standards is a power delegated to our legislators.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...




I told you this $15 dollar an hour nonsense with this kid is all a ruse..


He just wants socialism



.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


nope; it would be unemployment compensation and equal protection of the law.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Not at the federal level which is all that really counts.
States stupid enough to do it will see businesses move to other states


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> The immediate effect would be a great clamour to double welfare benefits as the present payouts would be insufficient to cope with the rapid inflation that WILL follow an abrupt, overly large jump in minimum age.  Worse, more people would need those benefits as they will be out on their tender little asses from any jobs they might have had.


why?  it could pay more to work for fifteen dollars an hour than it would to receive social services at fourteen dollars an hour.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


a more efficient economy, that is all.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




You cant regulate morality dumb ass.




.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


like most people who have never owned a business you don't understand how UI works


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


How long do you expect companies to operate at a loss?  You once could expect a teenager to meet you at a gas station, get your oil and water checked and gas pumped without having to get out of your car.  Not so any more, the natural result of wages being artificially set too high.  Within a few years you might see 2 employees wandering around in a McDonalds instead of a dozen, the natural result of wages being artificially set too high.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


it may.  in any case, it is happening in some of the States.  

only the right thinks it is Only about the the bottom line, instead of location, location, location.  the product should merit what the market will bear, regardless.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




Then move to fucking holland pay 80% in taxes and never be able to buy a house fuck tard.


Get the fuck out of the U.S.A. loser


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


i know it is being applied wrong, on purpose.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You're redefining the meaning of the terminology.  That does not, however, change what unemployment compensation really is, any more than government forcing a certain price point for goods or services changes the cost of producing them.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Get your story straight will you?

An artificial raise in labor prices makes a product less competitive in the market.  If people will only pay 10 bucks for something and your artificial labor cost increase makes it impossible to produce that product at a cost that will make 10 dollars profitable then the price will have to be raised to more than 10 dollars and people (the market) will stop buying it


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




The states can do whst ever it likes...


We know why you want it done Nationaly..


Because states with High MW dont want to lose companys to states with low MW...


Again quit trying to bull shit ...socialist boi


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


we can lower our tax burden by ending our drug war.  simple capitalism.

now you know why no one takes the right seriously about economics.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


so what; it means some consolidation and restructuring to become more efficient, since they will have more efficient labor to work with.

Henry Ford did not have that problem, why do modern capitalists?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


no you are confusing UI with welfare
Did you know that business pay state and federal UI taxes based on their payroll ? It is already funded by employers and is meant for people who find themselves unemployed against their will.  It is not for people who refuse to work, who voluntarily quit or who are fired for cause


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...







This so reminds me of you danny boi


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You do realize that more people get paid 15 an hour than don't or don't you? 
Stuffing a burger in a bag or picking up dog shit cannot be compared to manufacturing cars


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




You know I should rephrase that..


Back in Henry Fords day, people respected each other, had conservative values, knew the men belonged in mens bath rooms and women in womens bath rooms, they said " good day sir" "merry christmas" .. They were god fearing christian men and women

The word gay meant happy..

Whats different today then in Henry Fords day?


Kind of obvious is it not?


*Fucking Liberal Atheist scum buckets started to take over...*


.


The truth hurts dont it?

.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Several things: 

1.  Ford produced a hot new product with high demand.  He was making a lot of money and could afford to pay his workers more.  I will guarantee that he would not have, though, paid his workers more than what he was making from their work, which is what you are advocating.

2.  You can restructure and consolidate to your heart's content and still not be able to lower the cost of producing something beyond a certain point.  Now, granted, you could do something like outsource all your work to a third world country where workers are thrilled to work 12 hour days for $3/day, but I thought you guys didn't like that solution.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


no, i am not confusing anything.  the right merely confuses Mickey Mouse jobs, to actually improving the efficiency of our economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


right; autoworkers wages were not minimum wages.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Stuffing burgers into bags IS a Mickey Mouse job
Stocking shelves IS a Mickey Mouse job
there are countless more


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


all it takes is an income to be ready for work.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


it is about equal protection of the law.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That has nothing to do with MW.

People who make MW get the same protection under the law as everyone else


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


So what?

That's a nonissue and irrelevant to equal protection under the law

You have no right to a job or an income.
In fact you have no right to police protection or welfare


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



And it was cheaper than training new workers.
Libs think he did it to be fair, he did it to make more money!!!


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Those "Mickey Mouse" jobs are vital for unskilled teenagers trying to break into the job market and you're trying to take them away.


----------



## hadit (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


So why make businesses be welfare agencies?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.


what?????it depends totally on what social services , what age, and what circumstances. totally worthless generalization.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


it is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.  equal protection of the law should apply, to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


why can't modern capitalists do it now?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


not at all; there will always be a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism.  

solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis is simply more efficient.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


don't know what you mean.  it is your straw man argument.  why don't You explain it?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.
> ...


average, dear.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



most social services goe to old sick folk so why would an average cost matter at all when thread is about working age, able bodied? Think before you post


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> not at all; there will always be a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism.



wrong of course since under capitalism supply of jobs equals demand for jobs. Ever heard of supply and demand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



It took more training to build cars than it does to make fries.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Well it doesn't and it never will.
UI is meant for people who are forced out of employment against their will, or who were fired for insufficient cause not for lazy fucks who choose not to work


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


And we can make it easier or harder for unskilled teenagers with no work history to break into the job market.  I want to make it easier, you want to make it harder.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I already have, you just didn't like the explanation.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


because, not everyone wants to make like John Henry simply to help the rich get richer faster.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > not at all; there will always be a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism.
> ...


i have heard of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, that simply favors the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.

and, the Only reason there are unfilled positions, is because those jobs don't pay enough under our form of demand and supply we call Capitalism.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Hey if you don't want to work for someone else then don't 
Work for yourself and stop fucking whining


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


doesn't make sense.  training still costs as does turnover.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


haven't actually read the law?  it is about employment, at-will.


----------



## dblack (Dec 13, 2016)

nicoleivy5 said:


> Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People unable to perform labor that is worth at least the new minimum wage won't be allowed to work.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


All employment is employment at will yet as far as UI is concerned there are specific conditions that must be met before one is eligible to collect and being a lazy fuck who refuses to work isn't one of them


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


easier for what, to make less just so the rich can get richer faster?  

having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means persons can go to school or vocational training for as long as they want.  Only the right, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it was Your straw man argument, not mine.  Why don't You explain Your argument.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


if you don't want to make a rich person richer then don't work for a rich person.  Work for the poorest guy you can find


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


i am not whining.  I am simply telling you; unequal protection of the law, doesn't work.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

dblack said:


> nicoleivy5 said:
> 
> 
> > Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> ...


so what; they should be able to go on unemployment compensation and go to school.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


there is no unequal protection if you were employed and you lost your job through no fault of your own the you can collect UI.

If you never had a job that's your choice to be a lazy shit


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


those conditions are extra-lawful.  only the right, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


with equal protection of the law; persons could go on unemployment compensation and go to school for as long as they want.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


equal protection of the law is a Constitutional guarantee.  only the right is too lazy to "work for it".


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with right or left.
You are responsible for getting a ob to pay your own bills
You are not entitled to a job
No one is under mandate to hire employees
You control how much you make and how much your skill set is worth

what you want to do is blame employers because you can't pay your bills when the responsibility and blame for that is all yours


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



no.  what you want is for everyone else to pay your bills so you can be a lazy shit


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



What part of that is difficult to understand?  When you are fresh out of high school at 18 years of age, have not held a steady job, and have no marketable skills, you NEED a low paying, unskilled job to establish a work history, get a favorable reference for a better job and learn some skills.  No one is going to pay you a lot of money until you demonstrate that you are capable of doing valuable work, so jacking the MW higher and higher makes those jobs disappear and makes it harder for someone to break into the job market.



> having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, means persons can go to school or vocational training for as long as they want.  Only the right, never gets it.


What the right "gets" is that there is a set of people who will, as long as someone else is paying the bill, be professional students, continually "learning" and getting "training", but never actually putting those skills to use and earning a living.  Unemployment compensation for when you're laid off makes sense, still getting paid after quitting a job is welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


equal protection of the law is in our Constitution.  Only the right, never gets it in our First World economy which even provides Corporate Welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


not at all; it is called, full employment of capital resources.  it isn't my fault, capitalists are so useless when it comes to that.  not even John Henry can "bail them out" of that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes they do. And?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


shouldn't everyone go to school to become more marketable if they cannot command a decent wage?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Henry Ford came up with a capital solution.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Corporate welfare is wrong.  Using the tax code to entice companies to stay in a location or move, or to punish companies for doing legal things are also wrong.  Although, it does stand to reason that if the government wants to punish a company for being wildly successful, it should also be there to prop up companies that face failure.

Continuing to pay someone who voluntarily leaves a job is welfare, not unemployment compensation.

We have equal protection under the law.  It doesn't matter who you are, if you're laid off you can collect unemployment compensation.  If you quit a job, you can't.  That's equality.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


This country is the best place in the world If you want to provide for yourself.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


He sure did, and he was able to because he was making money hand over fist.  He didn't have a government standing over his shoulder, forcing him to pay people more than their work was worth, he had the freedom to decide for himself what he was willing to pay.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Henry Ford voluntarily raised wages because it made economic sense.
Because it increased his profits.
The minimum wage, and raising it to $15, does not make economic sense.
It would not increase profits. It would not increase employment.
It would reduce both. It would be a bad idea.
I can see why you support that.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


not at all; if you want people to work; you simply need to pay wages that attract Labor.  There should be no unemployment, at all. 

just hire someone, if you don't want to collect unemployment and not make you richer, at the same time.  it really is that simple, except to the right.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


that is why we have "corporate welfare".


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


He was a Good Capitalist.  Where have all the Good Capitalists gone in modern times.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude; he doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages.  That was the point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Why did he double wages?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


he wanted his workers to make more so they could buy more cars.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Baloney.
That would be a moronic reason to raise wages.
I can see why you believe it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


read it for yourself; it was one reason.  the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That makes no sense.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


And again, the only reason he could do that was that he was making enough money to do it.  Most companies are not in that situation.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


why only complain about welfare for Individuals?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


he had to face competition; he did not start out as one of the one percent with business.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Perhaps you're in too much of a hurry to see what people actually write.  Go back through the thread.  Just this morning I commented on corporate welfare.  Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Most company owners start that way, but it's irrelevant to the point.  He could not have doubled his workers' wages (for whatever reason) if he did not make enough money to do so.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You say that, just like the right claims to abhor the drug war.  But, are all talk and no action on that front.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


everybody thought he was crazy; he made it work.  he did not whine about it and ask for corporate welfare or tax holidays.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I'm not in Congress, so there is literally nothing I can do.  You were talking about complaining, that's just talk, no action.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yeah, he was a great guy.  We get it.  Again, though, he was a great RICH guy.  Only RICH guys have the ability to pay more for the same amount of work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*
the other was he needed a better trained work force to improve his assembly line process.*

Yeah, like I said, he did it to make more money.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I am advocating for equal protection of the law, every chance i get.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


We already have it.  Everyone who gets laid off can collect unemployment.  Everyone who quits a job cannot.  That's equal.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


of course; he doubled autoworker wages not minimum wage to provide incentive to make more money.  it is called, long run full employment and an economic stimulus to achieve that end.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


that is not equal.  employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, it made economic sense for him to increase wages.
Hiking the minimum wage to $15 does not make economic sense.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You know you really have to get out of the 2 dimensional thinking rut

I am not a democrat nor am I a republican.  I do not belong to the right or the left.
I know that pigeonholing others makes it easier for you to understand the world around you but you're not doing yourself any favors by being so deliberately obtuse

I do not believe in governemnt interference in business that includes bail outs, cronyism or the MW.

WHat you refuse to acknowledge is that you and only you are responsible for how much money you earn.  It is not anyone else's responsibility to pay your bills or wipe your ass which is what you seem to want


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yes the employer offers you a job if you refuse you do not have the right to unemployment compensation if you accept (at will) then you have a righteous claim to collect unemployment as long as you were not fired for cause or if you quit


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


the employer owns the job it is his to offer and for you to either accept or refuse you cannot tell an employer to give you a job.
If you want to own the job then work for yourself


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Ford had very little competition.
And most businesses are not started by the 1% but by people in the middle class

12 Facts About Entrepreneurs That Will Likely Surprise You


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


the "right" wants the war on drugs.  It's the "left" that wants to end it


----------



## dblack (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > People unable to perform labor that is worth at least the new minimum wage won't be allowed to work.
> ...



They should be able to work for whoever will hire them. If they're not harming anyone else, it's none of the government's business what wage they are willing to accept.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yes, it does; it makes the same sense.  only the right, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


you Only seem to the propaganda and rhetoric, of the fantastical, right wing.  corporate welfare is the law of the land.  why balk the most, when it helps the least wealthy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


you are wrong; you have that right since you have not abandoned it.  it is inalienable.  that is why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


why not? especially in "Right to Work States".  is there no, real, right to work in the US?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*yes, it does; it makes the same sense.*

It made sense for Ford to hike wages, it took too much time and money to train new workers.
It doesn't make sense for McDonalds to pay fry cooks $15/hour, that job is so simple, even you could do it.

You see, it's a matter of supply, demand and productivity.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Ford was competing with every other automaker.  Did you know, it is appeals to ignorance that, that cause some on the left, to question the sincerity of the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes, it makes the same sense; to decrease turnover and increase productivity.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to a job


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


It's right after the section on your right to have your condoms paid for by the taxpayer.  You know, in the section written in crayon.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


dear, employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer.  it is simple, theft from the poor so the rich can get richer, faster.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


nothing but diversion while claiming equality for pay purposes in the  non-porn sector, gentlemen?

it is about, equal protection of the law.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Sweety, the employer owns the job.  it is his to give or take away.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Which we have.  You don't have a right to a job, and if you voluntarily leave a job, you don't have the right to force someone else to continue paying you.  It's equal.

I guess we could give you what you want and eliminate UI altogether.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


This is true.  At its core, a job is just a contract between one party that is offering a service and another party that is purchasing it.  When either party wants to stop providing the service or paying for it, the contract is over.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


so what; why so much litigation about for-cause and at-will, if it is so simple?

only the right wing, never gets it.  and, they wonder why it costs so much to do business.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


do you always argue in a vacuum of special pleading?

we have paying paying for War on Poverty for over a generation, with no end in sight.  

we could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis, but for right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


but for unemployment compensation.  

it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.  we could be lowering our tax burden; but, the right may have too high of a moral hurdle to overcome regarding a moral of, "goodwill toward men".


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The bottom line remains, you do not have the Constitutional right to insist on getting paid after you quit a job and all your ranting to the contrary means nothing.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


UI is means tested welfare.  It gives a person who lost his job through no fault of his own something to live on until he gets another one.  If society decides to pay people who are not working (for whatever reason), then society will bear the costs of that decision, whether through higher taxes or higher prices and inflation.  You can't avoid it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it is merely a matter of law.  laws can be changed.  why object to solving simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis; does the fantastical right wing prefer to keep paying for a War on Poverty, forever?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


no, it isn't.  it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment.  There is no means testing as a condition, only employment.

Solving for simple poverty means capitalism will be better not worse.  The right wing Only has fantasy, not any form of solutions.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



exactly, a business should be free to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate with the best products in the entire world. Thats a huge important mission that should not be interfered with by govt.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> no, it isn't.  it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. .



actually we have 4.3% unemployment so it is full employment!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It does not make sense to pay low skilled workers $15/hour.
Their productivity is too low.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



yes, a $15 minimum would make it illegal to hire anyone not worth $15. What a great way to create more unemployment and another liberal scam to correct unemployment.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


It's a matter of terminology.  What you are advocating is quite simply welfare for when you are not working for whatever reason.  That means that a large number of people will decide that they prefer collecting a paycheck but not working a job and society will bear that cost.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


only the right is that naive/disingenuous with more than Ten Commandments on the books.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


not at all; what I am advocating is improving the efficiency of our economy, in favor of the general welfare instead of a private profit motive.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > no, it isn't.  it is a social correction to capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment. .
> ...


only in right wing fantasy does one hundred percent, not equal full employment.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


only the right has no use for Capitalism.  it is about consolidating and re-tooling for greater efficiency, like Henry Ford.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Apparently your understanding of human nature takes second place to your ideology.  Do you seriously think a system in which people get paid whether they work or not will result in most people working?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


so what; if Capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost; how Good can they be.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


how many jobs are there, with a natural rate of unemployment?

why should labor have to overcome that hurdle in Any first world economy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> so what; if Capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost; how Good can they be.



if they are not good then you and other fools like you all over the world would go into business against them and get rich while paying their workers a ton. 2+2=4


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


They make what consumers demand and will pay for.  If consumers demanded higher pay for workers and were willing to pay higher prices to get it, they would meet that demand.  That's not, however, what consumers demand.  Consumers demand the lowest prices possible.  Thus, in order to remain profitable, companies cannot afford to pay workers more than their work is worth.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> how many jobs are there, with a natural rate of unemployment?



we have full employment at 4.3 % so no worries about that.


----------



## hadit (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Good question, here is the answer.  The lower the MW, the more jobs there are.  The higher the MW, the fewer jobs there are.  Proof?  Raise the MW to $100/hr.  Will that eliminate poverty?  Nope.  Will it destroy jobs?  Yup.

What you MEAN to ask, is how many GOOD jobs there are.  That's a completely different proposition.  Good jobs require training and education, and not every applicant has that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> , companies cannot afford to pay workers more than their work is worth.



and lets never forget that a libcommie wants a higher minimum wage and 1001 other interventions in the economy too becuase he lacks the IQ to understand how capitalism works!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2016)

hadit said:


> The lower the MW, the more jobs there are.



yep this is the law of supply and demand. Liberals have never heard of it. It is why there are fewer Rolls Royce's on the road than Fiats!! When the price goes up people can afford less. Believe it or not it has to be explained to a liberal. Can American survive when one Party can literally be described as stupid?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yeah, because profit is bad. DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*
only the right has no use for Capitalism.* 

Only the left totally misunderstands economics.

*it is about consolidating and re-tooling for greater efficiency*

After your mandatory $15 minimum wage, the surviving businesses will be much more efficient.....
after they learn how to exist without $15/hour unskilled labor.

Of course unemployment will be much, much higher.
At least the surviving business owners will make more money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Exactly! Kill all the business owners who pay less than $20/hour, eh comrade?


----------



## dblack (Dec 13, 2016)

Minimum wage is a kind of gentrification - a move to push out the poor, or at least consign them to state dependency.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2016)

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

*same if any price is raised. People cant afford to buy as much.*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



What litigation?
Not too many people who get laid off go to court

I've owned businesses have you?  It seems to me you do not understand the costs involved in running a business not me


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yeah we have the richest poor people on the fucking planet right here
Tell me if people can get paid not to work like you want where will all the money come from to pay them?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



OK so how does a company make a better product at a lower cost when an artificial raise in wages will make everything more expensive to produce?

What you don't understand that if labor costs are raised across the board for all industries that all the raw materials needed to produce products will also go up in price. All the products used by a service business will go up in price. The employers FICA, Wokers' Comp,SUTA and FUTA taxes go up it will cost more to heat and cool the buildings more to have trash removed etc etc

all those cost increases will be passed on to the consumer


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > so what; if Capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor instead of better products at lower cost; how Good can they be.
> ...


the Gravity Payments model is still working.

The Gravity of the $70K Decision


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Unionization is frowned upon, in some circles. 

In any case, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison. 

That is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. 

to privatize costs by having Individuals spend their own money instead of socializing costs via welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > how many jobs are there, with a natural rate of unemployment?
> ...


that is not, full employment.  full employment means wages are outpacing inflation.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



We have a natural rate of unemployment due to capitalism.   Thus, we should be compensating Labor via eminent domain for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

It is more cost effective than means tested welfare for Individuals.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > , companies cannot afford to pay workers more than their work is worth.
> ...


Capitalism Only works because it is constantly bailed out by socialism.  

Raising the minimum wage will have the effect of improving our Standard of living to that extent.  Along with solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > The lower the MW, the more jobs there are.
> ...


some on the left believe in actually solving simple social dilemmas, without making the poor work harder for less, just so the rich can get richer faster.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



profit is good, but a good economy is better.  Derp!


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 14, 2016)

nicoleivy5 said:


> Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We do all realize that the minimum wage is raised on a regular basis...right?

Next raise is Jan 1 for Oregon.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages as a form of competition.  The right is claiming they can't do it, due to excessive corporate welfare and too many tax holidays.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


We have the largest economy in the world and a first world economy.  That costs; only the right wants it cheap.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> Minimum wage is a kind of gentrification - a move to push out the poor, or at least consign them to state dependency.


Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?  Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> *What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?*
> 
> *same if any price is raised. People cant afford to buy as much.*


except people who are making fifteen dollars an hour, minimum.  only the right, never gets it.  one plus one equals two.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


it is a major expense for the employment sector.  for-cause and at-will would not be so litigious, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


simple, a more efficient economy.  we don't need a War on Drugs.  and welfare will not be so expensive if people can go on unemployment compensation instead.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


the simple answer is; all management is not created equal.  some are simply overpaid. Hostess management was one example.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Unintended consequences are not easily predicted, or they would be vetted before changing a policy or activity.  Isn't that obvious?


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Do you know TANF replaced AFDC decades ago?  If you don't know about the differences you have no business discussing the issue of aid, or as you call it, welfare.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




By who's opinion yours and your lazy ass socialist snowflake friends?




.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.




Why can't they save? Oh yea they are liberals, don't know math, economics , finances and who not to vote for... High tax democrats



.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



A simple answer which is a lie of omission, and thus a half-truth.  Left out of the equation are those who still live with a parent, live with a spouse who is the bread winner, and others whose main support is provided for by others.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.
> ...



Food, clothing, shelter and transportation.  Only a callous conservative would ask such a question.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...





Who claims they can't do it?


The question always remains the same...its their money, they live in america the right of freedom, the right to choose.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...




Again I can live on $20 bucks a week in food if I wanted too. Well I hunt and fish




Shelter... Again Chicago 1  bedroom apt $1,000 a red state like SC $400



Soo as you were saying?



.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Sorry Bub but there is no such thing as a free lunch
Where do you think the money will come from to pay all those people like you who want to be unemployed at will?


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.
> ...


The people on minimum wages could eat cake.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



so you want to rename welfare to unemployment and have more people collecting and you think it will cost less

wow


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



I didn't say anything, I wrote something you can't seem to comprehend.  You seem to argue based on both biases and ignorance, and thus are unable or unwilling to consider reality.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...





Bullshit you said food, clothing and shelter...yet you Dont want to mention the elephant's in the room


The poor always  voting for high tax democrats, you guys always want to ignore that.


And it slipped my mind...now they have to pay for health care *before* food, shelter and clothing..besides again any body can save money if they really wanted too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



They are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Less profit = better economy?

No profit (Venezuela) = awesome economy!!!
DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages as a form of competition.*

Voluntarily, because it made sense for his business model.
Raising it, across the board, by government fiat, does not make sense.

*The right is claiming they can't do it,*

It can be done.
It would be stupid.
Obama's 2 terms are proof that stupid things that should not be done sometimes are done.
Even when they make things worse.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



We have the largest economy in the world and a first world economy.

Yup.

*That costs; only the right wants it cheap.*

You have to look at cost versus benefit. Libs never(can't) think that deeply.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.



*So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.*

If it weren't for bad math, liberals would have no math at all.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


It is about Individual Liberty.  Unintended consequences can be handled via the common law.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.


yes, it would. it will increase demand in the long run, since the poor will be spending at the new minimum wage level.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*It is about Individual Liberty.*

The liberty to not work and tax others to support yourself?


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


By forcing jobs to be something they are not, ie, welfare distribution centers, you're introducing unintended consequences, things like inflation and job loss.  If society thinks everyone should have a guaranteed income, than society should provide that income through welfare.  Like I've proposed, let society make up the difference through welfare if jobs don't pay $14/hr.  That's the honest way to do it.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.
> ...


The poor that have jobs, that is.  There would be fewer that actually have jobs at the higher wage.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


the point is, Any means testing is more expensive than employment at will in our at-will employment States.  Only the fantastical right wing, never gets the "fine" point, about economics or the law.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


market based metrics.  

have you lied to your stockholders for your bonus, yet?


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


So why not just eliminate poverty altogether by raising the MW to $100/hr?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


why any welfare at all; if wages should pay more than social services.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the right wing; they are whining about having to have a Capital work ethic and improve efficiency to lower costs to compensate for higher paid labor.  how lazy of them and what a "poor lifestyle choice" since inefficient firms will consolidate at a higher wage equilibrium.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


They pay what the work is worth.  Society arbitrarily sets the level of social services.  Putting the real world market under the control of politics is has been done multiple times and has resulted in a great deal of misery.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Since people on minimum wages, unable to save, spend it all. So, it would be good for business were the wages raised.
> ...


Yes, it is simple economics that when wages are kept low, such as in the United States, the working class do not earn enough to pay much income tax, thus denying revenue for the government, and they have little or no discretionary spending power since the money goes on necessities which means that local businesses in working class areas do not have enough paying customers. (Political Economy 101)


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


money is merely a medium of exchange, not a measure of intrinsic worth. 

Why not solve simple poverty on an at-will basis, so we can move on to other things, than social dilemmas that have been with us, from the Age of Iron.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


improving the efficiency of any economy is not free; there is always some consolidation.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


i love Hostess cupcakes.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


There would be fewer working for slave wages if the minimum wage is higher.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


hung up on semantics instead of actually solving the problem?  how typical of the fantastical, right wing.

never heard of a positive multiplier and growing the size of the pie, either; no wonder, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


i am not your stock holder.  why should i believe you?  why do we have as much unemployment as we do, if scarcity of labor is a cause of inflation.  we are no where near, full employment of resources in the market for labor.  it is special pleading like that, that renders the right wing, literally incredible, about economics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



*it is simple economics that when wages are kept low*

Kept low? Now what evil fellow has the power to do that?

*which means that local businesses in working class areas do not have enough paying customers.*

Do you feel that a small business with $10,000 in extra wage expenses and $10,000 in extra sales sees a net benefit?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it depends on the application; dragons and the one percent are not very good at circulating wealth in any given economy.  

only the right wing never gets it; only capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*i am not your stock holder. why should i believe you?*

You'd like evidence that real wages, that is wages adjusted for inflation, are rising?
Or is evidence not enough to outweigh your preferred anecdotes?

*if scarcity of labor is a cause of inflation.*

Scarcity of labor is a cause of rising wages.
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon....Milton Friedman - Wikiquote


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the point is, That Capitalist, found that capital way.  Why are modern capitalists, not capitalistic enough in modern times?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*it depends on the application;*

The application of profit?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what can the one percent really do with all of their wealth, anyway?  

the ninety-nine percent don't mind getting their hands dirty and circulating wealth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*the point is, That Capitalist, found*

The point is not, That Government, found


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


still the same canard?  i am also advocating for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

There is no reason to hold Labor "hostage" to Capitalism's, bottom line.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*what can the one percent really do with all of their wealth, anyway?* 

What business is it of yours, anyway?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


because you need to solve simple poverty somehow; regardless of any right Right to Work in any right to work States.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Answer the question

Where is the money going to come from to pay people like you who don't want to work unemployment welfare?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the Boss.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


ending our drug war and improving the efficiency of our economy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



The Boss has the power to keep national, hell, global wages, low?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And you think that will be enough to pay lazy shits not to work?

I don't think so

We end the war on drugs and give the money back to the taxpayers in the form of lower rates not to have taxpayers support your lazy ass


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Public policy does that, merely to have the poor work harder so the rich can get richer faster.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


sure; you merely don't understand economics.  only capital has to work not fools or horses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*Public policy does that*

Public policy keeps wages low? How? Why? Please explain further.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



OK let me know when you make your first million collecting welfare


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2016)

nicoleivy5 said:


> Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What if employers raised minimum wage but they did away with social security and Medicare? Would the people save it for retirement?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> nicoleivy5 said:
> 
> 
> > Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> ...



If we did away with SS and medicare everyone could get an instant 15% raise 
If they don't save it for retirement that's there problem not mine


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Having a "work or die" ethic that merely tramples Individual Liberty and natural rights and equality; merely so the rich can get richer faster, is one egregious example.  the right wing probably doesn't even recognize it simply Because, it is not about guns and gun equality.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Hey you don't have to work for anyone else.

You are free to live in a shack and be a subsistence farmer and be 100% self supporting

It's not up to me to pay your bills for you


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


anyone can learn how to invest in the stock market, on unemployment.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And you think what you have left over after you pay for rent, food, utilities and other misc things from your welfare check will allow you to become a millionaire in the stock market?

Wow


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


how well did that work during the Great Depression?  in any case, you make it seem like you are ok with public policy that enables the rich to get richer faster, by letting the poor starve to death.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


the Only problem with EBT cards now, is they can't be used with financial planners.  Only the right, never gets it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You do realize that the rich don't pay into SS don't you?

It is funded on the backs of those making less than 106K a year


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


good for the rich; they appreciate your help getting richer, faster.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Really why use a financial planner I thought you could learn to do it on your own?
And how much will be left a month on your welfare card to invest in the market?

$10?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Hey I don't pay into SS because most of my income comes from business profits and rents

I'm on my payroll for 30K a year and I put most of that into retirement savings so I defer income taxes on it

It's not my fault you can't run your own business


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Health costs are subsidized by Obamacare, in fact the poor received their HC in ER's before the passing of health care reform, which is more costly since early treatment is usually less costly then waiting for a health crisis to develop.

Sure, anybody can safe money, but at what cost?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


depends; i could rent a room with someone and go to school.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


There would be fewer working, period.  The only question is how many fewer.  Obviously, a higher MW kills jobs.  Doubt it?  Set it to $100/hr and ask what would happen.  Now, you CAN have a MW that doesn't kill too many jobs all at once, but you have to keep it low enough that it really doesn't make much of a difference.  We have already lost a lot of low end jobs to higher costs, but as long as the pace is gradual enough, not too many complain.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



"Individual liberty"?  Explain that concept on its actual, real world, meaning.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Do you believe we would eliminate poverty if we set the MW to $100/hr tomorrow?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


it isn't for everyone.  i prefer to grow plants and work at the speed of plants growing.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 14, 2016)

*Q.  What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised 

A.  Nothing draconian, the extra income would be spent within the local community to make life a bit easier for the working poor.  Many are exploited by small retail businesses, which could be subsidized by local government for their extra costs with targeted tax and or fee deferments. *


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


more money being circulated means markets will work more efficiently.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


who cares, if those not employed can opt for unemployment compensation?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


it means, you are no longer a wage slave.  you don't have to work for money; you just have to work if you want to "get rich".


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


no; you still asking that question is why I don't take the right seriously about economics.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Anyone with two functioning brain cells cares, because we're making it harder for the unexperienced and unskilled to get jobs at all.  There was a time when a teenager could get a job at a gas station pumping gas.  Not any more.  Soon they won't be able to get a job flipping burgers at a fast food restaurant.  As we drive the MW higher, we lose the kinds of jobs these kids need to break into the job market.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That's a socialist utopia that doesn't exist.  It's been tried multiple times and it never works.  The truth is that individual liberty means you are free to be responsible for yourself and to take the consequences of your choices.  If you don't want to work, you don't, but you also don't expect to force someone else to work to support you.  That's a real wage slave.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Than you are acknowledging that a higher MW costs jobs.  The only question is how many and who gets hurt the most.

The ones who get hurt the most are the ones who need the low end jobs that are killed by the higher MW.  You're hurting the very ones you claim you want to help.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


reading comprehension not your strong suit?

who cares, if those not employed can opt for unemployment compensation?

they won't need to care about a job until they are ready for one.  it really is that simple.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


a work or die ethic is unnecessary in modern, corporate welfare times.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


solving simple poverty means we should be growing the size of the pie by circulating capital.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Wages are kept low by employers who see wages as a factor of production that is a cost against their profits.
American workers deserve more than slave wages whereas corporations like  ExxonMobil, for example, by paying living wages put more buying power into the families of working people who can then buy from the small businesses you ask about. (Economics 101)


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Politicians who care more about their working class families than corporation executive salaries and stockholders dividends will make a minimum wage a living wage by law.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Apparently, you're not reading things very well.  Everyone with two functioning brain cells cares very much that society not be saddled with the burden of supporting able bodied people perfectly capable of performing a useful job but who decide not to do so.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


No, they will not, and here is why.

1.  They do hear from economists, and know that a MW raised that high that fast would kill the economy.
2.  ANY MW that's supposed to be a "living wage" will end up simply chasing an ideal that can never be reached.  First, jacking the MW increases inflation and within a short period of time erases any benefit.  Secondly, those who got big raises and didn't lose their jobs and those who benefit politically from their votes will, in VERY short order, decide that whatever they set the MW to just isn't enough, and will insist on raising it yet again.
3.  There is a significant number of people who would like to work and who would benefit from working, but don't need to be paid a lot to do so.  Jacking the MW too high simply prices them out of the market, leaving them unemployed.  You graduated from high school and want to start working?  Great, just wait a few years until something opens up or enough experienced workers die to give you a spot.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And of course you want us to pay your tuition


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


yeah slow and lazy

Which is why you want everyone else who isn't slow and lazy to support you


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*Having a "work or die" ethic that merely tramples Individual Liberty and natural rights and equality;*

Having a "sit at home on your ass and collect a paycheck" hasn't worked out too well.
The left wing probably doesn't even recognize it simply because they don't care about results.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Yea they taste better non union made


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



*Wages are kept low by employers*

Why do you feel they have the power to do that?
Is there an Employers Union I haven't heard about?

*who see wages as a factor of production that is a cost against their profits.*

Only because IT IS A COST AGAINST THEIR PROFITS.
What do you see wages as, if not that?

You never answered my question:
Do you feel that a small business with $10,000 in extra wage expenses and $10,000 in extra sales sees a net benefit?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*The government can set the legal amount for a living wage.*

Yes, the government can do lots of stupid things. Doesn't mean they should though.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Dude, you're harshing his buzz.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

hadit said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Economists did not see the crash coming and cannot be trusted with predictions.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I did answer your question by suggesting that small businesses will benefit when working class people have more money to spend.
Employers do control wages and in a country where people fear for their jobs, wages will be low. Wages are more than a factor of production because they represent the living people can make. People before profit and when American workers are treated right, our own people will not have to be in sweatshops like those in Bangladesh, Vietnam, The Northern Marianas, and so on. American workers deserve better than that.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot when the electorate are informed and when they have a broad choice for whom to vote.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 14, 2016)

i gotta love all this ...

The goal of an employer is to pay you $1 for a million dollars worth of work.
The goal of an employee is to get a million dollars for $1 worth of work

They are both going to be disappointed.

IF I am supposed to ensure that I pay you a living wage, you have to be worth a living wage. If you want a living wage, make yourself worth it.

Our country is built on self improvement and self determination. YOU determine your value, I don't.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> i gotta love all this ...
> 
> The goal of an employer is to pay you $1 for a million dollars worth of work.
> The goal of an employee is to get a million dollars for $1 worth of work
> ...


Your understanding of economics is void of ethics.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > i gotta love all this ...
> ...



Is this where I get the "... thy brother's keeper ... " speech?

i have a responsibility to my stockholders. Economics has no ethics.


----------



## dblack (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Minimum wage is a kind of gentrification - a move to push out the poor, or at least consign them to state dependency.
> ...



Right. So it won't matter if prices are higher because people will have more money to spend? Do you not see the tail-chasing there?


----------



## dblack (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > i gotta love all this ...
> ...



And yours void of understanding.

The thing is, we need both to make things better.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 14, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Perhaps in America there is no place for ethics among the business class. You might be right there.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?  Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?



McDonalds is already switching to Kiosks, robots(Pepper)  and Ipads so higher wages will mean  fewer jobs and less income for poor people and less demand in economy. Econ 101


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > *What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?*
> ...


they make $15 and those who lose their jobs because they are not worth $15 are poorer so no net benefit is possible for stupid Lib marxist intervention. IF you want higher wages you must encourage new inventions. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 14, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> a work or die ethic is unnecessary in modern, corporate welfare times.



its unnecessary only if you don't mind paying for a guy to loaf around while you work to support him!


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...




You think there is 'somewhere' that there is???

You are so seriously deluded.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


*
I did answer your question by suggesting that small businesses will benefit when working class people have more money to spend.*

How do they benefit if they have $10,000 in extra wage expenses and $10,000 in extra sales?
*
Employers do control wages*

How old were you when you failed ECON 101 the first time?

*Wages are more than a factor of production*

When that cost is too high, it's a factor of going out of business.

*People before profit*

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


*
Governments who do not look after the rights and aspirations of the working people can be given the boot*

And when the government does lots of stupid things, working people get hurt.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Yes, where I live in the European Union, ethics and a sense of fairness underpins legislation for decent wages and working conditions.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


actually some did but they were laughed at by the government "experts"


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


only the right, never gets it.  Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


you are already paying for a War on Poverty.  Why not actually solve simple poverty.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yet, we have a War on Drugs that the right, also prefers to pay for instead of higher wages.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


why equate slow with lazy?  the right wing is slow and lazy regarding reading comprehension.  

and, you are going to pay for it one way or the other; is capitalism just too difficult for the right and they prefer the simplicity of socialism and Ten simple Commandments.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> i gotta love all this ...
> 
> The goal of an employer is to pay you $1 for a million dollars worth of work.
> The goal of an employee is to get a million dollars for $1 worth of work
> ...


market based inputs determine value.  we have Government which contributes to those inputs.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


inflation happens anyway. or, is the right willing to sacrifice any pay increase, merely so prices won't go up.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Why is that, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?  Doesn't that mean, the working poor will have more money to spend, to create more demand, in the long run?
> ...


unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves that simple problem, dear.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


that is why we need to correct for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  do you now understand, dear?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > a work or die ethic is unnecessary in modern, corporate welfare times.
> ...


you do that anyway; why not do Your job better and not worry about others, unless you are getting paid for it dear.  don't be so socialist when you claim to subscribe to Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


like how?  better safety regulations?


----------



## dblack (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You're dodging the obvious contradiction in your argument. 

I don't know what 'the right' wants. I'm opposed to authoritarian government dictating wages.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


even minimum wages?  no one is claiming the rich cannot get richer, as fast as they want.  we merely need standards and better government to avoid the problems true forms of capitalism have.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So me paying for you solves poverty?

You know what else solves poverty?

Working


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


And we should end the failed war on drugs but not to give the money to lazy fucks like you but to lower the tax rate so people who do work can keep more of their own money


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The people who get laid off because of automation will get unemployment

You won't because you never had a job


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


It is common sense that rapidly and drastically increasing the MW costs jobs.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Perhaps if you moved into the 21st century, you would understand more.  We don't use horses like we used to.  You don't want to work?  You don't have to, just don't expect everyone else to pay your bills.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


you can quit if you don't like paying taxes.  there are plenty of others who won't mind doing your job.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


ending the drug war lowers our tax burden.  only the right, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


shouldn't matter.  employment at will, is just that; no automated car required.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


only low end jobs.  unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed can solve that problem.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



Why presume fewer would be working?  

Why presume raising the minimum wage would be inflationary?

Those who are not employed and have been displaced can receive UE, but not for ever.  They must provide evidence that they are looking for a job, and the period of time under which UE insurance lasts can expire before a displaced person, especially in a slow economy, or worse, a recession. can secure employment. 

Even when the do, the likelihood in such an economy is that they will make less and have fewer, if any, benefits.  The consequences impact communities for decades (See:  Roger and Me, here for a graphic example)

Roger & Me (1989) - Plot Summary - IMDb

BTW, simple explanations and simple solutions to the issue of MW & UE Insurance, _Welfrare _and other aspects of the economy are based on ignorance and biases, promulgated by the power elite who benefit by those who suffer and, or, exploited.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


i don't expect anyone to pay my bills but me.  all it takes is an income.  we have laws.  why be illegal to our own laws and claim you are not really like that, afterward.

anyway, if you don't like it, you can always suggest your employer hire more people, so they won't be on unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it may not be as inflationary as some claim, if anyone can quit and collect unemployment.  employment is at will.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Says the person who wants to collect money for not working

And I pay my taxes every quarter and I;ll guarantee I pay more in taxes annually than you make in 2 years
If we are going to end the war on drugs then the people who pay taxes should get some of that money back.  it shouldn't be given to lazy fucks who refuse to work


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



automated car?

Do you even know what thread you're in?

You only can get unemployment if you had a job and you lost it by no fault of your own

That's how it will always be so you better learn to accept it


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



A person who quits a job is not eligible for UE insurance, they must be displaced by their employer, and not for cause (i.e. fired).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism, not fools or horses.*

Da comrade!


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Congratulations, you have unintentionally stumbled on a harsh reality about the MW.  Raising it hurts the very people it is supposed to help, by destroying the low end jobs they need to get on the first rung of the job market.  See, low end jobs are not intended to be long term.  You are supposed to get in, get some experience and skills, then get raises and promotions to better jobs or leave to get a better one.  Quite frankly, if you are still doing the same MW job after a few years, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



Is it tough for you to get your weed?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Dude, don't bogart that joint.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


He's trying to change the meaning of unemployment compensation to cover welfare, and refuses to budge from that position.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



Like the minimum wage. Like the "ACA".


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I have to wonder what reality in which you reside.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > There's a rather simple answer to this.
> ...



Explaining basic economics to a Libtard is like explaining the designated hitter rule to a pig.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


What part of what I said do you not think reflects reality?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The reality where a low-skilled job doesn't pay enough to buy a home and raise 4 kids in the suburbs.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

Cellblock2429 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


Yeah, it doesn't accomplish anything and annoys the pig.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


no one is making you work.  i don't make policy, or we would have a better economy.  why do you care if someone has to work for a living or not; do you also care how much someone else makes?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


i would rather accept the law.  the law is employment at will.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


why insist the poor have to work when there are no jobs and the rich can simply "steal from them" through unequal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


capitalism at its finest.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


only lousy implementation does that.  low wages merely means more taxes for social services; only the right, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not really.  i prefer to just grow it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Works better than your Marxism.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


i am not trying to change the meaning of employment at will.  i am simply advocating for equal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


just lousy implementation; those services are purchased on the open market.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Lousy ideas, lousy implementation, lousy results.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


choice is marxism?  how do you figure, comrade?  only the right is a bunch of communists and don't know it; the left is trying to be better poets, and know it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


we have the largest economy in the world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Despite Obama holding us back.
Despite liberals and their lousy ideas.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*choice is Marxism?*

No. Your silly Marxist ideas are Marxism.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


And there are no jobs because the MW has priced many of them out of existence?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No no one makes anyone work and IDGAF what other people make as long as they support themselves and do not expect others to support them while they lounge around on their lazy asses all day


People with integrity pay their own way and don't want to leech off of others to live


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You mean to say, as I have said many times, that the only way a MW is sustainable is if you keep it low enough to not really matter.  If the market price for a job is $10/hr, setting the MW at $9/hr doesn't effect it much.  What it DOES do, though, is allow those who don't have much experience to get into the job and pick up some skills so they can justify the higher pay.  You would take that away from them.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


despite the right having nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


equal protection of the law is Marxism to the fantastical, right wing?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



you need to learn the legal definition of at will employment.  It doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid

Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com

_Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read--in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook--that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination._


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


For now.  China will soon have that distinction.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


the minimum wage is more sustainable when it competes favorably with the cost of social services.  thus, fifteen dollars an hour.  anything less, merely subsidizes the rich.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


employment is at the will of either party.  it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing. How Marxist of them.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


only lousy management will help it happen.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Evidence, beyond your fevered imagination?


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No, China has the advantage of a dominant government that can force a billion or more people to work for very low wages.  The American consumers are responsible for manufacturing being shipped overseas because they demand the lowest price for goods.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


you mean, it is not, self-evident to the right?  a minimum wage needs to compete favorably with the cost of social services, or people will simply resort to social services.  low wages only helps the rich get richer faster, not improve our economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


yup; just lousy management.  we need to excise the difference in wages from US firms expatriating jobs. once that, equalization, occurs, US firms may not need to leave the US for cheap labor, if they can gain from increases in productivity in the US, instead.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




You just can't make shit up.  I gave you the LEGAL definition of at will employment if you want to make shit up you can't call anyone else fantastical


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




For the millionth time who came up with the number $14 Buck's an hour?


Its worth $7 bucks an hour in new York city..

Compared to Alabama.


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


it is not a legal definition since it does not apply, equal protection of the law.  it is a natural right to exercise your individual liberty, in pursuit of your individual civil liberty.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Many actually do just that and refuse to work because they can get more from welfare.  But here's where the wheels fall off your tricycle.  You have not addressed the purpose of MW jobs.  They are NOT supposed to support a family of four, or even one in a comfortable fashion.  They ARE, however, supposed to be vehicles where companies can get some things done that don't require a lot of training or experience to do, and for individuals to break into the job market.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


the cost of social services on average.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Which you already have.  You are perfectly free to pursue a career, work a job, or do nothing.  What you DON'T have is the right to force someone else to support you if you decide not to work, and you should never have that right.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


mw jobs are entry level.  that is not the point.  everybody has to start somewhere.  

the point is about equal protection of the law.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Again here you go making up laws



If you don't want to work that's fine but you'll not get your lifestyle paid for by the taxpayers

so move to the woods and forage for nuts and berries


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


If you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the oven, on average you're fine.  IOW, the cost of social services varies from region to region and so should any MW.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


It is exactly the point.  You have equal protection under the law.  You are free to work or not work, it's up to you.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


yes, we do.  capitalism is public policy.  capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  eminent domain applies.  

in any case, it is paid for through tax monies; you are not paying anyone's wages.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



repeating the same shit over and over again doesn't make it true

If you don't work you do get equal protection under the law toy just don't get paid


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



why?  would the private sector be worse off?  improving our Standard of living is what we will be accomplishing.  no need to "leave the South, behind."


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


yes, and so should unemployment compensation.  if you don't like it, hire people.  it really is that simple, so you can stop whining now and starting doing.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


that is going to change.  why do you care if someone works if you don't care how much they make?  

just the fantastical right wing, being cognitively dissonant, as usual.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I don't care if they work or don't as long as they don't expect working people to pay for their shit

If you don't want to work then go find a spot in a national forest, build a shelter from sticks, rocks and leaves, collect firewood,trap mice and squirrels to eat and be 100% self supporting

If you don't want to do that then get a fucking job and earn enough to pay for your chosen lifestyle


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Do try to be less selfish. There are many people who cannot work because they live in economically depressed areas of the country where industry has collapsed. There are also people who have major handicaps such as wounded soldiers back from fighting in the Middle East who cannot work and others of their comrades who suffer from stress and are unable to hold down a job. People who were born with congenital handicaps and debilitating conditions such as cerebral palsy. Then there are single parents who cannot afford child care should the go to work. The elderly who have worked all they lives and whose retirement funds were lost in the banking crash of 2008 may be too frail to work. These people are all your fellow Americans and are worthy of your concern and government help.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Actually it is employer and commercial TV propaganda who care only about their own profits.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Your philosophy is both callous and out-of-touch with reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Unemployed people do have equal protection of the law in relation to employed people. DERP!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



This moron posting doesn't have a handicap 
Soldiers are eligible for disability and SS

This guy wants to choose not to work and collect unemployment.

And I don't care where you live there is always some kind of work to be had


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Thus, it is welfare.  If you acknowledge that, you will at least be honest in saying what you want is a guaranteed income and that it's not business' responsibility to provide it.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


So you're okay with welfare providing some people a middle class lifestyle, even if they refuse to work?  That's unsustainable.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


Okay, here's reality.  Employers care about their profits, employees care about their paychecks and getting raises.  Employers want to pay as little as possible for as much work as possible, and employees want to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible.  Now, how many new employees can a company hire and pay without profits?


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Exactly where?  Can you give me an example of a MW job that is intended for someone to do for a lifetime?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...






Still Dont have a clue about profit margins and over 80% of the company's are small business own do you


And for the billionth time who sets the welfare number?



.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> _An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason._



this is good since it gives management control over the management of the company and who knows more about what is best for the company than the management. THe govt monopolist bureaucrats? Govt has no expertise, and no interest since the slub who got fired is no better or worse than the new hire who gets a new job that he badly needs.

If management fires the wrong people the company goes bankrupt! This is the beauty of Republican capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant, with Any natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no, they don't. derp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You don't even know what "natural rate of unemployment" means, do you?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it is you who is stuck on semantics; it is called, a solution.  no one is asking business to do any other than hire people instead of  whining about taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



What protections do they lack? Be specific.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


If they refuse to work, it means more jobs for the rest of us.  only the right, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


doesn't matter; UI taxes are too expensive and don't do enough.  we could be lowering our tax burde.

and, why do you care if you don't have independent estimate.  just slacking?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > _An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason._
> ...


unless they are too big to fail; then, they lie about it and fire the "little guys".


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Businesses hire people to do work.  If they don't need any more people, they don't hire any more.  If they have work to be done that is only worth $7/hr, they're not going to pay $15/hr to get it done.  Be honest and say you want a guaranteed income and you want to force businesses to provide it so you can pretend it's not welfare.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


We already have a very anemic labor participation rate and a very, very large debt.  We don't need a bunch more people converted from producers into consumers.  And, you failed to deal with the question, are you okay with welfare giving some people a middle class lifestyle while giving others the lowest of the lower classes?  Doesn't that violate your little "equal protection under the law" faux mantra?


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...




LOL !!!!

Obviously, you don't deal with the same EU companies that I do. Cheating, lies, and bribes are the usual way of business.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


A company in financial difficulty reduces costs where possible.  If they got rid of management, there would be no company left.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Maybe you can explain to all of us uninitiated you propose to eliminate poverty. 

This is going to be real interesting ... and revealing.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...




Guess we can tell which side of that conflict you fight for.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Sure does ... but at what cost?


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It also decreases the worker pool, kills children, ruins families, increases medical costs, drives up social rescue costs, and destroys economies. 

Pay me now or pay me later.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...




... and it's your position that it should?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


i am being honest; social services cost money and the right likes to whine about taxes.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


you are the one claiming people won't want to work if they can opt for unemployment compensation.  That means, more jobs available for those who want to work.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


why not; they could hire management from the Third World, to save money.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


there are no unintended consequences, other than a more efficient economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Individual Liberty and natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


a rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


no, it doesn't; alcohol proved it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


no; that is just right wing canards since they have no actual arguments.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




That's where you are wrong ... the right (that's me!) don't whine about taxes. We recognize the need for taxes, and we pay taxes. We whine about people who don't contribute, people who abuse the system, and people who make no effort to improve themselves, and take responsibility for themselves.

If you can show me how my taxes give them the opportunity to improve their lives AND they are taking advantage of it, I'll happily deliver my taxes by hand. Until then, as long as I see freeloaders and deadbeats using my tax dollars to avoid their responsibilities, I'll bitch and moan until somebody listens.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



When I went to school, they called that "circular logic" ... now, we just call it "really fucking stupid".


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


only the right never gets it; Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is only natural to capitalism.  a more efficient economy is what we will get, by making capital work instead of fools or horses.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I call it having nothing but diversion.  There is no circular logic with full employment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No, it's the silly Marxist's position.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Actually, comparing alcohol addiction to opoid addiction is like comparing slingshots to bazookas. You need to do your research. (Particularly, at the impact on actual brain structural changes as a result of the two addictions).

Further, the societal and financial impacts of drug addiction are catastrophic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment*

Give us the definition.
*
is only natural to capitalism*

Socialism's rate of unemployment is better? LOL!


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




LOL --- sometimes ya gotta love their logic ... well, if they had any.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



He's throwing around the Marxist catch phrases he learned before he dropped out to grow weed.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Is he smoking his profits? Is that why he's in favor of government handouts?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


alcohol is worse; it can kill upon overdose and can kill when trying to quit, once addicted.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


socialism eliminated capitalism's, boom and bust cycle.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

just the right wing having nothing but fantasy instead of good arguments; even without weed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You bet.

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


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Seriously? 

Are you really that misguided, that misinformed? No wonder they have such a drug problem in Europe.

In the US, approximately 6 people a day die from alcohol - that's about 1900 a year. Last year, 30,000 people died from opiod abuse. Which one is worse again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> just the right wing having nothing but fantasy instead of good arguments; even without weed.



*
*
Give us your definition of "natural rate of unemployment".


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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

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


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...





This kid really thinks there is a money tree.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


just making up figures?

_

Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2010 were estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink.--https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
_
Alcohol does that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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

Yes we do. We don't force the mentally ill into institutions anymore.
What does that have to do with capitalism?

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

Shouldn't a command economy be able to provide toilet paper?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > just the right wing having nothing but fantasy instead of good arguments; even without weed.
> ...


unemployment that is meant to help the bottom line, not Persons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



He read about it....in his Marxist economics class.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




They have homeless and working poor in New Zealand and they make $15 plus an hour..


Your spinning your wheels kid you have no clue what wealth really is.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




We know that.


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


i think the rich have not enough use for their money and should be Taxed into Heaven.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



What is this "finest capital economy in the world"?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "command economy" and "command economize". Can you restate your thought?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not all homeless have mental problems, only capital problems that can easily be solved on an at-will basis.

yes, it should; only bad management prevents it.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I don't mind that ... I just want to make sure he doesn't think it grows in MY backyard.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


working poor and homeless are two different things. 

it only takes an income.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the US.  and command economies should be able to command economize their economies; that is the command part.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




Another thing you have not a clue about..they Dont get a pay check and we know to bad you would never see a dime of it if they were...


Hey danny boy how much of the 8 trillion dollars that Obama spent went into your back pocket?


Lol

.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


nothing but propaganda and diversion by fiat?  how credible is that.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Your figures are misleading .... it assumes that alcohol was the primary contributing factor to all deaths in which alcohol was a factor. 1,900 people died of alcohol poisoning ... 30,000 died from opioid poisoning. THOSE are the facts.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Same thing in New Zealand..


You should read up on it I already know all about it and posted the situation in New Zealand here a few times


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Again fool its the same thing how much would you get if the rich were taxed to high heaven..the answer is zero..


You just want the satisfaction of the government stealing their money, nothing more nothing less.



.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Sorry --- the two are diametrically opposed.

A command economy is an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by a government.

The US is a capital economy .... the government does NOT control production, investment prices, and incomes.

I'm not sure I understand why you think the US economy should be able to control these things. In fact, I know I don't understand your logic.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


those are CDC numbers; where are you getting yours from?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




You fucking hate people busting their ass working 100 hours a week and making money..


Because you don't want to do it.

Its to hard for you, you would rather smoke pot and jack off ...


.


Am I right?


Of course I am.


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


doesn't matter.  it would in New Zealand as well as long as they subscribe to the concept of employment at will.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


a lack of equal protection of the law is stealing.  only the right, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I only believe, fools and horses should Have to work.  that is all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*not all homeless have mental problems,*

Most do.

*only capital problems that can easily be solved on an at-will basis.*

You should give them your capital, you heartless bastard!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*a lack of equal protection of the law*

Workers and non-workers have the same protections.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




Got it. So,you want something you haven't earned, and have no intention of working for, simply because you're breathing, right? And, in order to get your deserved award, you're willing to steal it - with government permission - from someone who did earn it, right?

Got any idea just how egotistical that sounds?


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Hell, I'd rather smoke pot and jack off, too.

But, I've got to go to work.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


In civilized countries, ethical employers care about more than profits and workers care about providing for their families.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

hadit said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


In many economically depressed areas the only available jobs offer slave worker wages.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


You write calumnies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



*In civilized countries, ethical employers care about more than profits and workers care about providing for their families.*

Like Venezuela?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


a natural rate of unemployment is just as effective as any mental health problem.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


no, they don't.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


only to the right wing.  to the left, it is called actually solving our problems.  or, do you prefer to pay for a War on Poverty, forever?


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




Well, since I've dealt with them, the truth is the truth .... either you are oblivious, or you are intentionally misleading the readers.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


just lousy management.  South Africa fell in three years with Capitalism.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I thought I was clear ... I have no desire to fight a War on Poverty - but the answer isn't to give everybody something they haven't earned at the expense of others.

A hand up? Sure.

A handout? No way.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Only the right never gets it; who "earned" capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment?


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



What the hell is the "... natural rate of unemployment ... "?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


the reason no one takes the right seriously about economics.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Well, except for the fact, that it is the right that drives the economy ... the left lives off it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


you wish.  the right can't make enough to keep our economy going.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


As if you know about Venezuela. The U.S. government wanted the Venezuelan government to fall and all the American press and TV duly followed the lead to poison the minds of the American people about that country. Does having no clue about what is happening in the United States make a person an expert on Venezuela, I wonder.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


socialism needs good management for free.  now we know the problem.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


There is nothing truthful about what you write either about the European Union or your own country.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


all the right wing really has, is just, right wing fantasy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I agree, you should seek treatment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



List the extra protections workers have compared to the unemployed.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 15, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Narcissistic/lazy/entitlement junkies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



*South Africa fell in three years with Capitalism.*

When did that happen? Give me the dates.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


i am; it is called, equal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


it is called, actually solving a problem, not just paying for one on a generational basis.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


*
As if you know about Venezuela.*

Are their companies making profits? Why/Why not?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


when they were embargoed for not, "towing the diversification line".  they were "taught a lesson".


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


lousy management.  they should have full shelves with any form of work ethic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



When did that happen? Give me the dates.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




OK two quick questions ( I don't know why I bother you never answer them)

OK...so how do you collect unemployment?


Who pays for unemployment?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


*
lousy management.*

Socialism leads to lousy management? How is that possible?
*
they should have full shelves with any form of work ethic.*

Socialists have no work ethic?


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The bottom fell out of the oil market and Venezuela lost its source of wealth.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it should be a State fund and a general tax instead of our current and extra-lawful, regime.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


lousy management leads to lousy socialism.  it really is that simple.  aren't you glad, our Founding Fathers did such an excellent job.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Fail..what are you 12?


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...


a lack of diversification?  why no agricultural engineering when they had the oil revenue?


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You write like someone who does not have a passport, never mind actually visiting or living in a socialist country.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


how is it a fail; are you twelve and have no argument?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Yup they had slaves and refused women the right to vote..


Damn kind of real sexist and racist of you...


Showing your true colors again


.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Like the rest of the world, no-one anticipated the crash of 2008. Of course the Venezuelan government should have diversified more.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




I am 51 dumb ass..

Let's recap

You Dont know about:

Economics

Profit margins

50% of U.S. workers make $15 or less an hour

Over 80% of business are small 

And now Unemployment is paid strictly by by the employer...



What else Dont you know commie kid?



.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


propaganda and rhetoric is all they really have; some on the left think it is just, fantastical.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Henry Ford knew better.  Why are modern capitalists, such slackers?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...




We caused the crash and Bush Jr warned Harry Reid ...


.


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 15, 2016)

Liberals have just found out the truth.....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


a lie of course Henry Ford raised wages to save on labor costs by cutting turnover and thus saving training costs. You have low character. You have learned this 27 times but a lie is good enough for the likes of you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> Liberals have just found out the truth.....



and the robot and kiosk industry which take orders that are now taken by low wage workers!!! How stupid can liberals be?


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Investment bankers on Wall Street and their counterparts in Europe caused the crash. Things were made worse when the governments saved the bankers by assuming their debt and putting it onto their citizens.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*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.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*You write like someone who does not have a passport*

I'll bet you say that to everyone who points out your idiocy.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



*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.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Although it is a good line and probably true, congratulations on being the only one I applied it to. You see, you do write like someone who has never been outside of the United States.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 15, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Henry ford new better?, correct he fought tooth and nail against the Unions until he finnaly gave in 1941


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



*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?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



Come on, billions of people world-wide are smarter than you. You don't set a very high bar.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Just because there is no poverty in the United States where everyone has health care, jobs, homes, and a high standard of living does not mean it is right to criticize foreigners.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You don't get it. I can only provide the argument but I cannot give you the understanding.


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 15, 2016)

They are finding out what happens in Seattle.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



*Just because there is no poverty in the United States*

Non-sequitur much? DERP!

*does not mean it is right to criticize foreigners*

It is right to criticize stupid, socialist foreigners.
Don't feel singled out, I also criticize stupid, socialist Americans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



*I can only provide the argument*

I'm still waiting for you to provide a good argument.
Come on Sparky, you can do it!!!


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 15, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Your delusion is only exceeded by your inability to acknowledge reality.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 15, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> 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.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 15, 2016)

If minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be well over $16 an hour.  Why is it that only the minimum wage workers should lose spending power when inflation hits?  We had a better economy when minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.  The problem is the top tax rate has gone down, but it's also affecting those of lower incomes.  When JFK had his tax break, it was to the middle class and actually did result in bettering our economy.

Put the money in the hands of the people who spend it and our economy will improve.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

Againsheila said:


> If minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be well over $16 an hour.  Why is it that only the minimum wage workers should lose spending power when inflation hits?  We had a better economy when minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.  The problem is the top tax rate has gone down, but it's also affecting those of lower incomes.  When JFK had his tax break, it was to the middle class and actually did result in bettering our economy.
> 
> Put the money in the hands of the people who spend it and our economy will improve.



*If minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be well over $16 an hour.*

From what date? Based on what inflation index? Can you prove your claim?

*When JFK had his tax break, it was to the middle class*

Cutting the top rate from 91% to 70% was a cut for the middle class?
How many middle class people were paying 91%?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 16, 2016)

nicoleivy5 said:


> Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The British economy introduced minimum wage in 1997, and the economy rose year on year for 11 years.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> The British economy introduced minimum wage in 1997, and the economy rose year on year for 11 years.



So Britain had a growing economy, like virtually every single country on earth. What's the correlation with minimum wage?


----------



## Onyx (Dec 16, 2016)

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


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 16, 2016)

Onyx said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The British economy introduced minimum wage in 1997, and the economy rose year on year for 11 years.
> ...



Well often the argument is that minimum wage destroys an economy. Does it? Doesn't seem to.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 16, 2016)

Onyx said:


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



Like when Trump gets his VP to pay $8,500 per worker to stay in the USA?


----------



## Eloy (Dec 16, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Oh! Brother. Give us a break.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


the only lie, is how the right claims they are not that capable.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


a better ratio of capitalism to socialism?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


He doubled wages, first.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


diversification is important.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



Diversify away from socialist failure.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> They are finding out what happens in Seattle.....


Privatizing costs instead of socializing costs?  Only the right, never gets it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Eloy said:
> ...



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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Againsheila said:


> If minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be well over $16 an hour.  Why is it that only the minimum wage workers should lose spending power when inflation hits?  We had a better economy when minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.  The problem is the top tax rate has gone down, but it's also affecting those of lower incomes.  When JFK had his tax break, it was to the middle class and actually did result in bettering our economy.
> 
> Put the money in the hands of the people who spend it and our economy will improve.


It may be too simple and too populist for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Onyx said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The British economy introduced minimum wage in 1997, and the economy rose year on year for 11 years.
> ...


upward pressure on wages.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Onyx said:


> 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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Only the fantastical right wing, believes that.


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

Againsheila said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.
> ...


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.


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


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


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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


how did that work for the US, during WWII?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*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.


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


They can.  It's called welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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.


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Onyx said:
> ...


should we, "blame the right"?


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You tell me.  Who messes with the tax code?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*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 (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*
general welfare*

Which does not mean handouts for stoners.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*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 (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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

But it can exclude unearned and undeserved unemployment benefits.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*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 (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*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 (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Dude!


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



DUDE!


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


thanks for ceding the point, so we can move on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I agree, you're a clown with no understanding of economics.
Or law. Or rights. Or incentives.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude; this is an example of why no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

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

can you explain how that will not happen; ceteris paribus?


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Taking money from productive members of society, to hand to stoners to spend, will not increase our economic output.


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Would you demand that Donald Trump get welfare benefits?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


only the right, never gets it.  money does not determine any form of social worth.  

only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*money does not determine any form of social worth.* 

You bet. And members of society have no inherent, unearned right to unemployment payments.

*only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism.*

Wrong. If you want a paycheck, you need to work.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it is earned simply by being unemployed on an at-wil basis in any at-will employment State.  why does the right condone trampling natural rights and Individual Liberty; and claim they are not really like that, when it is about guns?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*it is earned simply by being unemployed*

BZZZZZT.....so sorry, thanks for playing.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


employment is at will.  only the right, never gets it.

do you prefer crony capitalism over equal protection of the law?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I just looked at the Bill of Rights, no mention of unemployment checks.
Where are you getting your info? Link?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


equal protection of the law is part of Due Process.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 16, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I do not think it is as much a shortage of 'skilled labor' as much as those with skills will not give away the talents that they already own to dickheads. Corporatism of allowing top board and ceo's to make multiple millions per year  for doing nothing more than figuring out ways how to fuck someone else out of their money has the top ready to topple.

What most people that work for someone else do not realize is that when their paycheck goes up so goes the employers cost in taxes, insurance, etc...

What most managers do not understand is decent people that know what their labor is worth will tell them to go fuck themselves if they want that person to sign some bs contract that demands total loyalty for some shitty lil job.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

RodISHI said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


only wage slaves should have to do that.  we have laws regarding employment at will; why be unequal in their application regarding the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So no link? No proof? Thanks for admitting your error.


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Depending on which state one lives and works in in many cases state agencies that are suppose to protect the workers obviously are not always doing their jobs in protecting workers. I know hard to fathom but that is the way it is. 

Personally I rarely worked for someone else over the years but those few experiences and knowing family and friends that do work for others and owning several businesses (small and mid size) over the years kind of puts those things into perspective. Corporatism and cronyism puts people into positions where they are clueless and then they wonder how things get f'd up.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 16, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Jobs would be cut, investment diminished.
> ...



Spoken like a minimum wage worker who doesn't know a thing about business


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


equal protection of the law is about Due Process.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, your lack of proof is noted.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


your ignorance of the law is duly noted.  

why do you believe, equal protection of the law is not a part of Due Process?


----------



## RodISHI (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You are either very young, naive or very inexperienced; I am unsure which is the case. Generally most attorneys out there working for the general public are chickenshits unwilling to actually standup in court for their clients as they do not wanna piss off the judges whom are generally pretty corrupt themselves. That is what happens when the standards are lowered by colleges in order to bolster their own bank accounts and student enrollment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, your inability to post the law which states you deserve unemployment payments is noted.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


This comment is inane.


----------



## Eloy (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Noted by whom?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So is socialism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

Eloy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Me and all other non-socialists
Socialists and stoners still have no clue.


----------



## hadit (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

Minimum wage: 

1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raises  prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Like when Trump gets his VP to pay $8,500 per worker to stay in the USA?



Well that wasn't exactly wage. Overpaying and underpaying workers are both dangerous.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 16, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> why do you believe that?



Because it's true.



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



Your point?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 16, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Minimum wage:
> 
> 1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
> 2) raises  prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
> ...


*
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.
*
_In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/mi...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf
_
3 million workers is less than 2% of the labor force, not 42%.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Minimum wage:
> ...



I guess I was thinking of the $15 MW campaign. If raised to that  42% of work force would be covered


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 16, 2016)

Onyx said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Like when Trump gets his VP to pay $8,500 per worker to stay in the USA?
> ...



A rose by any other name.....


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 16, 2016)

hadit said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

RodISHI said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



ignorance of the law excuses no one.

_The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government._--Franklin D. Roosevelt


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


there is no basis to deny unemployment in an at-will employment State if you are not employed. 

employment at will, is simply that. it also, public policy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Onyx said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Like when Trump gets his VP to pay $8,500 per worker to stay in the USA?
> ...


management does it all the time.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Onyx said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > why do you believe that?
> ...


equilibrium could be, whatever a gramaton cleric says it is.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Minimum wage:
> ...



it is all irrelevant. we don't need to keep wages lower, they need to outpace inflation.  the rest of your points are just as obsolete.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



it is why we need to improve our social skill sets and provide recourse to unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, so a work ethic can compete more effectively.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Againsheila said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


some Persons can command their wage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*there is no basis to deny unemployment in an at-will employment State if you are not employed.*

There are several good reasons to deny unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure; when EDD can show for-Cause employment and breach of contract.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*the law is employment at will.* 

The law is not unemployment benefits at will.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



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

Wages don't need to do anything.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


equal protection of the law is not negotiable.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you have nothing but diversion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And it's not violated by unemployment benefits.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 17, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You have less.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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 (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


i had to make my own chillum.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

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 (Dec 18, 2016)

Againsheila said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

hadit said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


a minimum wage can be fixed as a Standard.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


equal protection of the law is a natural right.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 18, 2016)

Grandma said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > More people would spend more money, causing stores and restaurants to hire more people...
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*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 (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Danny speaks English as a 4th language!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2016)

Grandma said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > More people would spend more money,
> ...


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


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Grandma said:
> ...



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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


employment at will.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


more people will be spending more money.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 18, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


we don't need government to print money; the private sector can use private paper to create money.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> we don't need government to print money;


so why doesn't the typical liberal  tell the Fed to close up shop since you discovered that they are not needed??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 18, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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

*employment at will.
*
That law isn't violated when workers who quit get no UE benefits.

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

Post the California law and I'll point out your error.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Which makes it arbitrary.  We knew that.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That's one vote for Donald Trump getting welfare benefits.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > we don't need government to print money;
> ...


we need the fed to help command economize our economy.  the private sector is Only in it for the private profit.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that is a violation of equal protection of the law; employment at the will of either party.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


fiat money is arbitrary;  our Congress can fix the value of it by enacting a Standard.  you have no valid point in our First World economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Only in right wing fantasy.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


They can fix the value of the currency, but they cannot fix the actual costs involved in producing goods and services.  Face it, socialism has been tried several times and always fails when enough people realize they don't have to be productive to get paid.  Then it all collapses, every time.  You can't fight human nature.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


So answer the question, yes or no.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


yes, they can; it is called, taxation and regulation.  this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


you are the one begging the question.  only the right seems to care about that gossip.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*
that is a violation of equal protection of the law;*

Post the California law and I'll point out your error.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Socialism worked in Venezuela.....but only for people who don't need food or toilet paper.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Taxation and regulation just end up killing the economy and ultimately the nation.  You know this to be true, we all do.  I have no idea why you continue spouting this line when we've seen untold millions of people die because their leaders are determined to force them to stay in socialist hellholes.  When given a choice, people always go for freedom.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You don't want to answer, because your ideology insists on no means testing, but you don't want to be caught advocating that Trump should receive welfare benefits.  You can dance all you want, but it won't help at all.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


employment at will is the law.  the only error is your ignorance of the law.  

Ca Labor Code 2922 is declared the law in California regarding employment relationships.  EDD has to prove for-Cause employment to deny benefits.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


just lousy management; socialism works fine in the US.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


price controls.  it is a power delegated to Government; why no complaints about our expensive, War on Drugs?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


yes, it is about employment at will and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.  

Anyone could apply if they need money and are unemployed.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Nixon tried price controls.  They didn't work.  When price cannot adjust to meet market reality, shortages ensue.  We're not talking about any war on drugs, we're talking about the horrors of socialism.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That's called welfare.  They didn't earn it.  You can't admit that you think Donald Trump, billionaire that he is, should receive welfare benefits.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


a minimum wage is a price control.  so is the cost of money.  socialism can be wonderful, if Only we could be moral enough for free, to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.  But, that takes a moral of Goodness and not a moral of Badness.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Irrelevant.  We saw what happened with price controls on gasoline in the 1970's.  Because the price was kept artificially low, people had no incentive to conserve and the result was long lines at gas stations, rationing, and locks on cars' fill caps to prevent siphoning.  If the price was allowed to fluctuate to meet reality, gas would have been more expensive, but more available.  That's reality.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You are simply ignorant and resort to diversion.  Employment at will is a legal relationship, recognized in at-will employment States.  That is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

It depends on the price.  Unemployment compensation could pay the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour.  Anyone who is unemployed and needs capital to function in our economy, could simply apply for it.  The alternative would be to find a job at a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour.  It really is that simple for socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


the outright communism of price controls and rationing, helped us win WWII; it was, command economics, all the way.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Extraordinary circumstances, such as when the nation's entire production needs to be focused on a war, cannot really be successfully compared to what works best in peace time.  You really can't argue with the track record.  The US and freedom became the world's economic powerhouse.  All the socialist nations fell apart or went nowhere (and killed untold millions of their own people either forcing them to stay or starving them to death).  Given a choice between the misery of socialism and freedom, people risk their lives to gain freedom.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Then be honest and admit you want a guaranteed income, provided by welfare.  Stop trying to call it something else.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


This is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.  

If we don't have a warfare-State economic paradigm, why do we have our alleged Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror?  

We don't have a Welfare-State, we have a Warfare-State.  Yet, the right wing Only complains about social spending for the poor.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Ok.  It is providing for the general welfare; through equal protection of the law.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You're wandering off the reservation now, and making even less sense than before.  Why is it that when I pin you down on an issue, you wander off onto another subject?  Run out of platitudes and talking points?


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Completely unsustainable.  It's been tried and millions died.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


It takes wartime tax rates to have a necessary and proper warfare-State.  Only the fantastical right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


only in right wing fantasy.  we resort to Yankee forms of ingenuity.  we have the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World (and some on the left are proud of it); not Only can the rich keep their mulitmillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, but even the least wealthy can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


So, since you advocate such high tax rates, you are advocating constant warfare to justify them?


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That can only be done when a nation is tremendously wealthy, and the greater the degree of socialism, the greater the drain on the economy, and the less wealth a nation can generate.  Socialism, as always, fails.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


i am advocating ending our drug war; you only talk about it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.  increasing the circulation of money is what eliminating simple poverty means.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*employment at will is the law.*

And the employment at will law doesn't cover unemployment benefits.
So your silly claim is wrong.

*EDD has to prove for-Cause employment*

Ohhh.....you've invented a new term "For-Cause Employment".

Show me where it is defined in California law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Lousy socialists, lousy managers. In Venezuela, in the US, everywhere.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*a minimum wage is a price control.*

And it doesn't work.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I've not been talking about the drug war.  That's something you're trying to inject into the discussion.


----------



## hadit (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You're just slapping a bunch of labels on ideas that have been tried and have repeatedly failed.  No wonder you think no one gets it, you're spouting nonsense.  In fact, a random socialist phrase generator could do as well, if not better.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


We Only have our first world economy due to Socialism, not Capitalism.  1929 proved it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude read the law for yourself and stop appealing to ignorance.

there is a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


even Hostess had that problem.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


yes, it does; we have one of the highest standards of living in the world.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it is about lowering Taxes; only right, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it is not, nonsense simply because you are ignorant of economics, and should not be taken seriously, as a result.

What problems would Persons have, if they have recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*dude read the law for yourself*

Post it. I'll be happy to show you your error.

*stop appealing to ignorance.*

You made a claim, of course I appeal to you for proof.
Your inability to provide it speaks volumes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



They're doing better now that they eliminated their socialists.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



A wage that impacts 2% of workers is the reason for our high standards? LOL!
You're hilarious!


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It really is as simple as employment, at the will of either party; your appeal to ignorance speaks volumes.

_An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


lousy management, you mean.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yes; we have those Standards, third world economies do not.  Only the right, never gets it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*It really is as simple as.....
*
Your failure to post the law that supposedly is not protecting equally.

*may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.*

That's weird, no mention there of unemployment benefits.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Lousy economics, lousy management....that's socialism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*yes; we have those Standards*

That cover 2% of workers. Big deal.

*third world economies do not.* 

Venezuela didn't have minimum wage standards? Are you sure?
What good is a sucky socialist economy without a minimum wage?

Venezuela hikes minimum wage 40% -- to $67 a month

Damn, Daniel proves his idiocy, yet again.....LOL!


----------



## hadit (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You mean the socialistic policies that prolonged the depression and made it worse?


----------



## hadit (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You need high taxes to fund your socialist utopia.  In fact, you need them so high you kill the economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


lousy reading comprehension is not worth much.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yes, even democracy is a form of socialism not capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


How many of our health and safety and environmental standards do they also have; a first world economy costs first world bucks.  

good management also helps.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


no; i mean the socialism that prevented a "second wave" in the future.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Is that why you can't find a job?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, socialism is lousy....all around.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I am making progress on the Constitutional law, front.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


too bad capital-ism isn't as easy to find as social-ism.


----------



## hadit (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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.


----------



## hadit (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It is too bad, because socialism is so awful.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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

Capitalism only needs capital morals for a price.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why is that?  not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" to around.


----------



## hadit (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 20, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Ignorance of economics, ignorance of human nature.

The ignorance of socialists covers a lot of ground.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2016)

hadit said:


> .  Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.



capitalism punishes selfishness. You succeed under Republican capitalism only if you are unselfish toward your customers. The selfish competitor will always lose and go bankrupt. Smith and Rand got that part wrong I'm afraid.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it depends on whether or not you can find Persons of social morals for free.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It only takes social morals for free.  Only the right keeps trying to "purchase a stairway to Heave".


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > .  Capitalism leverages man's selfishness for the greater good.
> ...


capitalism reward capital morals not social morals.


----------



## dblack (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Official at-will Poverty will abide equal Protection among the several states.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Socialism isn't moral. I guess you're out of luck.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And the left wants one handed to them.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


the equivalent to an _oil pump_; for those of you who hate reading dictionaries on a rainy day.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it depends on the practice.  some believe social morals for free will merit a divine, Commune of Heaven for those who believe, and practice their beliefs.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


moral practice should make moral perfect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And socialism still sucks. Still fails.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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

Link?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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.


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


What countries are thriving without a strong work ethic?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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 (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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 (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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 (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I vote...all of the above.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*
the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.*

And the high rate of failure.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 21, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


a lack of "moral capitalization"?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > the right habitually complains about the cost of social services.
> ...


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


----------



## hadit (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Obviously a bot.  Good-bye.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


not worth your pay, in the logic and reason sector?


----------



## hadit (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


If you discover a clue, let me know.  Otherwise, you're a waste of time.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Dear, only wo-men can be inferior in the logic and reason sector.

capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Socialism is not moral.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Yes, socialism is clueless.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yes, because it requires social morals for free even under our form of capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nothing but diversion?

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


----------



## dblack (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> how many rich people work like the poor, if they can get capital to work for them.



That's a childish understanding of how 'capital' works. Capitalists make the most important decisions in our economy. If they do it well, they make a lot of money. If they don't, they lose it. Making those decisions is difficult work, it's not just a matter of sitting on your ass and counting your money.


----------



## hadit (Dec 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > how many rich people work like the poor, if they can get capital to work for them.
> ...


Don't bother trying to explain anything.  You'll only get socialist slogans back.  The puddle over there is not very deep.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > how many rich people work like the poor, if they can get capital to work for them.
> ...


no, it isn't.  it called and styled, "class warfare".  Only fools and horses should Have to work under our _fine_ and capital form of socialism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


as I said Danny speaks english as a 4th language


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Nothing but fallacy from the fantastical right wing.

Can the right wing explain how we would be worse off with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Can the right wing explain how we would be worse off with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage



it would for example wipe out all of Walmarts profits, unemploy 2.3 million, and cause a world wide Depression

and lets not forget a libcommie wants 10001 interventions in the free market not just this one and all because he lacks the IQ to understand capitalism


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Can the right wing explain how we would be worse off with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage
> ...


Why do you believe Capitalists would not want to achieve gains from productivity, if labor prices increase?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



dear, you wanted to know harm if $15. I told you and then you changed the subject hoping no one would notice.  How will you learn if you are afraid of the truth?.
 Do you want to be a liberal all your life?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Dear, that was the subject.  Now you know why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

It is about full employment of resources in our markets.  Solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual, is what nanny-State-ism, should Always be Good for; not, merely socializing our tax codes through micromanagement.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


DANIELPALOS SAID: ↑
Can the right wing explain how we would be worse off with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


So, how can we be worse off, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour?

Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Nothing but fallacy from the fantastical right wing.
> 
> Can the right wing explain how we would be worse off with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?




Simple trickle up poor,  no middle class


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing but fallacy from the fantastical right wing.
> ...


trickle up, means the poor do most of the spending.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> So, how can we be worse off, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


 it would cause instant world wide depression and bankrupt most companies. Run the numbers on Walmart and get back to us. NOW you see how Stalin starved 60 million with his caring interventions


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




You still don't have a clue what wealth is do you? 

Instead of people making $15 bucks an hour having 50% more wealth then MW now.... They would be lucky to get a $2 buck raise if MW was changed to $15 an hour.. 


So that equates to only around what 8%? Over MW...

Trickle up poor..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > So, how can we be worse off, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> ...




He is to much into the propaganda to figure out the real world.. 


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > So, how can we be worse off, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> ...


Are you claiming our capitalists can Only make it on cheap labor?  Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not minimum wages, and produced a better product at lower cost, by realizing gains from efficiency.

You make it seem our capitalists are too, brain addled by corporate welfare and too many tax holidays.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.  Only the right, never gets it, while alleging to subscribe to Capitalism.  

What I am referring to, is solving simple poverty to ensure trickle up, acts like an oil pump for our economy.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




Yeah because you live in a land of fairies and pixie dust

Keep posting like an ignorant moron of economics that's what you do best.. 



McDonald’s, the nation’s biggest restaurant chain, is, in fact, very profitable. Those $5.5 billion in profits last year came from revenues of $27.6 billion, giving the Golden Arches a profit margin of nearly 20%. The average profit margin of big companies in the S&P 500 index is only 8.7%, according to S&P Capital IQ. McDonald’s has been a perennial overperformer, which makes it an easy target for protesters seeking a bigger slice of the pie.

But keep this in mind: Pay at most restaurants is determined by the franchise owner and not the corporate parent, which often owns a very small percentage of the restaurants under their brand. McDonald's, for example, owns just 11% of their restaurants in the U.S., so it may make more sense for the protesters to be picketing local owners rather than focusing their venom on the corporate entity.

Either way, the restaurant industry overall is a low-margin business that doesn’t have much spare cash in the till. *The average profit margin for the whole industry is just 2.4%, according to Capital IQ.





.*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



yes just like Walmart $15/hour would eat all their profits and thus bankrupt them and Walmart. This is how Stalin starved 60 million with libcommie intervention in the free market


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




This kid doesn't have a clue,  when god was handing out common sense he must have gave this kid a rose colored turd ball

.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Like I said; modern capitalists must not be social, Darwinian enough due to so much corporate welfare and too many Tax holidays, to make like Henry Ford and realize gains from efficiency instead of cheap labor.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


lousy capitalists should be allowed to fail.  it really is that simple.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...







danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...





Retail Clothing *Industry Profit Margins*. The retail clothing*industry* had an average gross*profit margin* of 48.46 percent in 2009 according to Butler Consultants. However, by the time you add up all the expenses involved in operating retail clothing stores, the average *netprofit margin is only 7.98 percent.*
*What Is a Reasonable Profit Margin? | Chron.com*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




Yeah that's why most all college professor are conservatives and most all business owners are liberal you stupid moron. 




*The public thinks the average company makes a 36% profit margin, which is about 5X too high*
Carpe Diem



Font SizeAA



I find this totally fascinating, though not completely unexpected. When a random sample of American adults were asked the question “*Just a rough guess, what percent profit on each dollar of sales do you think the average company makes after taxes?*” for the Reason-Rupe pollin May 2013, the *average response was 36%*! That response was very close to historical results from the polling organization ORC’s polls for a slightly different, but related question: What percent profit on each dollar of sales do you think the _average manufacturer_ makes after taxes? Responses to that question in 9 different polls between 1971 and 1987 ranged from 28% to 37% and averaged 31.6%.

How do the public’s estimates of corporate profit margins compare to reality? Not surprisingly they are off by a huge margin. According to this Yahoo!Finance database for 212 different industries, *the average profit margin for the most recent quarter was 7.5% and the median profit margin was 6.5%* (see chart above). Interestingly, *there wasn’t a single industry out of 212 that had a profit margin as high as 36%* in the most recent quarter.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Only lousy capitalists whine about taxes, wages, and regulations instead of realizing gains from efficiency.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

In other words, the right wing believes we would be worse off with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour.  Yet, they only have right wing fantasy instead of valid argument.

Only lousy capitalists with "poor lifestyle choices", will fail due to their own fault.


----------



## hadit (Dec 27, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Nothing but fallacy from the fantastical right wing.
> 
> Can the right wing explain how we would be worse off with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?


That's been explained to you multiple times.  You apparently can't grasp the concept.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 27, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing but fallacy from the fantastical right wing.
> ...


all y'all have is right wing fantasy.

no one would be worse off with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis.


----------



## hadit (Dec 27, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Like I said, you're not able to grasp the concept.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 27, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


you have no valid concept, only fallacy.  how typical of the right wing.


----------



## hadit (Dec 27, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yet more meaningless slogans.  The bottom line is this. You want a guaranteed income given to those who do not work, provided by those who do.  It's been tried before and does not work.  In fact, It only spreads misery and death around, not wealth and prosperity.  You can't accept that reality, so you substitute your own.  The more slogans you spout, the less credibility you have.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 27, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


It is unemployment compensation, to compensate for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a capital gain in civil liberty.

The fact is, you are welcome to quit for fourteen dollars an hour under a full employment scenario, where unemployment compensation pays out, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; in order to ensure, full employment of resources in our capital economy.

How will you be worse off?


----------



## hadit (Dec 27, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Because there won't be enough money to endlessly give to a large number of slackers who just want to get paid for doing nothing.  Means testing for welfare and unemployment helps to prevent that scenario from developing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



yes, worker participation and wages keep dropping as liberalism cripples more and more people. There never has been a liberal in human history who didn't want always more welfare without end. As welfare  cripples it creates the need for more liberals and more welfare. Its the perfect formula for starving 120 million to death as Stalin and Mao did in the name of helping.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 27, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You give yourself away; that is why No One, takes the right wing seriously about economics.  A positive multiplier effect grows the size of the pie to cover costs.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 27, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


only capital has to work under any form of capitalism; only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> A positive multiplier effect grows the size of the pie to cover costs.



and yet more and more human beings are crippled by the lib commie welfare you constantly advocate.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 27, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> No One, takes the right wing seriously about economics.


 I wonder how MIlton Friedman got the Nobel prize then???


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > A positive multiplier effect grows the size of the pie to cover costs.
> ...


only the right thinks that way.  all i am advocating, is a simple bailout by Uncle Sam if we cannot get daddy to do it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > No One, takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> ...


doing research with Mr. Krugman?


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You are deliberately ignoring reality.  More slackers combined with fewer producers means a lower multiplier effect.  This is why socialism always kills the goose that lays the golden eggs, and that has been proven multiple times over the last 100 or so years.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Where do you think the capital comes from in the first place?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


no dear; capitalism doesn't simply cease to exist because of your right wing fantasy.  only capital has work under Any form of Capitalism.  It is why we merely need to ensure capital circulates in our economy like an oil pump.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


a printing press at an official Mint.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


IOW, fake money that has no intrinsic value and can thus be completely devalued in an instant.  If socialism actually could function with that, there would be no poverty.  There is, however, and millions have starved under socialism precisely because there was no value in what they were paid.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Millions starved under socialism during the last century, and many continue to do so today.  You are ignoring reality.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


did you miss, quantitative easing for the rich?  how much inflation happened. 

capital Must circulate under Any form of Capitalism.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


that reality is just lousy management.  Capitalism died in 1929, socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.  Only the right wing, never gets it.

All you keep proving, is that you shouldn't be taken seriously about economics.

The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World; the rich can even keep their multimillion dollar bonuses on means tested corporate welfare, and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You're still ignoring reality and generating vague socialist phrases.  Socialism kills.  We've seen it happen.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Capitalism kills everyday as well, merely through a lack of it under Any form of Capitalism.

The US doesn't have true capitalism, because that failed in 1929.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Socialism kills.  We've seen it happen.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Socialism has killed more people through lack of basic necessities than has Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


so does capitalism, even on a for-profit basis.  do you have anything that is actually relevant, for an argument?  

How would you be worse off, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage or fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation, if you are simply unemployed?


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You've been told how you would be.  The fact that you are again regurgitating the same failed argument merely lends credence to the idea that you are nothing more than a bot generating meaningless slogans.  You're not taken seriously, you have nothing substantive to offer, and you're ignoring reality.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


In other words, you would not be worse off. 

And, you claim that a rich guy who has enough money to be a capitalist and knows how to make money, is simply too lazy to do it for others, even if they can make money with other peoples' money.   all you really have, is right wing fantasy.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You're making my point for me.  Again you ignore reality and what you've been taught.  Put down the bong, get out of Mom's basement and work a job.  It'll do wonders for your perspective.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


you have no argument.  just right wing fantasy.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Socialism collapses under its own weight as more take and fewer produce.  That's the failure you can't deal with.  Every time you are confronted with that reality, you resort to banal, meaningless slogans.  Face it, you have nothing.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


No, it doesn't.  The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World.  The rich can get bailed out and keep them multimillion dollar bonuses on means tested corporate welfare, and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

Only the right wing, lives in right wing fantasy regarding economics.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That survives only as long as the percentage of takers doesn't rise too high.  Once it does, the whole thing collapses and misery abounds.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it is why i am advocating lowering the cost of government through simplification.  we could be improving our standard of living at the same time.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You ultimately will explode the cost of government when enough people stop working and start taking from others.  We're already $20 trillion in debt and can't afford any more takers.  Increasing government efficiency and reducing waste won't even close the Obama deficit, much less fund massive new spending.  We have to CUT spending to get back in balance before we can even think about anything new.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You don't know what you are talking about.  A positive multiplier is better than lowering taxes.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


And again you wander afield.  I didn't talk about lowering taxes, did I?  No, I was talking about the tipping point when there are too many takers to too few producers, the point you strive to avoid at all costs, and the point at which socialism fails.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


that doesn't happen under capitalism.  it about simplifying government to lower taxes and improve the efficiency of our economy.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Now you're talking about Capitalism again.  Why is it that you're so strenuously avoiding the reality that the economy simply can't sustain what you want, which is a guaranteed income provided to those who do not work by those that do?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


In case you missed it; capitalism died in 1929, and Socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.  The economic reality is, we can ensure full employment of resources and equal protection of the law, at the same time.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


We cannot afford to give everyone a guaranteed income if they will not work, bottom line.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Yes, we can; why do you believe we can't?  Our drug war is more expensive.


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Show the numbers.  What percentage of working people will choose not to work if they are guaranteed an income?  You seem to think that you can have it all, you won't have to work and you'll get a guaranteed income you can use to buy legal pot while you live in Mom's basement.  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 28, 2016)

hadit said:


> We cannot afford to give everyone a guaranteed income if they will not work, bottom line.



especially since trying to do so would cripple millions more and encourage them not to work and to leech off others, but they would become very dependent Democratic voters.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Only Capital has to work under Any form of Capitalism.  Only the right, never gets it.  How many people are going to want to stay poor, on an at-will basis?  That is the question the right needs to address.  Only the Religious, are that moral, to do it for "free".


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > We cannot afford to give everyone a guaranteed income if they will not work, bottom line.
> ...


Only if Capitalism is nothing but a fraud, and doesn't work as advertised.  It is a minimum wage or unemployment compensation that we are discussing, not million dollar bonuses.


----------



## Penelope (Dec 29, 2016)

xband said:


> nicoleivy5 said:
> 
> 
> > Workers push for minimum wage to be raised (ethical or unethical)?
> ...



Not if everyone made 15 bucks minimum wage, take from the top and spread it around. They will have no choice. Time to create a smaller class divide.


----------



## dblack (Dec 29, 2016)

Penelope said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > nicoleivy5 said:
> ...



This is delusional. Prices and wages aren't determined by government. When we try to use regulations to dictate prices and wages, the market just flows around them and rebalances to adjust. The reason some jobs don't pay a 'living wage' is because WE - you and I - don't value them very much. That can't be changed by mandate.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You are one who does not want to work a job.  Do you think you are atypical and that there are only a few like you?


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

Penelope said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > nicoleivy5 said:
> ...


There isn't enough "at the top" to pay everyone a high wage.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

Penelope said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> > nicoleivy5 said:
> ...


that increase in spending will increase demand, in the long run.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


all talk and no action; why not get national and social, on capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment and abolish it, if you want to require a work ethic.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > xband said:
> ...


yes, there is.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Requiring a work ethic is easy.  Simply provide no assistance unless you literally cannot work.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Numbers, provide numbers.  Then take into account that inflation will erase any gains in a matter of a few years.


----------



## dblack (Dec 29, 2016)

I think it's my fault. Daniel always shows up when someone uses the word 'delusional'.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

dblack said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > xband said:
> ...


Yes, they are.  It is just right wing fantasy that government rules and regulations, don't add cost and value to any First World.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


How does that solve for capitalism's, not my, natural rate of unemployment?  increasing anarchy is no solution; that is why we follow the Orders of our Founding Fathers, in their Ordination and Establishment of our form of Government.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages; he realized gains from efficiency since he could not print his own money.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

dblack said:


> I think it's my fault. Daniel always shows up when someone uses the word 'delusional'.


it isn't used very often, since fantasy is all the right wing usually has.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That worked for Ford because he could afford to do it, but it's not going to work for every business because most of them operate on very thin profit margins.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Anarchy isn't the topic, nor is any "natural rate of unemployment".  The topic is whether we can afford to give everyone a guaranteed income.  We cannot.  You continuing to spout specific and fact free platitudes does not change that underlying reality.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

dblack said:


> I think it's my fault. Daniel always shows up when someone uses the word 'delusional'.


It's one of the trigger words the bot looks for.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


it works under any form of capitalism.  only lousy capitalists who make poor lifestyle choices, whine about it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Yes, we can afford to solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's my fault. Daniel always shows up when someone uses the word 'delusional'.
> ...


practice makes perfect.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Numbers, give numbers.  How is a company that operates on a 3% profit margin going to double its labor costs?  Be specific.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Keep practicing.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


by realizing gains from efficiency, like Henry Ford did.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


thank you; i also practice resorting to the fewest fallacies for my Cause, as well.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That's not specific.  That's wishful thinking.  You do know, don't you, that efficiency gains mean each employee does more without costing the company more, ie, getting paid more?

Try again, and this time be specific.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You need a LOT of practice, because you're not doing a good job at it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Any more specific and i may have to charge you for it.  It is about realizing gains from efficiency.  Any process can be improved.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


only to you; but, you only have fallacy to work with, so far.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The company operates on a 3% profit margin and you want to double their labor costs and think they can pay for it with efficiency gains.  I can see that math and economics are not among your strengths.

Now, do you want to force the business owner to double his labor costs BEFORE the efficiency gains kick in, or do the gains kick in first, which allows the owner to make enough more money to double his workers' pay?  These are the kinds of specifics that need to be worked out if you want any credibility.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Henry Ford did it.  I can see being a Capitalist, is not your strength.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Henry Ford did it because he was selling an extremely hot new product that everyone wanted and was making money hand over fist.  He could AFFORD to do it.  The same thing happened during the dot com boom.  There were companies fighting over qualified IT workers.  You're really not very good at this, are you?

Now, answer the question, do you want to force the business owner to double his labor costs BEFORE the efficiency gains kick in, or do the gains kick in first, which allows the owner to make enough more money to double his workers' pay? Also, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, how does doubling worker pay result in doubled efficiency?  I know it's probably impossible for you, but be specific.


----------



## dblack (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Are you, by any chance, into Essential Oils?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Henry Ford was a capitalist who knew how to capitalize on his investment by increasing efficiency and paying efficiency wages.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


i could be, if the price is right, under any form of capitalism.


----------



## dblack (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You forgot to capitalize 'Form'.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


How was he able to do it?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


by realizing gains from efficiency, through an efficiency wage.


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Again, which comes first, doubled worker pay or doubled productivity?


----------



## KissMy (Dec 29, 2016)

A Domino's Pizza Worker makes, cuts & boxes 240 Pizzas an hour for $8/hr. That's 3 cents worth of labor in a $10+ pizza. Robots can't make pizza any cheaper than 3 cents each. Domino's Pizza made  $2.22 billion in 2015 an the backs of it's hard working underpaid workers!


----------



## KissMy (Dec 29, 2016)

GOP approves the killing of over 50,000 hard working US citizens a year. Just Look the names the GOP call all those hard working US citizens that dare complain!


----------



## KissMy (Dec 29, 2016)

GOP enables Big Tobacco!

Smoking causes 1 in every 5 deaths in the U.S. every year!


----------



## Slashsnake (Dec 30, 2016)

KissMy said:


> A Domino's Pizza Worker makes, cuts & boxes 240 Pizzas an hour for $8/hr. That's 3 cents worth of labor in a $10+ pizza. Robots can't make pizza any cheaper than 3 cents each. Domino's Pizza made  $2.22 billion in 2015 an the backs of it's hard working underpaid workers!



Domino's Pizza would be lucky to sell 240 pizzas a day at most of their locations yet alone an hour. Besides, many pizzas at Domino's are like $5.99 or $7.99, not $10+ like you say. Live in the real world and not la-la land.


----------



## KissMy (Dec 30, 2016)

Slashsnake said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > A Domino's Pizza Worker makes, cuts & boxes 240 Pizzas an hour for $8/hr. That's 3 cents worth of labor in a $10+ pizza. Robots can't make pizza any cheaper than 3 cents each. Domino's Pizza made  $2.22 billion in 2015 an the backs of it's hard working underpaid workers!
> ...


On a typical Saturday Night there are usually about 400 pizza orders on the board at one time in a typical location. They will make about 2,000 pizzas on a Saturday Night.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages, and realized gains from productivity.   He did not make the poor lifestyle choice of waiting for government to double minimum wages but not autoworker wages.


----------



## dblack (Dec 30, 2016)

KissMy said:


> A Domino's Pizza Worker makes, cuts & boxes 240 Pizzas an hour for $8/hr. That's 3 cents worth of labor in a $10+ pizza. Robots can't make pizza any cheaper than 3 cents each. Domino's Pizza made  $2.22 billion in 2015 an the backs of it's hard working underpaid workers!



So your solution is to ban their jobs?


----------



## hadit (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


IOW, what I said is true.  Ford doubled his workers' wages because he could afford to do so.  Now, I know it's impossible for you to deal with anything specific that exists in the real world, but I do it all the time.  So, back to reality.  How is a company that operates on a 3% profit margin going to double worker pay?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

dblack said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > A Domino's Pizza Worker makes, cuts & boxes 240 Pizzas an hour for $8/hr. That's 3 cents worth of labor in a $10+ pizza. Robots can't make pizza any cheaper than 3 cents each. Domino's Pizza made  $2.22 billion in 2015 an the backs of it's hard working underpaid workers!
> ...


Where did you get that?  Are you implying the capitalist who owns that venture, wants to stop making money so he can go on welfare, to pay even less in taxes.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Yes, he realized gains from efficiency; it was that form of competition with his rival automakers.


----------



## hadit (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


Jacking the MW up higher than the cost of doing the job with automation effectively kills the job.  Thinking people understand that.  Why do you think you no longer have a teenager come out of the gas station, pump your gas, check your water, oil, and the air in your tires?  It's cheaper to put a pump out there for you to pump your own gas and make you responsible to check all the other stuff yourself.  That's exactly what's going to happen to other jobs if you jack the MW to $15/hr.  You seem to think that would result in a bunch of people suddenly getting a huge raise in their low skill, repetitive, manual labor job.  Not so.  It would result in a bunch of people first getting cut back to part time, then seeing their jobs replaced by a fleet of robots that work around the clock, never take vacation or sick time, and don't have bad attitudes.


----------



## hadit (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


How is a company that operates on a 3% profit margin going to double worker pay?  You seem to think that's a corporate ideal and that every company should follow suit, so how are they going to do it?  Again, be specific.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


It is why we need unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, to promote the general welfare and the general prosperity.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Henry Ford was able to advance that capital realization; some of his competition was not.  it is capitalism.


----------



## hadit (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Correction, you want WELFARE at $14/hr.  It's not UE when you leave a job because you don't want to work any more.  And, be honest.  You know very well that a guaranteed universal income of $14/hr would stay at that level about as long as it took to vote on it.  The slackers would be demanding big increases immediately when they noticed that those who still had jobs and worked hard at them had more stuff.


----------



## hadit (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


IOW, Ford was atypical, so you can't really cite him as a model for all corporations.  Good to know we won't be hearing that again.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Apples and oranges.  Welfare should be a means tested program of "last resort" for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.  

For unemployed potential labor, unemployment compensation should be enough for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.


----------



## hadit (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yes, welfare should be means tested.  So should UE.  If you lost your job through no fault of your own, we say yes, we will help support you until you can get back on your feet.  If you just walk away from a job, though, that's on you.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


don't believe in Capitalism?  at-will employment is voluntary.  unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, is more cost effective and will lower our tax burden by providing that positive multiplier effect on our economy.  It will be more expensive, but our First World standard of living, is worth it.


----------



## hadit (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


We've been through this before.  If you decide to leave a job, society has no obligation to pay you as if you were still working, end of discussion.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


It is about the law.  Only the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law, but call pots, illegal.  There is a religious, technical term, for that.

Employment at will is the law of the land via a federal Doctrine, and State laws.  A lack of equal protection of the law is more expensive than simply, and morally, bearing True Witness, to our own laws.


----------



## dblack (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Put down the bong, daniel. Minimum wage bans low wage jobs.


----------



## KissMy (Dec 30, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Wrong! It created jobs.


----------



## dblack (Dec 30, 2016)

KissMy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Are you toking too? Minimum wage laws make low-wage jobs illegal. And pointlessly so.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Why should I do that?  I have high hopes and pipe dreams of advancing a fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage simply for being unemployed, if there is a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage for actually having a work ethic.  Why should more social Labor have to care about Capitalists and their, natural rate of for-profit, unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

dblack said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


who cares; the left aims to actually solve simple poverty instead of pay the right to make money on our Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 30, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> the left aims to actually solve simple poverty



welfare does not solve poverty but rather cripples more and more human beings and thus creates the need for more and more welfare. Ever see a liberal who has said we now have enough welfare? What does that teach you?


----------



## Slashsnake (Dec 30, 2016)

KissMy said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



400 pizza orders on the board at one time? You must live in New York City or something, or Dominos is B.S'ing you.

I can guarantee you most locations won't sell 400 pizzas a day in a 12 hour time period. Each location would have to make 33 pizzas an hour, and I doubt that's the case unless you live in a mega city.

In fact, most of the work day is likely dead outside of lunch and dinner, you know, because people work jobs and either don't order a whole pizza and get smaller fast food like McDonalds, or they bring their own lunch to work.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 31, 2016)

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


pick up a bong more often, d.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis, means socialism can pick up capitalism's, laissez-fair slack, like usual; we don't even have to call it a bailout.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 31, 2016)

dblack said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


a minimum wage is still, low-wage.  you should pick up a bong more often.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 31, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > the left aims to actually solve simple poverty
> ...


only means tested welfare does that when it is miss-applied.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is more rational, as a choice under any form of capitalism.


----------



## dblack (Dec 31, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Then I could float right on by the point without noticing it, like you do?


----------



## KissMy (Dec 31, 2016)

You are clueless on real economics & only regurgitate worthless PC B.S.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 31, 2016)

KissMy said:


> You are clueless on real economics & only regurgitate worthless PC B.S.


fantasy, is all the right wing, really has.


----------

