As predicted - Study shows Seattle $15 min wage result is less hours and 5000 less jobs

[P@triot]

Again, that's fiscal policy not economic policy. Do you not understand the difference? You are referencing a fiscal issue, not an economic one. The two are not intrinsically linked.

Thank you for illustrating for the masses that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Don't feel bad though. That's what makes you a progressive. I've literally never met a progressive yet who has the slightest grasp of basic economics.

Fiscal policy is the collective term for the taxing and spending actions of governments
What's the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy ...

Well that is interesting. The state of Illinois spending actions include their choices on pensions - does it not? Here's another one for you before you attempt to claim this is "inaccurate" and embarrass yourself any further...

Fiscal policy relates to government spending and revenue collection
Fiscal Policy vs Monetary Policy - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Whaaaat? Again, the "fiscal" policy includes government spending?!? You mean, like, how Illinois chooses to spend on pensions?

 

[P@triot]

Ever work a day in fast food? There's a reason turnover is so high.

You're right - there is a reason that the turnover is so high. And it's not because it is some unbearable job that will exhaust one. It's because it is an entry level job. In most cases, it is filled by 16-year olds getting their first job to pay for an automobile and/or car insurance. In other cases, it's because that person is ready to move on to the next step up. And, in the final case, it is filled by the elderly who either become too old and sick to keep working or who pass away.

Either way, it results in a high turnover. That's the nature of minimum wage, low-skilled labor.

 

[P@triot]

The point - that the left always misses - is that neither one leads to economic prosperity. Repairing infrastructure is a cost. It is a necessary cost (in some cases), but it is a cost none-the-less.

It's a cost that benefits the economy because the infrastructure isn't poor. It also employs people, who then go and spend their paychecks in the consumer market.

LMAO! I just covered that idiotic left-wing talking point. If "employing people" benefits the economy because "people will spend their paychecks in the consumer market", then paying all of society to dig a hole in their own backyard and then fill it back in would absolutely result in a robust economy.

The left is so clueless about basic economics. I used to find it fall-down hilarious, but the older I get, the more I find it tragic that we have such a profoundly uneducated mass of citizens in the greatest country in the world. Another "credit" to the failure of the left-wing approach.

 

[The Derp]

Thank you for illustrating for the masses that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Don't feel bad though. That's what makes you a progressive. I've literally never met a progressive yet who has the slightest grasp of basic economics.

So the same argument you're making here is the one Conservatives made back in 2010 with their "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper...namely, that Conservatives said if debt reached a certain % of GDP, the economy "falls off a cliff". Well guess what? That papedr turned out to be a bunch of bullshit lies. That economic growth is not hampered by a high debt-to-GDP ratio, and it only does if you exclude all the data that contradicts it. Which is why Rogoff and Reinhart had to issue an apology and retraction. "Spreadsheet errors" were blamed by Rogoff & Reinhart, but what Harvard Economist doesn't know how to use Excel? So if the principle of high-debt-to-GDP didn't end up harming the economy nationally, why would it have any different impact at a state level. Economic activity in IL is not contingent on IL's budget, yet you're trying to pretend they are.

Fiscal policy is the collective term for the taxing and spending actions of governments
What's the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy ...

Right, which isn't economic, it's fiscal. You all tried to tie fiscal to economics in 2010 with your '"Growth in Time of Debt" paper that turned out to be a bunch of bullshit lies that served a false conclusion through dishonest means like omitting data that undermines the argument, or "spreadsheet errors" by Harvard economists.

Yeah, it strains credulity for me too that they wouldn't know how to use Excel.

Fiscal policy relates to government spending and revenue collection
Whaaaat? Again, the "fiscal" policy includes government spending?!? You mean, like, how Illinois chooses to spend on pensions?

Again, it relates to government spending and revenue collection, not economic growth. Fiscal and economic issues are not one in the same, and the recent struggles by Conservatives to tie the two together, most notably in that bullshit paper from Rogoff and Reinhart, came up way short.

 

[P@triot]

Again, it relates to government spending and revenue collection, not economic growth. Fiscal and economic issues are not one in the same, and the recent struggles by Conservatives to tie the two together, most notably in that bullshit paper from Rogoff and Reinhart, came up way short.

Wow. You're really going to try to double-down on that absurd position even after being proven dead-wrong? Nobody has used the term "growth" other than you. You're desperately trying to subtly change the wording to save face. I said economic policy. When government makes decisions about taxing, spending, etc. that is economic policy. Period. You were just proven wrong. Simply admit that you didn't know what you were talking about and move along.

 

[The Derp]

You're right - there is a reason that the turnover is so high. And it's not because it is some unbearable job that will exhaust one. It's because it is an entry level job. In most cases, it is filled by 16-year olds getting their first job to pay for an automobile and/or car insurance.

What a bunch of bullshit. So no, you've never worked fast food in your life. OK. So you're talking about something for which you have no frame of reference. Secondly, fast food joints are open all day, so who mans the fryer, the register, the drive-thru, and the grill when all the kids are at school or at home doing their homework? Did you even bother to think about that? Of course not. Because you do rushed, sloppy work.

In other cases, it's because that person is ready to move on to the next step up. And, in the final case, it is filled by the elderly who either become too old and sick to keep working or who pass away.

Unfortunately, that is not the characteristics of fast food workers. This is. Your belief as to what Fast Food workers are is completely wrong and misguided, and I think you're substituting in Conservative conventional "wisdom" for facts. You do that a lot, you know. BTW - 70% of fast food workers are not teenagers.

 

[Brain357]

Order takers are already being replaced and machines can already make better assembly line burgers than humans. It's only a matter of time and economics. Keep jacking the MW and it will happen sooner.

Well, as we wait for something to happen that might or might not, we have to concern ourselves with the current state of employment today. You're putting the cart before the horse.

And TODAY McDonalds is replacing order takers with kiosks.

There was a time, not too long ago, when the idea of having to pump your own gas was unheard of. Heck, you had a teenager come out and pump your gas, check your tires, water and oil. You didn't have to even get out of your car. Sure, burger flipping jobs will always be around. </sarcasm>

Well, as I understand it the gas station thing isn't done by robots, and only certain states have that (like NJ). In my state of GA, I pump my own gas, and there aren't Full Serve stations that I know of in the greater Atlanta area, where you would expect them.

What does it matter if the gas is pumped by robots? The bottom line remains, economics replaced the teenager with the self-serve pump. Do you think anyone would hesitate to replace more workers with more machines when it's cheaper to do so? We already know they would not.

Hard for a business to make money when customers have no job and no money.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What's better?

One job at 15 dollars an hour, or 3 jobs at 5 dollars an hour?

At that level they can barely do one job and you're asking about three at the same time? What's wrong with you?

Pay attention. The subject of this thread is jobs.

If businesses spend 15 an hour on labor, is it better that one person get a 15 dollar an hour job, or that three get the same job for 5 dollars an hour?

One scenario produces 1 job. The other produces 3. Which is better?

You're question isn't an honest one then. You are assuming you'd get the same level of quality regardless of the wage. That isn't how the real world works.

Dictating wages does not help business, if liberals could only learn that the better business in general does, the better the economy does. Business is the engine of an economy. The better the economy the more business done the more they need to pay for decent employees.

I've lived through it, I remember when businesses had to compete for workers. Now they can offer you shit, if you don't like it 1,000 guys are behind you in line. Libs think they can micro-manage economies like they want to micro-manage our lives.

You can't answer the question because we know your answer is 3 for 5 bucks.

Let me make it clearer.

If the current minimum wage is 7.50 and you raise it to 15, that doubles the cost of a minimum wage job.

You believe 7.50 is better because you think that results in 2 jobs for 15 bucks instead of one.

So why not lower the minimum wage to 5 bucks and get 3 jobs?

Or to 3 bucks and get 5 jobs?

Maine just lowered it's minimum wage what does that tell you after they just raised it...


.

 

[P@triot]

What a bunch of bullshit. So no, you've never worked fast food in your life. OK. So you're talking about something for which you have no frame of reference. Secondly, fast food joints are open all day, so who mans the fryer, the register, the drive-thru, and the grill when all the kids are at school or at home doing their homework? Did you even bother to think about that?

Yeah...I did snowflake. And I answered that for you. I'll repeat it again - grab an adult and ask them for help, ok? Here it is word-for-word:

In other cases, it's because that person is ready to move on to the next step up. And, in the final case, it is filled by the elderly who either become too old and sick to keep working or who pass away.

So there are "other people" who will eventually move up and there are "elderly people". I gave you two other groups of people.

The only thing "sloppy" is your reading comprehension.

 

[The Derp]

I just covered that idiotic left-wing talking point. If "employing people" benefits the economy because "people will spend their paychecks in the consumer market", then paying all of society to dig a hole in their own backyard and then fill it back in would absolutely result in a robust economy..

Sigh...digging a hole in the ground doesn't benefit anyone. Building roads benefits everyone who uses those roads. Including the businesses that get sales from consumers who drive on those roads to the store. There's also the SF Federal Reserve that studied this very thing and concluded that for every $1 of infrastructure spending, $2 of economic activity occurs.

The left is so clueless about basic economics. I used to find it fall-down hilarious, but the older I get, the more I find it tragic that we have such a profoundly uneducated mass of citizens in the greatest country in the world. Another "credit" to the failure of the left-wing approach.

Must be why Bush had the worst economic growth since the Great Depression despite a completely Conservative government from 2003-2007. How bad was Bush's economy? Well, he needed people to use their houses as ATMs just to get growth what it was before he took office. And even then, he couldn't reach it through his poor Conservative policies:

So you say Conservatives know what they're talking about, but all data seems to indicate the opposite is actually the case.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're right - there is a reason that the turnover is so high. And it's not because it is some unbearable job that will exhaust one. It's because it is an entry level job. In most cases, it is filled by 16-year olds getting their first job to pay for an automobile and/or car insurance.

What a bunch of bullshit. So no, you've never worked fast food in your life. OK. So you're talking about something for which you have no frame of reference. Secondly, fast food joints are open all day, so who mans the fryer, the register, the drive-thru, and the grill when all the kids are at school or at home doing their homework? Did you even bother to think about that? Of course not. Because you do rushed, sloppy work.

In other cases, it's because that person is ready to move on to the next step up. And, in the final case, it is filled by the elderly who either become too old and sick to keep working or who pass away.

Unfortunately, that is not the characteristics of fast food workers. This is. Your belief as to what Fast Food workers are is completely wrong and misguided, and I think you're substituting in Conservative conventional "wisdom" for facts. You do that a lot, you know. BTW - 70% of fast food workers are not teenagers.

Because Adults are taking the jobs away from teen agers..that leaves teens with no jobs tard


.

 

[The Derp]

Wow. You're really going to try to double-down on that absurd position even after being proven dead-wrong? Nobody has used the term "growth" other than you. You're desperately trying to subtly change the wording to save face. I said economic policy. When government makes decisions about taxing, spending, etc. that is economic policy. Period. You were just proven wrong. Simply admit that you didn't know what you were talking about and move along.

Your position is that high debt (from high deficits) impacts economic growth, is it not? Well, that conclusion is dead wrong...and Conservatives had to get creative by acting unethically in order to produce a conclusion that supports their premises.

Economic policy and fiscal policy are not the same thing.

 

[P@triot]

Hard for a business to make money when customers have no job and no money.

That's only a problem in left-wing districts where Dumbocrats are in charge. Just ask Detroit.

 

[P@triot]

Your position is that high debt (from high deficits) impacts economic growth, is it not?

No...it was not. That's not what we were talking about. My position was that left-wing policy always leads to collapse. I then listed Cuba, the U.S.S.R., Cambodia, Detroit, and Illinois.

You asked how left-wing policy collapsed Illinois. I explained to you that they were on the verge of bankruptcy because their idiotic pension policy now accounts for 100% of their total budget.

 

[The Derp]

Yeah...I did snowflake. And I answered that for you. I'll repeat it again - grab an adult and ask them for help, ok? Here it is word-for-word:

Well you were completely wrong as usual, because you didn't bother to do the work necessary to inform your argument. Instead, you acted sloppy and lazily and left things up to whatever weird conventional "wisdom" you think you have. The realities are that the average fast food worker has at least a HS diploma, and the average age of a fast food workers is...29! So here we have another instance of Conservative fantasy clashing with reality. Also, 70% of fast food workers are over the age of 20. And nearly 25% of them have at least one child.

So there are "other people" who will eventually move up and there are "elderly people". I gave you two other groups of people. The only thing "sloppy" is your reading comprehension.

No, your argument is rushed and sloppy because you didn't bother to actually do the hard work of researching this topic.

 

[The Derp]

Because Adults are taking the jobs away from teen agers..that leaves teens with no jobs tard.

Teenagers should be in school, not working.

 

[Brain357]

Hard for a business to make money when customers have no job and no money.

That's only a problem in left-wing districts where Dumbocrats are in charge. Just ask Detroit.

It is why there is a limit on how many jobs can be replaced with automation.

 

[hadit]

Order takers are already being replaced and machines can already make better assembly line burgers than humans. It's only a matter of time and economics. Keep jacking the MW and it will happen sooner.

Well, as we wait for something to happen that might or might not, we have to concern ourselves with the current state of employment today. You're putting the cart before the horse.

And TODAY McDonalds is replacing order takers with kiosks.

There was a time, not too long ago, when the idea of having to pump your own gas was unheard of. Heck, you had a teenager come out and pump your gas, check your tires, water and oil. You didn't have to even get out of your car. Sure, burger flipping jobs will always be around. </sarcasm>

Well, as I understand it the gas station thing isn't done by robots, and only certain states have that (like NJ). In my state of GA, I pump my own gas, and there aren't Full Serve stations that I know of in the greater Atlanta area, where you would expect them.

What does it matter if the gas is pumped by robots? The bottom line remains, economics replaced the teenager with the self-serve pump. Do you think anyone would hesitate to replace more workers with more machines when it's cheaper to do so? We already know they would not.

Hard for a business to make money when customers have no job and no money.

Sounds like a good reason for government to get out of the way and let the market generate jobs and income.

 

[The Derp]

No...it was not. That's not what we were talking about. My position was that left-wing policy always leads to collapse. I then listed Cuba, the U.S.S.R., Cambodia, Detroit, and Illinois.

We are talking about the fiscal issues of IL as they relate to the economy. Otherwise, what do you care and what does it matter what the pension obligations are? If you're saying that running deficits doesn't impact economic growth, then who fucking cares what the fiscal picture looks like? Your argument defeats itself! I don't even have to do anything other than point out the contradictions.

You asked how left-wing policy collapsed Illinois. I explained to you that they were on the verge of bankruptcy because their idiotic pension policy now accounts for 100% of their total budget.

It didn't collapse IL because IL's economy continues to grow - and grow faster than the economy of the right-wing meth lab known as Kansas, that cut its taxes because trickle down, supply side, blah blah.

 

[Issa]

$15 is not enough...too many can't afford rent and decent living with one job.