Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[bripat9643]

You remain a mental midget. Again using your faux terminology without the ability to even define whateverthefuck it might "mean" is a hallmark of just how totally vapid you are.

You are a void.

And your class warfare rhetoric reveals that at your most base level (which is pretty fucking base) you are nothing more than an enable for mindless communism and socialism as that kind of witless prattle.

And nothing in that babbling counters anything I have said comrade.

It wasn't babble. It was simply far beyond your tragically limited abilities to comprehend the obvious and simple.

And you remain confused. YOU are the communist, after all.

Why DO you detest capitalism?

Try to step up your work product. You're so slovenly that you are losing the interest of all us intelligent folks.

You are the one supporting government dependence comrade.

No no. that's just your dishonest and baseless and pretty stupid claim. It is, of course, coming from you, false.

Well paying so little leads to more gov dependence. You are in support of paying employees nothing. So yes you are a commie.

No one is buying your syllogism, turd brain. Minimum wage has never been enough for a family to live on, so why is it only now that it's causing "more gov dependence?" The only thing that causes gov dependence is government handing out checks.

 

[bripat9643]

Won't do them much good when all the prices have been proportionally jacked up, will it?

Well you would have to prove that is what will happen. Increased sales keep costs down.

Lower COSTS keep costs down. Increased sales don't magically appear out of nowhere. In fact, on top of higher costs, there is little reason to expect higher sales.

Joe is in the market to buy an American car. He can buy from Ford or from GM. But GM has perhaps just considerably jacked up the wages to its employees and as a result their cost per car has been jacked up too. Joe, working on a fixed budget and with a little bit of economic common sense (which his pinky43262 lacks), decides he really can't afford the added expense of the GM under such circumstances. So, he elects to buy the Ford.

AS the laws of supply and demand would have told you, pinky, the increased costs (payroll) to GM resulted in higher costs for their product and thus lower sales.

Common sense. Get some.

Min wage would effect every employer the same. Increased income means increased sales.

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

If McDonalds doubles the wages it pays, that isn't going to double it's sales. McDonalds workers constitute only a small percentage of its customers. Expecting to increase your revenue by increase the wages of your employees is the road to bankruptcy. You theory is just more liberal propaganda that's obviously false.

 

[bripat9643]

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

Well we have cities doing it now. So far no gloom and doom.

Cities where the cost of living is already high enough that $15/hour won't make much of a dent. Do it nation wide and there's a big cost.

Well national increases haven't had a big cost and these big city increases haven't either. I see little reason to believe in that gloom and doom.

National increase have been much smaller than the 100% increase you're proposing. They have generally been on the order of 10%-15%. And they have been applied at a rate slower than the rate of inflation.

As for the big city increases, I've read they are making a big dent.

 

[initforme]

It would be fine with me to see McDonalds go under. Stuff is toxic. But Americans are dumb enough to engulf it.

 

[bripat9643]

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

Then why not increase the minimum wage to $100/hr?

 

[bripat9643]

It would be fine with me to see McDonalds go under. Stuff is toxic. But Americans are dumb enough to engulf it.

We've all had our fill of your one man jihad against McDonald's. No one cares, and this thread isn't about McDonalds.

 

[hadit]

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

Well we have cities doing it now. So far no gloom and doom.

Cities where the cost of living is already high enough that $15/hour won't make much of a dent. Do it nation wide and there's a big cost.

Well national increases haven't had a big cost and these big city increases haven't either. I see little reason to believe in that gloom and doom.

That's because we've never been faced with over half the workforce demanding and getting massive raises at the same time before. Open your eyes to reality.

 

[hadit]

And nothing in that babbling counters anything I have said comrade.

It wasn't babble. It was simply far beyond your tragically limited abilities to comprehend the obvious and simple.

And you remain confused. YOU are the communist, after all.

Why DO you detest capitalism?

Try to step up your work product. You're so slovenly that you are losing the interest of all us intelligent folks.

You are the one supporting government dependence comrade.

No no. that's just your dishonest and baseless and pretty stupid claim. It is, of course, coming from you, false.

Well paying so little leads to more gov dependence. You are in support of paying employees nothing. So yes you are a commie.

No one is buying your syllogism, turd brain. Minimum wage has never been enough for a family to live on, so why is it only now that it's causing "more gov dependence?" The only thing that causes gov dependence is government handing out checks.

This is true. Paying teenagers trying to get that first job work experience a low wage doesn't increase government dependency.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Riiiight. You drew a comparison between them because you weren't saying they were alike.

They're similar in that one passes some of its tax burden on to you the middle-class taxpayer, whereas the other passes all of its tax burden on to you the middle-class taxpayer.

They're different in that one suffered a $14.7 billion loss the other week and has suffered similar losses in the past, whereas the other consistently shows profit and growth.

The post got your attention because you've persistently blown off any comparison between Walmart and similar corporate entities as not of interest to you, not unlike the manner in which Sanders' original statement got stuck in the brains of the literal-minded where a statement just mentioning raw numbers would have gone right over your pointy little heads.

Here's a challenge for you (which you will also blow off with your characteristic Good Christian snideness): Find a parallel to Walmart, a corporation that follows the identical business model but persistently loses markets and revenue.

I fully expect you to misunderstand what I'm asking and do your little "the people who work there can't do anything else and they should be grateful anyone will hire them" speech.

Surprise me.

You already drew a comparison, and then were shocked that someone thought that meant you were comparing things.

I think we've dwelt on your dumbfuckery enough for the time being.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Raising minimum wage only hurts job creation...

Link?

Some jobs are only worth 6-7 an hour, like flipping burgers or stocking shelves etc.

That isn't a link supporting your claim.

That's common sense, no link needed...

We have increased min wage and that has never happened. So you are just wrong.

You dumbasses keep telling us this, despite the proof that it DOES happen. So I have to think the real problem is just that you refuse to believe it, no matter what the evidence, and you think if you shout your lies loud enough and long enough, other people will believe them.

Minimum Wage Leads to Benefit Cuts, Unemployment

Yes, Minimum Wages Still Increase Unemployment

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes they are. The government is providing for their employees. My tax dollars subsidize the Waltons who make billions.

No, you are blatantly lying.

SNAP is given to people who make low wages and have passels of children. Walmart is not impregnating women nor is it prohibiting people from finishing high school. It merely offers and a job that requires no skill, which the lowest segments of society are drawn to.

And without that job the Waltons make nothing. So they should be providing for their employees, not the tax payer.

They provide their employees what their labor is worth. They're not obligated to provide anything else.

If you don't want to give people tax money, then stop. But that's a separate issue.

The labor makes them billions so it seems to be worth quite a lot. It makes me nothing so my tax dollars should not subsidize it.

Nice try, but no. If we use your metric of "let's look at all of it at ONCE!" then the labor also COSTS them billions. Doesn't mean the individual unskilled worker is worth any more per hour than he's getting.

Again, if you don't want your tax dollars subsidizing the individuals who get welfare, then vote to stop welfare. Don't bitch about the people actually doing something to help the poor instead of just shuffling them off on a government bureaucracy to send them a check. Your fantasies that someone magically "owes" an uneducated person on welfare a jump from nothing to above the poverty level mean nothing to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It wasn't babble. It was simply far beyond your tragically limited abilities to comprehend the obvious and simple.

And you remain confused. YOU are the communist, after all.

Why DO you detest capitalism?

Try to step up your work product. You're so slovenly that you are losing the interest of all us intelligent folks.

You are the one supporting government dependence comrade.

No no. that's just your dishonest and baseless and pretty stupid claim. It is, of course, coming from you, false.

Well paying so little leads to more gov dependence. You are in support of paying employees nothing. So yes you are a commie.

No one is buying your syllogism, turd brain. Minimum wage has never been enough for a family to live on, so why is it only now that it's causing "more gov dependence?" The only thing that causes gov dependence is government handing out checks.

This is true. Paying teenagers trying to get that first job work experience a low wage doesn't increase government dependency.

Neither does giving people who collect welfare a start on working their way up the job ladder and become self-sufficient.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We have increased min wage and that has never happened. So you are just wrong.

brainless357 is a very stupid liberal and proud of it!!

The law of supply and demand says that if you raise prices( wages in this case) demand goes down, not up!!!View attachment 54478

What happens when your customers have increased incomes?

If you're the one giving them the money, it's a wash. If you end up cutting the number of workers you employ because of it, then the net effect is negative.

 

[Cecilie1200]

brainless357 is a very stupid liberal and proud of it!!

The law of supply and demand says that if you raise prices( wages in this case) demand goes down, not up!!!View attachment 54478

What happens when your customers have increased incomes?

Won't do them much good when all the prices have been proportionally jacked up, will it?

Well you would have to prove that is what will happen. Increased sales keep costs down.

Lower COSTS keep costs down. Increased sales don't magically appear out of nowhere. In fact, on top of higher costs, there is little reason to expect higher sales.

Joe is in the market to buy an American car. He can buy from Ford or from GM. But GM has perhaps just considerably jacked up the wages to its employees and as a result their cost per car has been jacked up too. Joe, working on a fixed budget and with a little bit of economic common sense (which his pinky43262 lacks), decides he really can't afford the added expense of the GM under such circumstances. So, he elects to buy the Ford.

AS the laws of supply and demand would have told you, pinky, the increased costs (payroll) to GM resulted in higher costs for their product and thus lower sales.

Common sense. Get some.

Min wage would effect every employer the same. Increased income means increased sales.

Except you wouldn't know the true definition of "increased income" if it fell on you. You think it means just passing a law to magically hand people cash and assuming everything around it will remain static.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

Who is responsible to generate enough income to raise a family that was voluntarily created?

It doesn't really matter. Increased gov dependence leads to increased government. If you want small gov people need to make enough to support themselves.

Yes, they need to EARN it, not simply have it mandated to them by even-more-intrusive government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

Who is responsible to generate enough income to raise a family that was voluntarily created?

It doesn't really matter. Increased gov dependence leads to increased government. If you want small gov people need to make enough to support themselves.

And who is responsible to make enough to support themselves? I'm making this real easy here.

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Gov will not get smaller as long as more people are dependent on government.

Nor will it get smaller by increasing its sphere of influence into price controls.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lower COSTS keep costs down. Increased sales don't magically appear out of nowhere. In fact, on top of higher costs, there is little reason to expect higher sales.

Joe is in the market to buy an American car. He can buy from Ford or from GM. But GM has perhaps just considerably jacked up the wages to its employees and as a result their cost per car has been jacked up too. Joe, working on a fixed budget and with a little bit of economic common sense (which his pinky43262 lacks), decides he really can't afford the added expense of the GM under such circumstances. So, he elects to buy the Ford.

AS the laws of supply and demand would have told you, pinky, the increased costs (payroll) to GM resulted in higher costs for their product and thus lower sales.

Common sense. Get some.

Min wage would effect every employer the same. Increased income means increased sales.

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

What a silly notion. "I give my employee more money so that he can give it right back to me. I'll be making even more money!"

It's the same money, dumbass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Incorrect. Increased income means higher prices, which mean lower sales. Inflation always eats up any wage increase and the only way to make a minimum wage work is to keep it so low that it doesn't really make much of a difference. That's what we've been doing. Here's a real life scenario. I need an income of $65,000/year to comfortably raise a family of three kids. We're not talking college here at all. Now, who's responsible to generate that income, me or a company that offers me a job at $7/hour?

No if people have more money they can spend more, increased sales. Increased sales counter increase in wages.

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

Wrong. Nice de-Nile, Cleopatra.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only way a company can pay employees more is by increasing sales volume (if they could do that, they already would be doing it), making more money (raising prices), or reducing costs (laying off workers, or getting taxes lowered). Tell us again about the unicorn.

Increased wages lead to increased sales.

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

Oh my God, mandate higher wages! No other economic changes will happen! Price changes happen in a vacuum! No, really!

 

[Cecilie1200]

They also lead to job loss. Ever wonder why you don't have a teenager pump your gas, check your oil and water, and fill up your tires any more? You just keep mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it true. It won't. Higher wages mean higher prices, which mean lower sales.

A min wage increase has never lead to increased unemployment. Nice scare tactic comrade.

For one simple reason. The increase was always small enough that it didn't matter. Here's a reality you obviously are either ignorant of or are strenuously avoiding. Over half American workers earn $20/hour or less. Do you have that firmly fixed in your mind? Good. Now, the current rage is to increase the MW to $15/hour. Put those two together for a moment and actually think, not feel, about it. Every person who now makes $20/hour is making significantly more than MW. Raise it to $15/hour and what do you think they will do? That's right, they will demand a raise for themselves, because everyone who was making between MW and $15/hour just got a raise and they're suddenly making just a little over MW. Now, do you REALLY think (again, not feel, because your feelings are irrelevant) that the economy can sustain over half the work force simultaneously getting or demanding big raises or they'll leave without prices going up? If you do, there's little hope for you.

Oh my god, raises? People could support themselves without the government? That would be aweful comrade.

And what do you think would happen to the economy? Companies don't make enough money to give 62% of their workers a big raise. Bye-bye jobs. Is it better to have a low paying job or no job at all?

Well we have cities doing it now. So far no gloom and doom.

Oh, please. "We changed it yesterday, and everything's fine today! Everyone knows economics change on a dime!" Tell us more about your economic ignorance.