Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

[hadit]

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

That statement is false on its face. If it were true, Walmart would be fighting to survive against Target. It is not. The truth is that a LOT of people will take cheap crap just to save a few bucks. THAT'S the truth.

If the statement was false then everyone would be buying pintos instead of luxury cars like Teslas. I understand your reading comprehension is not up to par but saying people dont mind paying higher prices for quality has nothing to do with people also buying cheap crap.

Perhaps English is not your first language? Note that I specified a LOT of people, whereas you insisted that "People don't mind paying", vainly trying to make the point that Walmart moving out of an area will have minimal impact on the poor in that area. My statement is correct and supports a correct thesis.

Perhaps you need a remedial reading course because I dont see anything about you specifying "a LOT of people" in the post i responded to. Look closely. Do you even see the word "people" in your post?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Oh, I see. You only look at one post at a time and don't see the entirety of the conversation. To help you out, just expand this post and look at the whole thing.

 

[Asclepias]

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

That statement is false on its face. If it were true, Walmart would be fighting to survive against Target. It is not. The truth is that a LOT of people will take cheap crap just to save a few bucks. THAT'S the truth.

If the statement was false then everyone would be buying pintos instead of luxury cars like Teslas. I understand your reading comprehension is not up to par but saying people dont mind paying higher prices for quality has nothing to do with people also buying cheap crap.

Perhaps English is not your first language? Note that I specified a LOT of people, whereas you insisted that "People don't mind paying", vainly trying to make the point that Walmart moving out of an area will have minimal impact on the poor in that area. My statement is correct and supports a correct thesis.

Perhaps you need a remedial reading course because I dont see anything about you specifying "a LOT of people" in the post i responded to. Look closely. Do you even see the word "people" in your post?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Oh, I see. You only look at one post at a time and don't see the entirety of the conversation. To help you out, just expand this post and look at the whole thing.

At the time I replied that was the entirety of the conversation. You later added a LOT of people because I beat your post up.

 

[hadit]

That statement is false on its face. If it were true, Walmart would be fighting to survive against Target. It is not. The truth is that a LOT of people will take cheap crap just to save a few bucks. THAT'S the truth.

If the statement was false then everyone would be buying pintos instead of luxury cars like Teslas. I understand your reading comprehension is not up to par but saying people dont mind paying higher prices for quality has nothing to do with people also buying cheap crap.

Perhaps English is not your first language? Note that I specified a LOT of people, whereas you insisted that "People don't mind paying", vainly trying to make the point that Walmart moving out of an area will have minimal impact on the poor in that area. My statement is correct and supports a correct thesis.

Perhaps you need a remedial reading course because I dont see anything about you specifying "a LOT of people" in the post i responded to. Look closely. Do you even see the word "people" in your post?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Oh, I see. You only look at one post at a time and don't see the entirety of the conversation. To help you out, just expand this post and look at the whole thing.

At the time I replied that was the entirety of the conversation. You later added a LOT of people because I beat your post up.

Now that you've looked at more than just the most recent post, you should be easily able to see that my LOT of people was in direct response to your inane attempt to claim the loss of a cheap source of goods will have no impact on the poor in the area. But keep trying.

 

[Asclepias]

If the statement was false then everyone would be buying pintos instead of luxury cars like Teslas. I understand your reading comprehension is not up to par but saying people dont mind paying higher prices for quality has nothing to do with people also buying cheap crap.

Perhaps English is not your first language? Note that I specified a LOT of people, whereas you insisted that "People don't mind paying", vainly trying to make the point that Walmart moving out of an area will have minimal impact on the poor in that area. My statement is correct and supports a correct thesis.

Perhaps you need a remedial reading course because I dont see anything about you specifying "a LOT of people" in the post i responded to. Look closely. Do you even see the word "people" in your post?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Oh, I see. You only look at one post at a time and don't see the entirety of the conversation. To help you out, just expand this post and look at the whole thing.

At the time I replied that was the entirety of the conversation. You later added a LOT of people because I beat your post up.

Now that you've looked at more than just the most recent post, you should be easily able to see that my LOT of people was in direct response to your inane attempt to claim the loss of a cheap source of goods will have no impact on the poor in the area. But keep trying.

Thats what i just said. You mentioned a lot of people after i beat up your first post in reply to my comment that people dont mind paying more for quality.

 

[hadit]

Perhaps English is not your first language? Note that I specified a LOT of people, whereas you insisted that "People don't mind paying", vainly trying to make the point that Walmart moving out of an area will have minimal impact on the poor in that area. My statement is correct and supports a correct thesis.

Perhaps you need a remedial reading course because I dont see anything about you specifying "a LOT of people" in the post i responded to. Look closely. Do you even see the word "people" in your post?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Oh, I see. You only look at one post at a time and don't see the entirety of the conversation. To help you out, just expand this post and look at the whole thing.

At the time I replied that was the entirety of the conversation. You later added a LOT of people because I beat your post up.

Now that you've looked at more than just the most recent post, you should be easily able to see that my LOT of people was in direct response to your inane attempt to claim the loss of a cheap source of goods will have no impact on the poor in the area. But keep trying.

Thats what i just said. You mentioned a lot of people after i beat up your first post in reply to my comment that people dont mind paying more for quality.

I mentioned a LOT of people in my first reply to that comment.

 

[Markle]

It's not. where is heritage getting their numbers?

If you'd bothered to read the link Mark posted, you'd know exactly where they got their numbers.

OK, 92% of poor people have a microwave. They don't own them though. So, what's the point of bringing it up? Almost every tv today is high def, are we saying we get to hold poor people accountable for buying a 5 year old tv and count it just like we would a new one?

They own video game systems? Does an Atari 2600 count the same as a PS4? What if they owned these appliances before some catastrophic event like the death of the head of household?

None of this is taken into account, if the Heritage Foundation were even being honest in the first place and there is plenty of reason to not accept them as a source.

You're desperation and anger is duly noted. Now we just have to wonder, just how desperate are you?

 

[Asclepias]

Perhaps you need a remedial reading course because I dont see anything about you specifying "a LOT of people" in the post i responded to. Look closely. Do you even see the word "people" in your post?

Oh, I see. You only look at one post at a time and don't see the entirety of the conversation. To help you out, just expand this post and look at the whole thing.

At the time I replied that was the entirety of the conversation. You later added a LOT of people because I beat your post up.

Now that you've looked at more than just the most recent post, you should be easily able to see that my LOT of people was in direct response to your inane attempt to claim the loss of a cheap source of goods will have no impact on the poor in the area. But keep trying.

Thats what i just said. You mentioned a lot of people after i beat up your first post in reply to my comment that people dont mind paying more for quality.

I mentioned a LOT of people in my first reply to that comment.

So why doesnt it appear in the post I quoted?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

 

[Markle]

no worries, The Donald said he would raise min wage.

Ha! Worry, he said he was going to lower minimum wage.

For the good of the country, the Federal Minimum Wage must be eliminated. If the sovereign states wish to have one, that's their privilege.

 

[Markle]

Hate to break it to you. Already in gear in Europe. Automation.

Whoopsies.

There should be a tax to do this called the guaranteed living wage tax. What this will do is pay everyone 1,000 to 1,500 bucks per month in order to survive. This would also end the need for food stamps, and other welfare but most importantly will make work no longer work or die.

So we kill two birds with one stone! I support automation in general as I don't believe work should be a do or die kind of thing and machines can do it far more efficiently! Just that we have to care about the humans when we're doing so.

Interesting as the slower thinkers dont seem to realize that industrial age thinking doesnt fit in the information age. They are still under the delusion that there is a job for everyone.

Certainly no delusion here. I checked this out last year. Job openings available in America 5,400,000 - Number of unemployed 25,435,977.

That's 20,035,977 without the possibility of a job. It would make sense to train business managers for start ups.

Without a source and link, that is useless as teats on a bull.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

..."Go to school! Learn new skills, you lazy asses!"

...then who would replace them to work in the service industry? How could those industries survive if so many of the workers make minimum wage?

Keep in mind we are including state minimum wages here - not just the federal one. Right now anyone making a state minimum wage is living in poverty. Working up to 40 hours a week Is not enough for these people to live financially stable lives.

42% of American workers make less than $15 per hour. What is your solution to helping these people out of poverty?

You people are full of bitching but you have no real solutions.

 

[hadit]

Oh, I see. You only look at one post at a time and don't see the entirety of the conversation. To help you out, just expand this post and look at the whole thing.

At the time I replied that was the entirety of the conversation. You later added a LOT of people because I beat your post up.

Now that you've looked at more than just the most recent post, you should be easily able to see that my LOT of people was in direct response to your inane attempt to claim the loss of a cheap source of goods will have no impact on the poor in the area. But keep trying.

Thats what i just said. You mentioned a lot of people after i beat up your first post in reply to my comment that people dont mind paying more for quality.

I mentioned a LOT of people in my first reply to that comment.

So why doesnt it appear in the post I quoted?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

Perhaps because you got them out of order?

 

[Asclepias]

At the time I replied that was the entirety of the conversation. You later added a LOT of people because I beat your post up.

Now that you've looked at more than just the most recent post, you should be easily able to see that my LOT of people was in direct response to your inane attempt to claim the loss of a cheap source of goods will have no impact on the poor in the area. But keep trying.

Thats what i just said. You mentioned a lot of people after i beat up your first post in reply to my comment that people dont mind paying more for quality.

I mentioned a LOT of people in my first reply to that comment.

So why doesnt it appear in the post I quoted?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

Perhaps because you got them out of order?

Nope you got it ouf of order.

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

 

[Markle]

This debate originality was about poor people having access to smart phones and whether they...(kind of guessing here) should still be considered poor if they have any electronic equipment at all,

With food stamps and welfare, nobody is truly "poor." And me? I own almost all the technology in this house, most of it I paid for before I quit work. That doesn't make me rich, nor does it make me poor.

Yes people with food stamps welfare etc are truly poor. Pretending they are not poor is silly.

Depends on what you consider poor does it not. A very subjective thing.

9 Facts About How the Poor in America Live

If you consider having a microwave a sign of wealth I dont know what to tell you.
If you consider someone owning a car a sign of wealth I feel for you especially if its just a $500 beater that may or may not function.
If you consider having a computer a sign of wealth especially one that doesnt work or barely works then you have issues.

The problem with your link is that its merely propaganda because it doesnt provide anything substantial nor address the scenarios I just brought up so yes I agree its subjective.

Please compare this standard of living with the rest of the world.

 

[hadit]

Now that you've looked at more than just the most recent post, you should be easily able to see that my LOT of people was in direct response to your inane attempt to claim the loss of a cheap source of goods will have no impact on the poor in the area. But keep trying.

Thats what i just said. You mentioned a lot of people after i beat up your first post in reply to my comment that people dont mind paying more for quality.

I mentioned a LOT of people in my first reply to that comment.

So why doesnt it appear in the post I quoted?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

Perhaps because you got them out of order?

Nope you got it ouf of order.

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

You linked to a page that doesn't even have my post on it. I linked directly to my post, which shows clearly what you said and my response. Are you sure you know what you're doing?

 

[Asclepias]

This debate originality was about poor people having access to smart phones and whether they...(kind of guessing here) should still be considered poor if they have any electronic equipment at all,

With food stamps and welfare, nobody is truly "poor." And me? I own almost all the technology in this house, most of it I paid for before I quit work. That doesn't make me rich, nor does it make me poor.

Yes people with food stamps welfare etc are truly poor. Pretending they are not poor is silly.

Depends on what you consider poor does it not. A very subjective thing.

9 Facts About How the Poor in America Live

If you consider having a microwave a sign of wealth I dont know what to tell you.
If you consider someone owning a car a sign of wealth I feel for you especially if its just a $500 beater that may or may not function.
If you consider having a computer a sign of wealth especially one that doesnt work or barely works then you have issues.

The problem with your link is that its merely propaganda because it doesnt provide anything substantial nor address the scenarios I just brought up so yes I agree its subjective.

Please compare this standard of living with the rest of the world.

Why should i do that when I'm not talking about the world? I'm talking about the US.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats what i just said. You mentioned a lot of people after i beat up your first post in reply to my comment that people dont mind paying more for quality.

I mentioned a LOT of people in my first reply to that comment.

So why doesnt it appear in the post I quoted?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

Perhaps because you got them out of order?

Nope you got it ouf of order.

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

You linked to a page that doesn't even have my post on it. I linked directly to my post, which shows clearly what you said and my response. Are you sure you know what you're doing?

Of course your post is on that page. I see you are getting desperate and have resorted to lying to defuse the ass whooping I am giving you.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK what do I win?

Hardly cause and effect. The rate is all over the place. What factors contribute to teenage unemployment? Only MW?

DENY!

I'll use you compadre's chart since it at least is sourced properly. You'll find that the unemployment rate for teens rises and falls right along with the overall rate.
So far no one has shown me the chart that shows the effects you all predict. 80 years of MW an no one has compiled the data to show MW as a direct cause for increased unemployment?

View attachment 75205

I am not responsible for that chart and I argue it's methodolog is unsound to look at "real" mw.

Real just means adjusted for the value of the dollar at the time the chart was made so 1967 dollars can be charted with current dollars.

I understand that, numbskull. I argur that using "real" wages is misleading because people are not paid in real wages, they are paid in nominal wages.

 

[The Rabbi]

I already posted the right graph. Since min wage jobs are a small percentage of overall jobs the increase wont show up in the general market. Look at populations that largely have min wage jobs and you'll find their UE rates have skyrocketed.

The right graph? No, you posted a graph only showing teens who don't need to work at all.

Carpe diem blog?
At least Taz had the BLS stats.

Quibble quibble deny deny.
There is no graph or article that would persuade you of what is obvious to everyone but you.

It's so obvious to the gullible.

It's obvious to the informed: you raise the price of something you sell less of it.

Show the damage you claim will be done by showing how it occurred in the past. By your logic no one should have a job after 80 yrs of MW increases.

I did that, numbskull. Teenaged unemployment is three times the general rate and it correlates exactly with min wage increases.
Your second claim is absurd.

 

[hadit]

I mentioned a LOT of people in my first reply to that comment.

So why doesnt it appear in the post I quoted?

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

Perhaps because you got them out of order?

Nope you got it ouf of order.

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

You linked to a page that doesn't even have my post on it. I linked directly to my post, which shows clearly what you said and my response. Are you sure you know what you're doing?

Of course your post is on that page. I see you are getting desperate and have resorted to lying to defuse the ass whooping I am giving you.

I linked directly to my post, and it shows what I've been saying. I fear that the only whooping going on is that imaginary party you have in your head.

 

[Asclepias]

So why doesnt it appear in the post I quoted?

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

Perhaps because you got them out of order?

Nope you got it ouf of order.

Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

You linked to a page that doesn't even have my post on it. I linked directly to my post, which shows clearly what you said and my response. Are you sure you know what you're doing?

Of course your post is on that page. I see you are getting desperate and have resorted to lying to defuse the ass whooping I am giving you.

I linked directly to my post, and it shows what I've been saying. I fear that the only whooping going on is that imaginary party you have in your head.

I know it shows what you have been saying. The point is you didnt start talking about "a lot of people" until I beat your post up by saying people dont mind paying hire prices for quality.

I said this..

Not really. Due to Walmart doing so well there I am pretty sure Target will take their spot. No one cares if its Walmart or Target. To be honest Target is actually a step up. Its going to be a PR loss for Walmart as well.

Your first reply said this. (note nothing about a lot of people)

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

then I said this...

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.