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

[HappyJoy]

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?

Come back to me when you can actually respond to the points in my post.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

World is a big place, chief.

 

[Markle]

It's never been proven that MW increases have any significant or long term affects on unemployment. Please post up the graph that shows the correlated increase in unemployment for every time the MW has been raised.

Did this happen in a vacuum or were there other factors?

Exactly! Liberals like to believe that their policies occur in a vacuum. They can't seem to comprehend that business owners do not eat cost. They will pass the cost on to the consumer by raising prices (which means the minimum wage worker is no farther ahead than before their increase), or they will cut hours (which means the minimum wage worker is no farther ahead than before their increase), or they will eliminate jobs (which means the minimum wage worker is much worse off than before the increase).

PRECISELY!

Progressives "test" their economic theories using a static economic model. Take New York, for example, the state levies a tax of $4.35 PER PACK and, until recently, the city added an additional $0.08 per pack. Then came the bright idea to increase revenue they would increase that tax to $1.50 per pack. Using Progressive arithmetic, they would sell 100 packs of cigarettes at $0.08 per pack and the tax collected would be $8.00. They reasoned that if they INCREASED the tax to $1.50 per pack, they would collect $150.00 in taxes...YEA!

Republicans and Conservatives do such calculations using a dynamic form of arithmetic. What happened is that the revenues to the city, DECLINED. New York now has the highest percentage of smuggled cigarettes in the nation, SIXTY PERCENT. That plus the people who simply commute to surrounding states to stock up on cigarettes at far lower prices. BRILLIANT PROGRESSIVES AND NEW YORKERS. Well, that is repetitive isn't it?

 

[Markle]

It's never been proven that MW increases have any significant or long term affects on unemployment. Please post up the graph that shows the correlated increase in unemployment for every time the MW has been raised.

Did this happen in a vacuum or were there other factors?

Exactly! Liberals like to believe that their policies occur in a vacuum. They can't seem to comprehend that business owners do not eat cost. They will pass the cost on to the consumer by raising prices (which means the minimum wage worker is no farther ahead than before their increase), or they will cut hours (which means the minimum wage worker is no farther ahead than before their increase), or they will eliminate jobs (which means the minimum wage worker is much worse off than before the increase).

Which is kinda shitty considering they can write off their wages as a tax deduction.

Why?

 

[Markle]

Did this happen in a vacuum or were there other factors?

Exactly! Liberals like to believe that their policies occur in a vacuum. They can't seem to comprehend that business owners do not eat cost. They will pass the cost on to the consumer by raising prices (which means the minimum wage worker is no farther ahead than before their increase), or they will cut hours (which means the minimum wage worker is no farther ahead than before their increase), or they will eliminate jobs (which means the minimum wage worker is much worse off than before the increase).

Which is kinda shitty considering they can write off their wages as a tax deduction.

Once again, you're lack of understanding on economics, finance, business, etc. is remarkable. The tax deductions do not cover the full cost of the salary. It's a very small percentage. If the tax deduction covered the entire salary, then business owners would have no labor costs. The federal government would be providing labor for them. That's simply not how it works.

Youre too dumb for words son. It doesnt say you can write off "very little". Can you tell us what this means to you?

Publication 535 (2015), Business Expenses


"You can generally deduct the amount you pay your employees for the services they perform. The pay may be in cash, property, or services. It may include wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, or other non-cash compensation such as vacation allowances and fringe benefits. For information about deducting employment taxes, see chapter 5."

Hmmm...seems that I explained this to you once but obviously you are either a slow learner or refuse to accept the TRUTH AND FACTS.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did this happen in a vacuum or were there other factors?

Exactly! Liberals like to believe that their policies occur in a vacuum. They can't seem to comprehend that business owners do not eat cost. They will pass the cost on to the consumer by raising prices (which means the minimum wage worker is no farther ahead than before their increase), or they will cut hours (which means the minimum wage worker is no farther ahead than before their increase), or they will eliminate jobs (which means the minimum wage worker is much worse off than before the increase).

Which is kinda shitty considering they can write off their wages as a tax deduction.

Once again, you're lack of understanding on economics, finance, business, etc. is remarkable. The tax deductions do not cover the full cost of the salary. It's a very small percentage. If the tax deduction covered the entire salary, then business owners would have no labor costs. The federal government would be providing labor for them. That's simply not how it works.

Youre too dumb for words son. It doesnt say you can write off "very little". Can you tell us what this means to you?

Publication 535 (2015), Business Expenses


"You can generally deduct the amount you pay your employees for the services they perform. The pay may be in cash, property, or services. It may include wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, or other non-cash compensation such as vacation allowances and fringe benefits. For information about deducting employment taxes, see chapter 5."

Hmmm...seems that I explained this to you once but obviously you are either a slow learner or refuse to accept the TRUTH AND FACTS.

I dont understand this argument. Businesses deduct the cost of doing business from their gross income, whether that is electricity, telephone service, rent, or labor. SO what? It doesn't make it free. It is a cost to the business. And if that cost grows too much it will destroy the business' profits.

 

[Markle]

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

If you force businesses to pay more for full-time worker health care the business is not going to 'eat' the cost - they will drop worker health care, fire a certain number of full-time workers, and / or convert a certain number of full-time jobs to part-time jobs.

If you force businesses to increase their minimum wage the businesses will not 'eat' the additional cost - they will raise prices and/or fire a few workers to pay for the increased salaries of the others.

Liberals seem to think that if you raise the operating costs of the business owners / CEOs then the kind-hearted, generous business owners/CEOs will lower their own salaries, cut their profit margins, eat the higher costs without passing it on to the customers and / or effecting employee jobs (cutting benefits, cutting hours, firing them)....isn't that cute...and naïve?!

========
I bet you wouldn't turn down a raise for YOURSELF though but you want everyone else to work for starvation wages.

Darn right, I've done it many times. I've been a Realtor for over 40 years and consistently earned well into six figures. That's rarified air in our area. I did not "want" the 60 percent or so to be earning substantially less, but that was their problem, not mine.

 

[Markle]

Yep, there isn't any evidence for a long term effect..Of course, I'd rather there were a law that forced businesses to dole out the huge surplus to the workers instead to all going to the ceo. That would probably do more to solve the wage problem.

The biggest problem is a few take most of the pie and the workers get fucked even with increased productivity.

Um.....what "wage problem"? I never cease to laugh at how liberals set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter of all things in society. I'm not aware of any "wage problem" (and neither is the rest of society). Just curious how it is that you get to decide to all of humanity that one exists?

So wages today have the same buying power as they did in the past?

Very true except many items of the past are now a fraction of the price they were 40 years ago if they existed at all.

That is something Progressives cannot grasp.

 

[Markle]

Greedy white Republican dude wants all poor folks to be disappeared. In his warped greedy little brain, he views the poor as unwashed 'Untouchables.' They shouldn't be allowed to exist. These are the kind of greedy bastids you're dealing with. So don't spend too much time trying to reason with them. They'll never get it.

Bubble popping time again. "Greedy white Republican dudes" are poor folks too. You're not really good at this, are you?

If you're poor, and you're a white Republican dude, you're voting against you're own best interests. The greedy white Republican dudes you worship, truly despise you. They only want you to be an obedient slave worker,

Typical lie coming from the far left Progessive.

 

[The Rabbi]

Greedy white Republican dude wants all poor folks to be disappeared. In his warped greedy little brain, he views the poor as unwashed 'Untouchables.' They shouldn't be allowed to exist. These are the kind of greedy bastids you're dealing with. So don't spend too much time trying to reason with them. They'll never get it.

Bubble popping time again. "Greedy white Republican dudes" are poor folks too. You're not really good at this, are you?

If you're poor, and you're a white Republican dude, you're voting against you're own best interests. The greedy white Republican dudes you worship, truly despise you. They only want you to be an obedient slave worker,

Typical lie coming from the far left Progessive.

Paulitician blames big business ever since he was fired for pissing in the fryer

 

[Markle]

How can the specific store being doing great but the wage was unsustainable? Its retaliation because it takes that tax revenue out of the city that raised the minimum wage. Why dont you have someone explain to you how cities get their revenue in regards to businesses.

Sounds like the city made a strategic mistake. All Walmart has to do then is open a bunch of stores 50 feet outside city limits. Did they in fact do that?

No they couldnt do that. The geography and zoning in Oakland wont permit that I am familiar with this since I grew up there. However they do have Walmarts in cities right next to Oakland such as San Leandro and Alameda.

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

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.

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?

As you know, Target is in a downward spiral due to their capitulating to the far left Progressives and making all their restrooms available to anyone and everyone who claim they do not know if they have or do not have a penis.

 

[Markle]

Greedy white Republican dude wants all poor folks to be disappeared. In his warped greedy little brain, he views the poor as unwashed 'Untouchables.' They shouldn't be allowed to exist. These are the kind of greedy bastids you're dealing with. So don't spend too much time trying to reason with them. They'll never get it.

Bubble popping time again. "Greedy white Republican dudes" are poor folks too. You're not really good at this, are you?

If you're poor, and you're a white Republican dude, you're voting against you're own best interests. The greedy white Republican dudes you worship, truly despise you. They only want you to be an obedient slave worker,

Typical lie coming from the far left Progessive.

Paulitician blames big business ever since he was fired for pissing in the fryer

I can only hope the fryer was on at the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Some people don't mind--most people do. That's why Walmart is number one today and has been for a long time. They sell cheap Chinese junk and Americans flock to it.

 

[Arizona Willie]

No they couldnt do that. The geography and zoning in Oakland wont permit that I am familiar with this since I grew up there. However they do have Walmarts in cities right next to Oakland such as San Leandro and Alameda.

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

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.

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.

========
What's **true** is that lots of people are working for starvation wages and don't have any option but to take the cheapest crap they can get by with.

People don't buy cheap because they LIKE cheap but because they have no other choice.

People buy groceries at Wal-Mart because everything is cheaper than at other stores ( but Wal-Mart is still making humongous profits which tells us something about the grocery store chains ). A box of cereal can easily be $1.00 cheaper at Wal-Mart than at Fry's / Kroger / other store and when they are only making minimum wage that makes their minimum wage stretch further.

We need to keep in mind how much American business lies to it's customers.

Grocery stores claim to operate on 1% profit --- why would anyone invest millions of dollars to build a store and all that equipment for 1% when they can put it in CD's and get more than that with little risk?

THEY WOULDN'T and THEY DON'T

Since they charge quite a bit more than Wal-Mart obviously they must be making more per item than Wal-Mart is. Sure some of them are union and pay better wages and benefits but those labor expenses are a very small percentage of their income. Wages and bennies for a chain unionized grocery store probably eat up 2 or 3 cents out of that dollar difference on a box of cereal.

I prefer to shop at the other stores but when it comes to some things like boxes of cereal or anything where the quality is exactly the same because it is the same box / can / package I go to Wal-Mart ... for produce / meat / deli / baked goods I < never > buy those at Wal-Mart I go to Fry's / Kroger usually because they have the best in this area. Even though I can afford to buy it all at Fry's ( and used to ) and prefer to deal with unionized stores, there is a point where their excessive charges are too much and I can't justify giving them $75 a week or more than it would cost at Wal-Mart.

But those excessive charges wind up in management's pockets with million dollar bonuses and they don't deserve the money.

 

[P@triot]

Sounds like the city made a strategic mistake. All Walmart has to do then is open a bunch of stores 50 feet outside city limits. Did they in fact do that?

No they couldnt do that. The geography and zoning in Oakland wont permit that I am familiar with this since I grew up there. However they do have Walmarts in cities right next to Oakland such as San Leandro and Alameda.

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

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.

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.

If you think Target is "better" quality than you're clearly a minimum wage worker.... i

I've purchased a handful of very fine Italian suits over the years - not one of which came from Target.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Some people don't mind--most people do. That's why Walmart is number one today and has been for a long time. They sell cheap Chinese junk and Americans flock to it.

His logic is - your checkbook and my checkbook should take a hit so that he and his libtard pals don't have to work hard. It's a special kind of stupid that rational people can't wrap their heads around.

 

[P@triot]

What's **true** is that lots of people are working for starvation wages and don't have any option but to take the cheapest crap they can get by with.

Actually - there is absolutely nothing true about that statement. Ironic that you would like while attempting to highlight **true**. There is always an option. Even if you don't have any exceptional skills - there are endless options.

Here is a great example - because conservatives understand economics, supply and demand, etc., the conservative state of North Dakota is booming right now. It's a boom like most people have never experienced in their life time. The boom is so great, there is tremendous demand for people. Walmart and McDonald's are paying starting wages of $25 per hour there. And they are starting truck drivers at over six-figures per year. Yeah - you read that right.

Why? How? Because they've implemented the exact opposite policies of idiot liberal places like California. While trying to put the fossil fuel industry with unnecessary regulation designed just to punish them, and then setting minimum wage at $15 per hour, closing businesses to fire employees, North Dakota is fracking like a mother-****** right now. The production of much needed energy (instead of punishing it) has created an economic boom which has naturally driven up wages through supply and demand in the free market.

So in short, not only does this prove the monumental failures of liberal policy (where their artificial inflation of wages to $15 is not only putting people out of work, but it's paltry compared to the natural inflation of wages to $25 per hour due to supply & demand in the free market), but it also shows there are plenty of options out there. If a libtard Californian doesn't want to move to North Dakota for well paying jobs, that's their problem. Frankly, it's the best thing in the world for North Dakota as those libtard Californians would eventually just collapse the economy up there as they have done everywhere else by biting the hand that feeds them (i.e. they would outlaw fracking our devastate it with "regulations").

Thanks for playing. But everything you said was a lie and everything I said just proved it.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Walmart and McDonald's are paying starting wages of $25 per hour there.

A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.



Hmmm. Not 25. One store. In 2014. Think that's the case today?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Supply and demand for labor is what drove labor rates higher.
To many oil workers vs Wal-Mart workers. Wal-Mart had to pay those wages to attract workers from the oil fields.

Supply and demand. The same thing that causes manufacturers to hire more workers.

Supply and demand.

 

[P@triot]

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.

At the end of the day - this is a really stupid issue and this is an extra special stupid conversation. For starters, if people didn't mind paying more, then nobody would have been going to walmart in California (when in fact the article stated how successful the store had been). The idiot policies you support put everyone out of jobs and now you're trying to justify that.

But at the end of the day - here is the bottom line that you don't want to accept. Society is not responsible for you or your salary asclepias. This is the land of endless opportunity. You've made the conscious choice to wallow in poverty. I'd be wiling to bet you spend what few dollars you do have on very frivolous shit (like computers and internet so you can come to USMB and whine to everyone - instead of using that money to earn a degree or on learning a trade craft such as electrician or plumber). If you don't like your lot life, get off of USMB and do something about it. If you're happy with your lot in life (as I suspect you are), then stop being a greedy bitch and whining about this just to convince the American people to hand you more money which you've done nothing to earn.

There is nothing else to discuss or debate here. Libtard policy takes low-wage jobs and turns them into no-wage jobs. And it always ends in famine, poverty, and misery. Conservative policy creates a flourishing, dynamic, robust economy and it always ends with prosperity. Lying about what we all know to be true isn't going to help you get more money asclepias. You're just not that good of a con-artist.