I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

[Where_r_my_Keys]

WRONG AGAIN! The Key word was AFRICAN... erroneously denoting the origin (where they're from).

"American", erroneously denotes where they're AT...

... The word 'African' is describing the word 'American', meaning an 'American of African descent'.

ROFLMNAO! Sweet MOTHER, that's pitiful.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, it is at this point, that some jackass begins to demand that I am operating both of the above accounts... as a means to make the Left appear more foolish than they actually are.

Rest assured that I have only this one account and am in no way responsible for what the above cited would-be 'contributor' is professing.

Remember that the issue is Black people living in the US, OKA: Negros...
The would-be 'contributor' advised you that these people are "African-Americans", which of course is foolish, in that not every person of African descent; be they a citizen of the US or NOT... is black. Therefore: The Term "African Americans" as a term to define people reflecting a dark caramel, negro hue, is quite simply: FALSE

These cretins are truly, as foolish as they appear. )

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let's Review:

70 years would put us back in the 40s.

Here is a few items for which the US Dollar was being exchanged for in the 1940s.


Eggs 64 cents per dozen New Jersey 1946
Flour 25 cents 5 Pound bag California 1944
Kellogs Corn flakes 35 cents for 2 pks Pennsylvania 1948
Ketchup 19 cents Pennsylvania 1948
Margarine 18 Cents per Pound California 1944
Morton Salt 10 cents Pennsylvania 1948
Oranges 8 1/2 cents per pound California 1944
Pork Roast 39 Cents per pound Wisconsin 1948
Porterhouse Steak 69 cents per pound Illinois 1947
Potatoes 38 cents for 10 pounds California 1944
Tide Soap powder 36 cents Pennsylvania 1948
Tomatoes 29 cents per pound New Jersey 1946
Tooth Paste 47 cents Pennsylvania 1948


Now I highlighted the Porterhouse Steak, because I personally purchased a fe of those the day before yesterday at the neighborhood Publix. I paid 14.25lb (they were on sale).

Now... let me ask ya... in 1947, US Currency bought 20 lbs of Porterhouse Steaks for the same dollar value that Today can only buy you 1lb.

Would you say that in your mind that this circumstance demonstrates the value of US Currency has been increased or decreased over the last 77 years?

Now, FYI: 70 years prior to THAT...

1 lb. butter -- 40 cents

1 dozen eggs -- 35 cents

So, what changed?

US Minimum Wage came into Federal Law in 1938...

Meaning that in the 70 years prior to the establishment of the USMW... the price of eggs and butter doubled.

Over the subsequent 70 years SINCE THE US Minimum Wage: such increased by an Order of MAGNITUDE.

Does that help you quantify the devaluation of the currency by the natural law which requires that where one artificially increases the price of labor for no increase in the product represented by that labor... that the value of the currency used to buy that labor is reduced?

Now the Intellectually Less Fortunate, representing the product of Relativism, are demonstrably incapable of recognizing even THAT simple, but otherwise self-evident truth.

So they're irrelevant.

All you need to know is that... . And FROM >THAT< you should find the sound moral justification to do what you must to save your nation from the idiocy which they produce through their foolish vote.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Because they want the super rich to have it all.

Do you have a t-shirt that says "I'm With Stupid" and an arrow pointing down? Did this actually sound good to you?

You are cornered on this one. I know since you are left with nothing but insults.

 

[Billy000]

You know what's funny? In a liberal mind they think the government is subsidizing a company for paying a employee low wages.

In fact the opposite is true, the government is subsidizing the low skilled 35 year old employee.

The company pays what he or she is worth in the free market.

The government then picks up the tab for Obama smart phones, 50 inch flat television, steak dinners and crap like that, so they don't revolt and vote democrat

There is no free market moron.
The employer pays the lowest wage ALLOWED BY LAW.
Now it's time to raise it again.
The real wage for MW averaged around $9/hr for nearly fifty years of MW.
Why are you advocating for people to make less than they did fifty years ago? Don't you think wages should rise as time goes by?

You are an idiot. I guess every computer programmer in Silicon Valley is earning $7.50 or whatever the lowest wage allowed by law is.

Rabbi tries and tries to feel correct but he never gets anywhere.
The context was who determines the LEAST worth of an employee. Christ you fools are dense. Still waiting for the proof of rising unemployment from MW.

Move the goalposts when unmaksed as a moron.
Guess what: there are people getting less than min wage. They're called "unemployed."
You make a point that has been answered over and over: check the UE rates of those most likely to work MW jobs. Those rates have been going up steadily with every increase in MW.

I moved nothing. You just have nothing to counter with. Now show me how and why UE rates correlate to MW and why that has been the case for 77 years. How many jobs do you figure have been lost in those 77 years? How many have been created over the same period? Is it a net loss or gain in jobs over that period?

 

[-S-]

WRONG AGAIN! The Key word was AFRICAN... erroneously denoting the origin (where they're from).

"American", erroneously denotes where they're AT...

... The word 'African' is describing the word 'American', meaning an 'American of African descent'.

ROFLMNAO! Sweet MOTHER, that's pitiful.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, it is at this point, that some jackass begins to demand that I am operating both of the above accounts... as a means to make the Left appear more foolish than they actually are.

Rest assured that I have only this one account and am in no way responsible for what the above cited would-be 'contributor' is professing.

Remember that the issue is Black people living in the US, OKA: Negros...
The would-be 'contributor' advised you that these people are "African-Americans", which of course is foolish, in that not every person of African descent; be they a citizen of the US or NOT... is black. Therefore: The Term "African Americans" as a term to define people reflecting a dark caramel, negro hue, is quite simply: FALSE

These cretins are truly, as foolish as they appear. )

You already lost


To anyone else that may stumble across this conversation, might I suggest:

 

[kaz]

Because they want the super rich to have it all.

Do you have a t-shirt that says "I'm With Stupid" and an arrow pointing down? Did this actually sound good to you?

You are cornered on this one. I know since you are left with nothing but insults.

I'm cornered on the statement that Republicans "want the super rich to have it all?" Yes, Karl, I'm being drown in pure Marxist logic. That is clearly what Republicans are thinking when they go to the ballot box.

You forgot the corporations BTW, it isn't just the super rich Republicans want to have it all, it's sort of a split between them and international conglomerate corporations, don't you think?

Besides, the Jews control the international financial community, they decide who has what. Republicans don't really have a say

 

[SAYIT]

If you can't afford 10/hour = you probably should forget about going into business. We're better then Africa, Southern Asia or much of the shit world because we have standards.

On the other side of that coin are the facts that if you have marketable skills you likely are not working for less than $10/hr but if you have no skills you take what you can get. Only a few million Americans are MW earners and over half are between 16 and 24 years of age ... the group most likely to be unskilled. The point is this whole MW war is a backdoor way to get union workers whose contracts are based on MW+, a raise. The federal gov't has no business meddling in the price of labor market.

 

[SAYIT]

WRONG AGAIN! The Key word was AFRICAN... erroneously denoting the origin (where they're from).

"American", erroneously denotes where they're AT...

... The word 'African' is describing the word 'American', meaning an 'American of African descent'.

ROFLMNAO! Sweet MOTHER, that's pitiful.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, it is at this point, that some jackass begins to demand that I am operating both of the above accounts... as a means to make the Left appear more foolish than they actually are.

Rest assured that I have only this one account and am in no way responsible for what the above cited would-be 'contributor' is professing.

Remember that the issue is Black people living in the US, OKA: Negros...
The would-be 'contributor' advised you that these people are "African-Americans", which of course is foolish, in that not every person of African descent; be they a citizen of the US or NOT... is black. Therefore: The Term "African Americans" as a term to define people reflecting a dark caramel, negro hue, is quite simply: FALSE

These cretins are truly, as foolish as they appear. )

You already lost


To anyone else that may stumble across this conversation, might I suggest:

Funny ... you are the second loony leftist who has thrown up his hands and declared "victory" ... a sure sign you know you've had you ass kicked again,

 

[dblack]

If you can't afford 10/hour = you probably should forget about going into business. We're better then Africa, Southern Asia or much of the shit world because we have standards.

On the other side of that coin are the facts that if you have marketable skills you likely are not working for less than $10/hr but if you have no skills you take what you can get. ....

Which will be nothing, if Matthew has his way.

 

[Andylusion]

Stagnant productivity? You assume quite a lot.

What do you suppose the cumulative effect of 77 years of devaluing the dollar in such a way is? Is it demonstrably quantifiable? If so in what way(s)?

Well, let's see... 70 years would put us back in the 40s.

Here is a few items for which the US Dollar was being exchanged for in the 1940s.


Eggs 64 cents per dozen New Jersey 1946
Flour 25 cents 5 Pound bag California 1944
Kellogs Corn flakes 35 cents for 2 pks Pennsylvania 1948
Ketchup 19 cents Pennsylvania 1948
Margarine 18 Cents per Pound California 1944
Morton Salt 10 cents Pennsylvania 1948
Oranges 8 1/2 cents per pound California 1944
Pork Roast 39 Cents per pound Wisconsin 1948
Porterhouse Steak 69 cents per pound Illinois 1947
Potatoes 38 cents for 10 pounds California 1944
Tide Soap powder 36 cents Pennsylvania 1948
Tomatoes 29 cents per pound New Jersey 1946
Tooth Paste 47 cents Pennsylvania 1948


Now I highlighted the Porterhouse Steak, because I personally purchased a fe of those the day before yesterday at the neighborhood Publix. I paid 14.25lb (they were on sale).

Now... let me ask ya... in 1947, US Currency bought 20 lbs of Porterhouse Steaks for the same dollar value that Today can only buy you 1lb.

Would you say that in your mind that this circumstance demonstrates the value of US Currency has been increased or decreased over the last 77 years?

Does that help you quantify the devaluation of the currency by the natural law which requires that where one artificially increases the price of labor, that the value of the currency used to buy that labor is reduced?

So... because steak costs more now, that is evidence of the devaluation of the dollar due to minimum wage?

Wow! SMH

Whatever increase in inflation has been more then offset by many thousands times with the wealth the rich hog up. Some of this wealth of course could go to the workers! So over all the workers could afford 10 steaks, while if it wasn't for the little bit of inflation they might of afforded 11! BUT! They can only afford like 2 as of this moment(Number pulled out of the clouds!) so they end up being far ahead and so the little bit of inflation isn't that big of a deal.

Increasing wages, causes inflation. So every time the minimum wage goes up, the inflation equally goes up.

I don't know why this is difficult. Companies don't have magic money trees. Every time the cost of labor goes up, that cost has to be passed on.

When the cost is passed on in higher prices, that by definition means inflation has eaten away at the increase in wages.

You will never increase wages faster than you increase prices. Not in the long term. Short term maybe, but the economy will always swing back around to equilibrium.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So, when wal- Mart announced pay increases, they are causing inflation?

 

[The Rabbi]

Face it Rightwingers: you lost the debate on the MW.

Declaration of winning after having your ass handed to you=loser.
ANother Billy Triple Fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

The rich make very little money through hard work...The people that are employed are the ones that produce the wealth that are skimmed deep into the riches pockets.

It is the little guy that breaks his back for the rich hog! So it isn't like the rich man is doing the work and the little guy is watching his idol feeling lucky he makes a cent of it.

You dont know many rich people, do you?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are an idiot. I guess every computer programmer in Silicon Valley is earning $7.50 or whatever the lowest wage allowed by law is.

The context was who determines the LEAST worth of an employee. Christ you fools are dense. Still waiting for the proof of rising unemployment from MW.

Move the goalposts when unmaksed as a moron.
Guess what: there are people getting less than min wage. They're called "unemployed."
You make a point that has been answered over and over: check the UE rates of those most likely to work MW jobs. Those rates have been going up steadily with every increase in MW.

I moved nothing. You just have nothing to counter with. Now show me how and why UE rates correlate to MW and why that has been the case for 77 years. How many jobs do you figure have been lost in those 77 years? How many have been created over the same period? Is it a net loss or gain in jobs over that period?

Of course you did. Another poster made the same point I did, responding to your post.
I already answered you. Look at UE rates of those most likely to work MW jobs and ask whether those rates are higher or lower now than they were 10 years ago. Hint: THey are much higher.

For the tenth time why don't YOU post those numbers to support YOUR claim. : )

I've already supported this. I've posted th graphs. Go look them up yourself instead of trying the old "link?" dodge.

 

[The Rabbi]

Believe it or not, both the left and the right want to end welfare for the poor. The left just has a realistic and humane way of doing it.

$153 billion of public assistance is spent on people because of their low wage jobs. 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. How many more do you think make less than $15? If the minimum was raised to $10.10, republicans are to stupid/immature to realize that far less people would be eligible for programs like food stamps. It would dramatically fix the fucking problem of the poor on welfare!

Like it or not, $15 as a minimum wage would be a base wage kept up with the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off 10.10 per hour was the fucking 60s. Since the recession, low wage jobs out number higher wage jobs. That means MILLIONS OF PEOPLE have no choice but to accept low wage jobs.

As long as it was gradually raised over a couple of years, the initial cost to the market would be minimized. Prices would go up, but not nearly enough to offset the consumer spending power created by it. Consumer spending would boom. The market would begin to create jobs. Way more than the jobs that would have been scrapped initially. Prices would also go down.

Look the only reason most (not all) CEOs are against raising wages is because it just easier to for them to keep the ridiculous money they make rather than invest in a strong labor force. The average CEO makes over 300x what the average worker makes. Sure we can all agree CEOs deserve a wealthy life for all their hard work, but do you really think they deserve 300x more?

Hell no.

It's simple. The republicans want to create a permanent underclass. They have shown they aren't about improving the economy. They are all about the wealthy, the investor class and maximizing their wealth while squeezing the middle class out of existence. It makes sense for them to create a resentment among the middle class for the poor and impoverished and to blame them for their own condition. This guarantees that the supremacy of the wealthy remains unchallenged by those not yet desperate enough to work for scraps in a service economy dedicated to providing for the needs of the affluent.

Umm, what have 8 years of Democrat rule given us? Permanently high levels of food stamp usage and disability with people disappearing from the workforce.
It would see your claims are true. But they are true about Democrats, not Republicans.

 

[The Rabbi]

So if minimum wage was $100/hr people would have a lot more money to spent. We could all be rich!

No one is suggesting that.

Yes you are... that's exactly what you're suggesting. The only distinction is the percentage by which you will inflate the dollar (devalue the dollar).

Ya see the dollar amount is irrelevant, the result is always going to be the same as there is no means for it NOT to be... .

Knee deep in the weeds dude. You still haven't established that employment is harmed.

Yes... but in fairness, that's because I am not claiming that employment is harmed. Employment is what it is... it is not effected by the addled policy of children and fools. It's the EMPLOYED and FORMERLY employed who are harmed.

Ya see scamp... when the currency with which one is compensated is devalued by the artificial increase in the value exchanged for stagnant productivity, then the value for which the employee exchanges it for the product and services they need, want and desire... is LESS.

And it is THERE, Dude... wherein the EMPLOYEE and those who are FORMER Employees, are harmed.

Stagnant productivity? You assume quite a lot.

What do you suppose the cumulative effect of 77 years of devaluing the dollar in such a way is? Is it demonstrably quantifiable? If so in what way(s)?

In your mind what does this chart represent?

 

[The Rabbi]

32 pages of this subject really? Minimum wage and welfare are basically the same thing: Giving money to folks who don't make enough money because they lack skill levels sufficient to provide for themselves.

They obviously have at the very least the skill level the job requires. I am only advocating to maintain the rate of pay at historic levels.

Historically the lowest skilled workers got like a dollar a week. Is that what you want?

 

[Billy000]

Face it Rightwingers: you lost the debate on the MW.

Declaration of winning after having your ass handed to you=loser.
ANother Billy Triple Fail.

You and I both know that isn't true.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes you are... that's exactly what you're suggesting. The only distinction is the percentage by which you will inflate the dollar (devalue the dollar).

Ya see the dollar amount is irrelevant, the result is always going to be the same as there is no means for it NOT to be... .

How about you explain why raising it devalues the dollar? Be specific.

Oh! I'd be very happy to.

Let's begin at the value of minimal skill. The Minimum being zero...

Now Zero Skill is worth 0 dollars.

What you're arguing is that we raise the value of zero skills to $15.

Now when we raise the value of $0 to $15...

Now... when $15 is the equivalent of $0... even you should be capable of realizing that this devalues the value which used to be represented by $15... to $0?

(LOL! Reader, enjoy yourself... you're about to be treated to a first class demonstration of the mental disorder OKA: delusion. It's the same mental disorder that presents Sexual Deviancy, Socialism, Islam and other manifestations of Evil.)

Do you honestly believe that is how it works?

ROFLMNAO!

I know for an incontrovertible fact, that that is how it works. But in fairness... that's only because there is no other way that it CAN WORK.

The skills a worker brings is a variable that influences the value of the dollar? How is that even close to being quantifiable?

By the currency used as the exchanged value.


(Reader, Can I call 'em or what? I say it here and it comes out THERE!)

Stop making shit up as you go along.

Now, Billy, I'm going to be kind here and try patiently to explain this to you in simple terms even you could understand.
When a business raises its wages, where does the money come from for the increased salaries? It cant come fro owner profits because there arent enough to pay the wage increase. It can't come from increased business because there is none. It must come from increased prices because that is the only source of a company's revenue.
Are the increased prices due to some improvement in the product, or the process? No, they are due to increased costs of production with no corresponding increase in output (unit labor cost has gone up, in fancy terms).
When prices increase generally without corresponding increases in either quality of the product or productivity of the process, what is that called? If you said "inflation" you are correct.

 

[The Rabbi]

Face it Rightwingers: you lost the debate on the MW.

Declaration of winning after having your ass handed to you=loser.
ANother Billy Triple Fail.

You and I both know that isn't true.

I know it is true and I also know you are wrong. You on the other hand know nothing.