Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Derp]

So you are claiming every person in those 13 states and DC works for minimum wage?

No, but the claim that raising the MW kills jobs is disproved by the empirical evidence from the 13 states + DC that did raise theirs. We can debate whether or not raising the minimum wage created jobs and faster job growth. But we cannot debate that raising the MW kills jobs as that is disproved by the empirical evidence. So to help you figure out what position you migrate to now, it's the position that raising the MW doesn't create jobs but doesn't cost jobs either. That seems to be the position you now have, again, migrated from your previous position that it kills jobs when we know it doesn't by simply looking at the job growth in the states that raised their MW vs. the states that didn't. That was just three years ago. So if you were wrong three years ago about raising the minimum wage costing jobs, why would you be right about it today?

First off, you are dishonest, California did not raise the MW in 2014, they raised in in 2006, with graduated bumps one of which took effect in 2014.

I never said they did you goofball. If you had bothered to actually open the link I provided for you, you'd get the full list of states that raised their MW in 2014. Clearly, you didn't bother to open the link, which explains why your argument is just another regurtitation of what you said earlier. The 13 states that did raise their MW were; Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. So you worked from the assumption that CA was one of those 13 states. You were wrong. So how were you not talking out of your ass just now?

Secondly, the percentage of men making minimum wage who are 25 or older is 0.7%, for women it is 1.1%

So is that the federal minimum wage, or the aggregate total of all the states with varying minimum wages? I have been very clear in that I wasn't talking about raising just the federal minimum wage...but if that is raised above the minimum wage of all the other states (which raising it to $15/hr would do), then it affects more than just the narrow, myopic group you are trying to misrepresent here, right? So everyone who makes $7.25/hr all the way up to $14.99/hr would see a wage increase if the federal minimum wage was raised to $15. So I'm curious...why do you argue that way? You know that states have varying minimum wages, with some higher than the federal minimum and some at the federal minimum. If the federal minimum was raised from $7.25/hr to $15/hr, how many workers would that affect?

The population affected by changes is less than 2%, in fact using your 30% total population yields .018*.3 or 0.54% of the national population. Yet you claim this is significant.

Because you are excluding everyone who lives in states that had MW higher than the federal minimum wage. You're only counting those who lived in states where the minimum was $7.25/hr. You're not counting the minimum wage workers in states that had a higher MW than the federal one. What you did is called sophistry, pal!

I stopped conversing with you because you are a hack with an agenda who has no particular respect for facts.

Your feelings and thoughts are not facts. I don't respect them out of principle. You are the one who disrespects facts. Most notably when it comes to the empirical evidence that shows that the 13 states who raised their MW in 2014 didn't experience job loss, and in fact saw faster job growth than states that didn't. Those are facts. Your theory or belief system are not facts. Facts are something you accept, not something you believe. The fact that you think they are something you believe tells us all we need to know about who you are as a person; someone who has no grasp on the facts and is desperate to maintain that their belief system is factual, or fact-based. It isn't. If you were wrong about raising the MW 3 years ago, why would you be right about it today?

 

[The Derp]

Your claim (or rather the claim of the Soros hate sites that do your thinking for you) is false. Most of these states had raised their MW ages before 2014.

So then higher wages lead to faster job growth! Thanks for the assist! But those states did raise their minimum wages again in 2014. And again, we were promised by those on the right that if they did, it would lead to job loss. It didn't. So what is the known fact that is indisputable? The known fact that you cannot dispute is that states that raised their MW in 2014 saw faster job growth than states that didn't. Now we can debate if that faster job growth had anything to do with the MW, and that is a debate I don't mind having. What we cannot debate, however, is that raising the MW kills jobs because it is disproved by the job growth numbers from the states that raised their wages. So your argument, that raising the minimum wage kills jobs, is disproved by the facts.

You seem incapable of reconciling that inconvenience, and because you refuse to accept the facts, the rest of your post reads like a bunch of whining, ignorant bullshit.

As for your "chart" that supposedly shows negative effect on the Seattle economy, I counter that chart (which doesn't seem to include the rest of 2016...funny, that) with the monthly employment report for the city of Seattle from the BLS that shows a lower unemployment rate by nearly a full point for the city of Seattle in April 2016 vs. April 2017. So perhaps those jobs that were "lost" became better paying, full time jobs! At least, that's what the facts seem to indicate. Seattle's unemployment rate right now is just 3.3%, which is full employment. So while I appreciate your chart there, what I don't appreciate is the fact that you didn't bother to place it in context and hoped I wouldn't either.

Sophistry.

 

[The Derp]

Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage: Jobs Down, Unemployment Up. This Isn't Working, Is It?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ment-up-this-isnt-working-is-it/#ec6cbf52b5cd

Hey you fucking asshole...maybe you want to use a resource that is a little more recent. Not one that is 15 months old. Here, for your reading pleasure, is the BLS employment report for the state of Washington and the city of Seattle. Unlike your editorial from February 2016, this is from May 2017, so we have more data to look at and a better picture of what happened. You do realize that time didn't stop in February 2016, right?

Opening the link from the BLS shows Seattle's unemployment rate for April 2017 is at 3.3%, which is 0.9% lower than what the rate was in April 2016.

SLOPPY WORK ON YOUR PART!

In your rush to try to defend what is ultimately an indefensible position, you didn't bother to look at what the current rates are. Only what they were 15 months ago. So now that you have the facts, are you going to own up to your obvious attempt at deception?

 

[The Derp]

Let's raise it to $500 an hour and make everyone rich.
You progressives have it all figured out.

So it's sad that rather than have an intellectual debate about this, the best you can do is resort to screeching exaggerated hysterics. The reason you don't raise the minimum wage up to $50/hr is because that is economically unfeasible for someone working a drive thru to get paid $2000/week. Just as it is economically unfeasible for someone working a drive through to get paid $290/week. There exists a reasonable middle ground between the two. Whether that is $15/hr or $20/hr or whatever, I am not sure. You and I both agree that some people are paid way too much to shovel audacious, unappetizing bullshit on American citizens...we just disagree on who those people are and where they work.

 

[The Derp]

I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

"If you build it, they will come" - there, I summarized supply-side economics for everyone. Just like Field of Dreams, it's fiction and magic!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But that's not a fact.
It is a fact, the government has made it illegal for an unskilled worker to sell his labor for $5/hr.

No, it's not a fact. You keep representing what you say is fact, but it's not at all. You claimed that it was a fact that raising wages kills jobs. That claim is demonstrably false, as evidenced in the jobs numbers from 2014 showing the 13 states that raised their MW had faster job growth than the 37 that didn't. Now you're trying to redefine the parameters of what you were talking about, and I'm not going to let you.

Your claim: "On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities."

You have no evidence to support that. However, there is plenty of evidence showing that when the minimum wage is raised, job growth speeds up. And we know this because 13 states did that in 2014. You all said, at the time, that it would do exactly what you said above. It didn't. So either 2014 was an outlier of extreme proportions, or you're full of shit.

Which is it?

No, it's not a fact.

I can hire someone for $5/hr without breaking the law?
Are you sure?

You claimed that it was a fact that raising wages kills jobs. That claim is demonstrably false

If someone produced $7.25 of added value per hour and you force an employer to pay them $10/hr or $15/hr they'd get to keep their job? Are you sure?

the 13 states that raised their MW had faster job growth than the 37 that didn't.

That's awesome! So what?

You have no evidence to support that.

Sure I do.

Here's what some experts are expecting:

1. It may increase unemployment among minority youth.
Because teenagers and young adults hold a disproportionately large share of low-wage jobs, they figure to be among the hardest hit, pushed out by older and better-educated workers who will be drawn by the higher pay offered by retail stores, food services and other businesses.

That could hurt opportunities, especially for black teenagers, one of the most vulnerable groups in America. The unemployment rate for African Americans ages 16 to 19, while down by almost half from 2010, still stands at 25%. That compares to 13.9% for white youth and 15.6% for Latino youth.

Four consequences of a $15 minimum wage

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001.
And they were fully implemented in 2003

But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates. Now you're saying that isn't the case, which pretty much undermines your entire taxation argument. And further to that, 2003 was when Bush started deregulating the mortgage industry, and you yourself even said the growth was people fixing up their homes, or buying new ones with their tax cut money. Of course, we know that's bullshit since household debt doubled during Bush the Dumber. And furthermore, if you are trying to credit the tax cuts to employment growth -employment growth a result of the housing market- then you are tying tax cuts to the mortgage bubble. Sooooo....that leaves you with a big, fat economic collapse to reconcile. You can't claim the tax cuts created jobs (they didn't, Bush lost 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years), unless you credit the housing market to the tax cuts. Since that's what spurred job growth beginning in late 2003. So is that what you're now saying? That the Bush Tax Cuts caused the housing bubble? You wouldn't be the first to tie the two together. Bush did so himself while campaigning in 2004.

What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs.
Clearly.

Of which there is no evidence to support you, whereas there exists empirical evidence that contradicts you (the 2014 job growth in the states that raised their MW). So all you did was spread bullshit on the boards.

Not if your revenues are higher.
A business owner who sees his employee costs rise from $7.25 to $10.00, is going to see a revenue increase that offsets the 38% increase in wage expenses? Show me.

Sure! If they run an effective business and can satisfy the demand in the consumer market. If not, then they're probably not very good at running a business and shouldn't anyway. If people have more money to spend because they are paid more, then what does that mean for revenues?

When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money.
Are they going to spend any of it at work?

Depends where they work. So now you're at least conceding the point that if people are paid more, they spend more. Putting more in the hands of consumers most likely to spend that which they get increases consumer demand, which increases revenues. Anyone who has ever run a business knows this. So what's your excuse?

So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages.
No, I'm simply aware that the higher expense is much, much larger than the higher revenues.

But you cannot make that claim because you, yourself admit you don't know. So why are you making a claim you know you cannot support? Raising the minimum wage resulted in faster job growth (indicating more consumer demand) just three years ago. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't.
The MW workers that don't lose their jobs will definitely increase their consumption.

Why would anyone lose their job? They didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages 3 years ago. So was 2014 an outlier, or are you just full of shit? The empirical evidence from 2014 would indicate that you're full of shit. 13 states that represented about 30% of the total population. So you can't even argue the sample size was too small to draw a conclusion.

But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates.

The final individual tax rate cuts took place in 2003. Businesses were then looking at current tax rates.

And furthermore, if you are trying to credit the tax cuts to employment growth

You keep saying tax cuts don't help employment, despite the job growth we see after those cuts.

Sure! If they run an effective business and can satisfy the demand in the consumer market.

McDonalds sees huge demand and employs lots of minimum wage workers.
How do they make up the 38% spike in employee expenses? Show me.

If people have more money to spend because they are paid more, then what does that mean for revenues?

Does your claim depend on McDonalds employees buying more fries?

So now you're at least conceding the point that if people are paid more, they spend more.

You bet, MW workers who don't lose their jobs will spend more.

But you cannot make that claim because you, yourself admit you don't know.

I know that a 38% hike in payroll is going to reduce profits. Show me my error.

Raising the minimum wage resulted in faster job growth (indicating more consumer demand) just three years ago.

You keep making that claim and you keep failing to provide proof.

Why would anyone lose their job?

You admitted that paying a cashier $100/hr didn't make economic sense.
Were you lying?

They didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages 3 years ago.

No minimum wage workers lost their jobs when their wages were raised above their value added?
No automation was implemented to replace those suddenly unaffordable employees?

I'd love to see your evidence.

 

[The Derp]

No, it's not a fact.
I can hire someone for $5/hr without breaking the law?
Are you sure?

That isn't what we were debating and you know it. Your claim was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs. The jobs numbers from 2014 for the 13 states that raised their MW disprove that claim. Now, you are trying to shift the goalposts to try a completely different debate - but we aren't done with the last one. We won't be done until you admit that raising the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs. We can debate whether or not it creates jobs, but we know for sure that it doesn't kill jobs, and we have the employment numbers to back that up.

So why do you try to shift the goalposts in the debate? Is it because you have to maintain some charade where your ego gets inflated? Is that what this is all about; your attitude, your allergic reactions to facts, your substitution of personal bias for fact? It sure seems like it. Get over yourself.

You claimed that it was a fact that raising wages kills jobs. That claim is demonstrably false
If someone produced $7.25 of added value per hour and you force an employer to pay them $10/hr or $15/hr they'd get to keep their job? Are you sure?

There's that word again, "if", which would indicate you are operating in the world of theory and hypothetical. You don't need to do that, because we have empirical evidence that can settle the debate for us. Your claim was that raising the MW kills jobs. The facts from 2014 show that's not the case at all. So you lean back on your "ifs" and "theories" and hypothetical bullshit arguments, but none of those change the empirical data we have showing that in 2014, states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.

the 13 states that raised their MW had faster job growth than the 37 that didn't.
That's awesome! So what?

So it debunks your entire MW theory; that raising it kills jobs. Clearly, that's not true at all, right? If it were, then those states would have seen job loss, right? They would have seen job growth below the other 37 states, right? But they didn't. So that puts the dagger through the heart of your argument.

You have no evidence to support that.
Sure I do.

No you don't. Outdated links and opinion editorials are not evidence. What is evidence are hard numbers. Like the ones from the BLS that show states that raised their MW in 2014 had faster job growth than states that didn't. A fact you seem incapable of reconciling, and one you have no answer for. If your theory was true, wouldn't those states have seen job loss or slower job growth? Why didn't they? We can debate whether or not raising the MW created jobs faster than not raising it, but we cannot debate that raising the MW kills jobs because the empirical evidence shows it didn't. So you operate in this world of theory, magic, and faith...none of which are tangible enough to be used as legitimate points of debate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to whom?
According to the market.

But it's not according to the market because the taxpayers are subsidizing part of those low wages through welfare and entitlement programs. Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers because Walmart doesn't pay them enough. Last year, Walmart made about $14B in profit. So the taxpayers subsidized more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits in order to make sure their workers receive a living wage by combining the wage they get from Walmart with the benefits they get from the government. If Walmart raised its worker pay by $5B collectively, US taxpayers would be spending $5B less on welfare benefits.

So wages are being kept artificially low by subsidizing corporate profits...as much as 33% in some cases (Walmart). The question is; why do you think the market has set the true value of wages as low as it is? Because the market knows that the taxpayers will be there to pick up the slack. So there are only two solutions to this problem; do away with all welfare benefits (but the consequence of that is increased poverty and starvation) or raise wages. You don't seem to know what you want...preferring instead to just perpetuate the current problem in order to complain about it. Which would make your posts masturbatory.

ANo it doesn't because taxpayers have to pick up the slack by providing welfare benefits to compensate for the low wage.
For every one of the million MW workers?

So I am wondering why you keep staying with the federal minimum wage and not all minimum wages. You know, of course, that the minimum wage varies by state. So why are you trying to misrepresent minimum wage workers by excluding all those who have higher state minimum wages than the federal one? I'll save you the time; you do that because it's the only way your stupid argument makes sense...by omitting and ignoring all the facts that undermine it. Which would technically make you an ignoramus.

Basically, for every worker who gets welfare benefits, we are partially subsidizing that cost,
I agree, WalMart is partially subsidizing that welfare cost.

No, no...we are subsidizing Walmart's profits. Walmart isn't paying shit.

Walmart, for example, pays its workers so little that taxpayers have to fork out about $5B in benefits
HAVE to fork out?
You're right, WalMart should fire every employee on welfare.
How much will the government save in benefits then?

So this is how you justify subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits? It's clear you have no thoughtful argument to make based on that pathetic response above.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages (as)....... those in Third World
Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers

Except that they don't because the current labor market favors employers, not workers.

Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers

I love moronic claims like that. Very persuasive. LOL!

If Walmart raised its worker pay by $5B collectively, US taxpayers would be spending $5B less on welfare benefits.

Bullshit.

So wages are being kept artificially low by subsidizing corporate profits...

If you're worried about the wages earned by low skilled and unskilled America workers, you should support deporting the millions of low skilled and unskilled illegal aliens who compete with them for jobs and suppress their wages.

The question is; why do you think the market has set the true value of wages as low as it is?

Supply and demand. Boot the illegals and you reduce the supply.

No, no...we are subsidizing Walmart's profits.

If WalMart fired all their workers on welfare, how much will welfare payments decline?

Walmart isn't paying shit.

WalMart income earned by welfare recipients doesn't reduce welfare benefits received?
Are you sure?

So this is how you justify subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits?

We're not paying WalMart shit.
But go ahead, cut out those subsidies, stick it to WalMart. DURR......

Except that they don't

My chart showed they aren't paying 3rd world wages.
Because your claim was stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 130148

So, as usual, you fail to provide context for those numbers. It's obvious why; placing those wages within the context of inflation would show that they haven't grown. So why do you do things like that? What's with that pathology and sophistry?

So, as usual, you fail to provide context for those numbers.

The context is that they don't pay 3rd world wages.

So why do you do things like that?

I enjoy pointing out your errors.

What's with that pathology and sophistry?

I would never say your idiocy is pathological.

 

[The Derp]

But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates.
The final individual tax rate cuts took place in 2003. Businesses were then looking at current tax rates..

But they knew what those cuts were going to be in 2001, because they were in the legislation. So you're not really making an argument here. All you're doing is just restating that which I already stated and trying to claim that position as your own. Furthermore, by pretending that job growth in 2003-4 was attributed to the tax cuts, you are also attributing them to the mortgage bubble, since that is what drove job growth during Bush. So if as you say tax cuts create jobs, then that means the tax cuts created the mortgage bubble because that was the thing that was creating the jobs during Bush.

And furthermore, if you are trying to credit the tax cuts to employment growth
You keep saying tax cuts don't help employment, despite the job growth we see after those cuts.

Job growth attributed to the mortgage bubble, which Bush was inflating starting in 2003. So if you want to say the tax cuts caused the housing bubble, you could. BTW - are you also saying that the cuts that did go into effect in 2001 didn't create jobs? Because some of those taxes were cut that early. Now you've moved the goalposts to say that it was the individual cut that created jobs which begs the obvious question; since you're saying the cuts to the individual rates creates jobs, that means all the other tax cuts that were part of the Bush Tax Cuts don't? Are you sure you want to make that argument? Because the Bush Tax Cuts weren't just cuts on individual rates.

Sure! If they run an effective business and can satisfy the demand in the consumer market.
McDonalds sees huge demand and employs lots of minimum wage workers.
How do they make up the 38% spike in employee expenses? Show me.

By those employees spending their money. Duh.

If people have more money to spend because they are paid more, then what does that mean for revenues?
Does your claim depend on McDonalds employees buying more fries?

No, they can simply spend the money at Burger King if they want. Or Wendy's. Or anywhere. But in doing so, they are increasing those revenues and the workers at those places then may go to McDonald's with their higher wages. It's called the free market. Clearly you are still learning about it.

So now you're at least conceding the point that if people are paid more, they spend more.

You bet, MW workers who don't lose their jobs will spend more.

MW workers won't lose their jobs. So again, you are making an argument from a false premise. One that is not supported by any empirical evidence. Whereas there is plenty of empirical evidence showing your argument is a bunch of bullshit. And you know it.

But you cannot make that claim because you, yourself admit you don't know.
I know that a 38% hike in payroll is going to reduce profits. Show me my error.

If revenues increase, then that will make up for the gap. Also, 13 states raised their MW in 2014 and those states had faster job growth than those that didn't. So that means that the higher MW led to increased consumption, which led to increased demand, which led to more jobs. That's what the data seems to show. You don't have any data showing the opposite, which is why your argument is purely hypothetical and theory.

Raising the minimum wage resulted in faster job growth (indicating more consumer demand) just three years ago.
You keep making that claim and you keep failing to provide proof.

I did provide proof. Here's the article. Maybe stop being so lazy and do the work. What you have failed to show, using empirical evidence, is that raising the MW kills jobs. No evidence exists, and one of your comrades tried to sneak by out-of-context links but was quickly smacked down by the simplest of Google searches.

Why would anyone lose their job?
You admitted that paying a cashier $100/hr didn't make economic sense.
Were you lying?

I never talked about raising the MW to $100/hr. You did, and you did so in order to exercise sophistry because you have no coherent argument to make. How about this, how about we raise it to $15/hr and go from there? Let's see what happens if we do that. Chances are, it's probably going to lead to faster job growth because demand will be increased thanks to consumers having more money to spend.

They didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages 3 years ago.
No minimum wage workers lost their jobs when their wages were raised above their value added?
No automation was implemented to replace those suddenly unaffordable employees?

Nope. If they did, then job growth wouldn't have happened. But job growth in those states did happen, faster than in the states that didn't raise their wage. So now your argument has been reduced to more hypotheticals, feelings, and theory. But not fact. That usually means you've got nothing to say. No argument to make because no evidence exists to support it. Whereas there is plenty of evidence that contradicts your beliefs, namely the empirical evidence from the MW hikes in 2014.

I'd love to see your evidence.

Stop lying. We know you don't care about evidence. Besides, I've been providing you with links this whole time. You've been the one who refuses to click on them...probably because doing so will result in you having to reconcile the fact that you're wrong.

 

[The Derp]

The context is that they don't pay 3rd world wages.

Because of the minimum wage.

So why do you do things like that?
I enjoy pointing out your errors.

By ignoring context you are pointing out my errors?

What's with that pathology and sophistry?
I would never say your idiocy is pathological.

You're the one making deliberately deceitful arguments in order to stay relevant in a debate that has long passed by what little, if any, merits your argument had.

 

[The Derp]

Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers
I love moronic claims like that. Very persuasive. LOL!

But that's the truth. Walmart employees receive about $5B in welfare and entitlement benefits because of their low wages. Walmart made $14B in profit last year, which means more than 1/3 of Walmart's profit was subsidized by the taxpayer. You have no problem with that, why?

If Walmart raised its worker pay by $5B collectively, US taxpayers would be spending $5B less on welfare benefits.
Bullshit.

So sorry that the truth upsets you so much. It's actually closer to $6B, but I'm being conservative.

So wages are being kept artificially low by subsidizing corporate profits...
If you're worried about the wages earned by low skilled and unskilled America workers, you should support deporting the millions of low skilled and unskilled illegal aliens who compete with them for jobs and suppress their wages.

Well, most of those illegal immigrants came here on the same kind of visas that Trump uses to import foreign workers at his domestic resorts. They just overstayed their visas. He does that because he can pay those workers less and treat them worse than American workers. Why do you think he's so protective of that H-1B Visa program?

The question is; why do you think the market has set the true value of wages as low as it is?
Supply and demand. Boot the illegals and you reduce the supply.

So now it's the immigrants' fault? Everyone's fault but yours, right?

No, no...we are subsidizing Walmart's profits.
If WalMart fired all their workers on welfare, how much will welfare payments decline?

They won't decline at all if they hire workers back at those same rates. Furthermore, can you actually make an argument outside of hypothetical?

Walmart isnt paying shit.
WalMart income earned by welfare recipients doesn't reduce welfare benefits received?
Are you sure?

No. Walmart profits do not reduce welfare benefits.

So this is how you justify subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits?
We're not paying WalMart shit.
But go ahead, cut out those subsidies, stick it to WalMart. DURR......

I'm not talking about cutting welfare. I'm talking about raising wages so we don't have to provide welfare to those workers. Why are you so insistent on paying for welfare for Walmart employees? How stupid are you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates.
The final individual tax rate cuts took place in 2003. Businesses were then looking at current tax rates..

But they knew what those cuts were going to be in 2001, because they were in the legislation. So you're not really making an argument here. All you're doing is just restating that which I already stated and trying to claim that position as your own. Furthermore, by pretending that job growth in 2003-4 was attributed to the tax cuts, you are also attributing them to the mortgage bubble, since that is what drove job growth during Bush. So if as you say tax cuts create jobs, then that means the tax cuts created the mortgage bubble because that was the thing that was creating the jobs during Bush.

And furthermore, if you are trying to credit the tax cuts to employment growth
You keep saying tax cuts don't help employment, despite the job growth we see after those cuts.

Job growth attributed to the mortgage bubble, which Bush was inflating starting in 2003. So if you want to say the tax cuts caused the housing bubble, you could. BTW - are you also saying that the cuts that did go into effect in 2001 didn't create jobs? Because some of those taxes were cut that early. Now you've moved the goalposts to say that it was the individual cut that created jobs which begs the obvious question; since you're saying the cuts to the individual rates creates jobs, that means all the other tax cuts that were part of the Bush Tax Cuts don't? Are you sure you want to make that argument? Because the Bush Tax Cuts weren't just cuts on individual rates.

Sure! If they run an effective business and can satisfy the demand in the consumer market.
McDonalds sees huge demand and employs lots of minimum wage workers.
How do they make up the 38% spike in employee expenses? Show me.

By those employees spending their money. Duh.

If people have more money to spend because they are paid more, then what does that mean for revenues?
Does your claim depend on McDonalds employees buying more fries?

No, they can simply spend the money at Burger King if they want. Or Wendy's. Or anywhere. But in doing so, they are increasing those revenues and the workers at those places then may go to McDonald's with their higher wages. It's called the free market. Clearly you are still learning about it.

So now you're at least conceding the point that if people are paid more, they spend more.

You bet, MW workers who don't lose their jobs will spend more.

MW workers won't lose their jobs. So again, you are making an argument from a false premise. One that is not supported by any empirical evidence. Whereas there is plenty of empirical evidence showing your argument is a bunch of bullshit. And you know it.

But you cannot make that claim because you, yourself admit you don't know.
I know that a 38% hike in payroll is going to reduce profits. Show me my error.

If revenues increase, then that will make up for the gap. Also, 13 states raised their MW in 2014 and those states had faster job growth than those that didn't. So that means that the higher MW led to increased consumption, which led to increased demand, which led to more jobs. That's what the data seems to show. You don't have any data showing the opposite, which is why your argument is purely hypothetical and theory.

Raising the minimum wage resulted in faster job growth (indicating more consumer demand) just three years ago.
You keep making that claim and you keep failing to provide proof.

I did provide proof. Here's the article. Maybe stop being so lazy and do the work. What you have failed to show, using empirical evidence, is that raising the MW kills jobs. No evidence exists, and one of your comrades tried to sneak by out-of-context links but was quickly smacked down by the simplest of Google searches.

Why would anyone lose their job?
You admitted that paying a cashier $100/hr didn't make economic sense.
Were you lying?

I never talked about raising the MW to $100/hr. You did, and you did so in order to exercise sophistry because you have no coherent argument to make. How about this, how about we raise it to $15/hr and go from there? Let's see what happens if we do that. Chances are, it's probably going to lead to faster job growth because demand will be increased thanks to consumers having more money to spend.

They didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages 3 years ago.
No minimum wage workers lost their jobs when their wages were raised above their value added?
No automation was implemented to replace those suddenly unaffordable employees?

Nope. If they did, then job growth wouldn't have happened. But job growth in those states did happen, faster than in the states that didn't raise their wage. So now your argument has been reduced to more hypotheticals, feelings, and theory. But not fact. That usually means you've got nothing to say. No argument to make because no evidence exists to support it. Whereas there is plenty of evidence that contradicts your beliefs, namely the empirical evidence from the MW hikes in 2014.

I'd love to see your evidence.

Stop lying. We know you don't care about evidence. Besides, I've been providing you with links this whole time. You've been the one who refuses to click on them...probably because doing so will result in you having to reconcile the fact that you're wrong.

But they knew what those cuts were going to be in 2001, because they were in the legislation.

Yeah, phasing in tax cuts is stupid. Cut them all at once.

Furthermore, by pretending that job growth in 2003-4 was attributed to the tax cuts,

You said there was no job growth after the Bush tax cuts. You were wrong.

Job growth attributed to the mortgage bubble,

Not in the 60s or the 80s.

So if as you say tax cuts create jobs, then that means the tax cuts created the mortgage bubble

Obama's jobs created a new mortgage bubble?

By those employees spending their money. Duh.

If a McDs franchise sees a $100,000 increase in employee expenses, how does a $100,000 increase in revenue keep profits steady? Duh.

MW workers won't lose their jobs.

How do you know?

So again, you are making an argument from a false premise.

You mean the premise that you can raise the cost of something and not see a decline in demand? LOL!

I did provide proof. Here's the article.

Thanks for the link. Where in the article did it say employment grew because of the MW hike?

I never talked about raising the MW to $100/hr.

You admitted it made no sense. Were you lying?

How about this, how about we raise it to $15/hr and go from there?

Feel free. At your own company.

Chances are, it's probably going to lead to faster job growth because demand will be increased thanks to consumers having more money to spend.

Chances are, it's probably going to lead to slower job growth because demand will be reduced thanks to employers having less money to spend.

Nope. If they did, then job growth wouldn't have happened.

You showed that job growth happened for minimum wage workers? Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The context is that they don't pay 3rd world wages.

Because of the minimum wage.

So why do you do things like that?
I enjoy pointing out your errors.

By ignoring context you are pointing out my errors?

What's with that pathology and sophistry?
I would never say your idiocy is pathological.

You're the one making deliberately deceitful arguments in order to stay relevant in a debate that has long passed by what little, if any, merits your argument had.

Because of the minimum wage.

MW is why average wages are $26.43 an hour? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers
I love moronic claims like that. Very persuasive. LOL!

But that's the truth. Walmart employees receive about $5B in welfare and entitlement benefits because of their low wages. Walmart made $14B in profit last year, which means more than 1/3 of Walmart's profit was subsidized by the taxpayer. You have no problem with that, why?

If Walmart raised its worker pay by $5B collectively, US taxpayers would be spending $5B less on welfare benefits.
Bullshit.

So sorry that the truth upsets you so much. It's actually closer to $6B, but I'm being conservative.

So wages are being kept artificially low by subsidizing corporate profits...
If you're worried about the wages earned by low skilled and unskilled America workers, you should support deporting the millions of low skilled and unskilled illegal aliens who compete with them for jobs and suppress their wages.

Well, most of those illegal immigrants came here on the same kind of visas that Trump uses to import foreign workers at his domestic resorts. They just overstayed their visas. He does that because he can pay those workers less and treat them worse than American workers. Why do you think he's so protective of that H-1B Visa program?

The question is; why do you think the market has set the true value of wages as low as it is?
Supply and demand. Boot the illegals and you reduce the supply.

So now it's the immigrants' fault? Everyone's fault but yours, right?

No, no...we are subsidizing Walmart's profits.
If WalMart fired all their workers on welfare, how much will welfare payments decline?

They won't decline at all if they hire workers back at those same rates. Furthermore, can you actually make an argument outside of hypothetical?

Walmart isnt paying shit.
WalMart income earned by welfare recipients doesn't reduce welfare benefits received?
Are you sure?

No. Walmart profits do not reduce welfare benefits.

So this is how you justify subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits?
We're not paying WalMart shit.
But go ahead, cut out those subsidies, stick it to WalMart. DURR......

I'm not talking about cutting welfare. I'm talking about raising wages so we don't have to provide welfare to those workers. Why are you so insistent on paying for welfare for Walmart employees? How stupid are you?

But that's the truth. Walmart employees receive about $5B in welfare and entitlement benefits because of their low wages.

How much would welfare payments be reduced if WalMart fired welfare recipients?

You never told me how much we'd save.......why are you running away from the question?

Well, most of those illegal immigrants came here on the same kind of visas that Trump uses to import foreign workers at his domestic resorts.

12 million illegal aliens overstayed their visas? LOL!

So now it's the immigrants' fault?

Illegal aliens don't add to the labor supply? Are you sure?

Walmart profits do not reduce welfare benefits.

WalMart payments to workers do.

 

[danielpalos]

The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population.

So you are claiming every person in those 13 states and DC works for minimum wage?

So no, you're wrong as usual. It's not a minuscule percentage. Since when is 30% minuscule?????? Oh right, since you say so. LOL. What a tool.

First off, you are dishonest, California did not raise the MW in 2014, they raised in in 2006, with graduated bumps one of which took effect in 2014.

Secondly, the percentage of men making minimum wage who are 25 or older is 0.7%, for women it is 1.1%

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/mi...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

The population affected by changes is less than 2%, in fact using your 30% total population yields .018*.3 or 0.54% of the national population. Yet you claim this is significant.

I stopped conversing with you because you are a hack with an agenda who has no particular respect for facts.

Here is information you will ignore, since you are an ideologue who seeks only to promote the leftist agenda, regardless of facts.

{The minimum wage is not a “protection,” as progressives often style it. It doesn’t confer a “right” to be paid any amount of money, because nobody has an obligation to hire you. The minimum wage only says that it’s illegal to work for less than x, no matter how badly you need that job. To the extent the minimum wage is set above where the market clears on a given wage category, businesses will typically respond with some combination of raising wages, cutting hours, and laying people off. And, to the extent they respond by raising wages, the higher labor costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Many of the affected labor categories are in industries — such as supermarkets and food service — that provide necessaries to poor and rich alike, so the social costs are grossly regressive. If you want to see just how unfair the minimum wage is to poor people, consider the fact that those born into privilege enjoy a huge exemption from it — they can be interns in the profession of their choice. Recent college graduates can walk into the job of their dreams with no experience by offering their services for free as interns. This allows them to “get their foot in the door,” acquire valuable skills, and prove to their hoped-for employer that they’re worth hiring. Now imagine a recent immigrant asking for an “internship” at the local supermarket. Even if the supermarket is willing to open that door, the federal government slams it shut.

Read more at: How the Minimum Wage Hurts Poor People}

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

Say says, State Capitalism should supply a solution that involves, equal protection of the law regarding the supply concept of employment at will, in our at-will employment States, for unemployment compensation purposes; to ensure capital is supplied and circulates to conform to Adam Smith.

 

[danielpalos]

2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive impact on employment.

Then let's raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hr and see what happens. Since raising wages in 2014 didn't lead to the job loss you all predicted, why would raising it to $15/hr nationally be any different?

Basically, since you were wrong in 2014, why would you be right today? I don't feel like that's an unfair question to ask.

Let's raise it to $500 an hour and make everyone rich.

You progressives have it all figured out.

Say says, Gravity Payments can supply us with an answer.

 

[danielpalos]

[
Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply". There is simply, not enough demand.

Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.

For some on the left, it seems, "the poor only get around three fifths", "open interest" on "demand" options.

Again stoner boi, you have not a hint of a clue as to how supply side economics works, nor indeed how Keynesian theory works. You have a sum total of zero knowledge on the subject under discussion.

Supply side economics as proposed by the brilliant economist Dr. Arthur Laffer holds quite simply that production is the single most important factor in economics. (Hence why I earned a Ph.D. in Supply Chain Management to augment my credentials rather than pursuing traditional economics.) The key to macroeconomics is equilibrium. This is the point that demand and supply intersect, which by necessity is the most efficient use of resources.

Now you have never had an economics course, nor did you finish high school, but a universal truth is that scarcity drives all economic systems. To put it in a way you can understand, you as a dope dealer have had times where you couldn't get any pot to sell, supplies were short. What did that do to you dope dealing business? Did demand create a new supply of dope? On the other hand, if you get a shipment of 30 pounds in and can only sell a few ounces a week, you have a lot of capital tied up in weed that isn't moving - which you will end up smoking rather than selling.

So the goal in macroeconomics is to match the supply of goods with the demand.

Now when demand increases, two things can happen, either prices increase to contain the scarcity of the goods, or supply increases to meet the demand. Supply side economics recognizes the fact that only an increase in production can result in an increase in supply. Demand will never, and cannot increase the supply of anything, only production can do this. Hence supply side theory is axiomatically true. No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way. Demand does not increase supply, only production increases supply. In a capitalist society, industrialists will generally monitor demand and increase production if possible, but it is not demand that creates supply, demand only creates opportunity for production. Production alone creates supply. Only the pot growers planting more Marijuana increase the amount of dope you can sell. Your stoner buddies cannot change the amount of weed on the market.

China, though a socialist country is a great example of supply side theory in action. During the heyday of Mao, about a third of the population was technically starving, lacking the food needed to maintain normal health. Mao as you know, ran a purely demand driven economy. The state accounted for demand and allocated production to what they viewed as goods needing supply. 90% of China was in abject poverty

After Nixon opened China, American companies began engaging in production in China. This production transformed the dictatorship to the point that starvation has been entirely eradicated and poverty is under 20%. It was production that changed the dynamic, Demand was irrelevant, the goods produced were not even offered to Chinese consumers. Production created jobs, jobs provided income.

Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down."

The left has dishonestly used the term trickle down due to the supply side remedy to the business cycle. Under Keynesian economics, the response of monetary policy during economic down turns is to create fiat currency and large deficits to pump cash into the economy as a means of "priming the pump." Under the General Theory, Keynes advocated for this stimulus to go directly to individuals, the Roosevelt WPA is prime example, people were employed and paid by the government to build roads and bridges, money went directly to citizens.

Now the Porkulus of Obama is quite different, the trillions of dollars he spent went to public employee unions, auto manufacturers, and other well connected looters, so his fiasco cannot be viewed as a Keynesian stimulus.

Supply side holds that the most effective way to end a recession is to stimulate production, since it is not demand that falters, but supply in a recession. (The poor still want a loaf of bread, they simply cannot afford it due rising prices). To stimulate production, the most direct route is to reduce the amount of capital that the government confiscates from business. This is accomplished by lowering taxes.

One of the lies of the left is that lowering taxes has a unique impact on the public treasury; both a stimulus AND tax breaks have an impact. To claim that only lowering taxes has such and impact is highly dishonest.

Anyway, I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

A god supplies morals; where is the demand for more laws that primarily affect the poor.

As I said.

I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

Guys with gold influencing the markets; what a concept.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population.

So you are claiming every person in those 13 states and DC works for minimum wage?

So no, you're wrong as usual. It's not a minuscule percentage. Since when is 30% minuscule?????? Oh right, since you say so. LOL. What a tool.

First off, you are dishonest, California did not raise the MW in 2014, they raised in in 2006, with graduated bumps one of which took effect in 2014.

Secondly, the percentage of men making minimum wage who are 25 or older is 0.7%, for women it is 1.1%

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/mi...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

The population affected by changes is less than 2%, in fact using your 30% total population yields .018*.3 or 0.54% of the national population. Yet you claim this is significant.

I stopped conversing with you because you are a hack with an agenda who has no particular respect for facts.

Here is information you will ignore, since you are an ideologue who seeks only to promote the leftist agenda, regardless of facts.

{The minimum wage is not a “protection,” as progressives often style it. It doesn’t confer a “right” to be paid any amount of money, because nobody has an obligation to hire you. The minimum wage only says that it’s illegal to work for less than x, no matter how badly you need that job. To the extent the minimum wage is set above where the market clears on a given wage category, businesses will typically respond with some combination of raising wages, cutting hours, and laying people off. And, to the extent they respond by raising wages, the higher labor costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Many of the affected labor categories are in industries — such as supermarkets and food service — that provide necessaries to poor and rich alike, so the social costs are grossly regressive. If you want to see just how unfair the minimum wage is to poor people, consider the fact that those born into privilege enjoy a huge exemption from it — they can be interns in the profession of their choice. Recent college graduates can walk into the job of their dreams with no experience by offering their services for free as interns. This allows them to “get their foot in the door,” acquire valuable skills, and prove to their hoped-for employer that they’re worth hiring. Now imagine a recent immigrant asking for an “internship” at the local supermarket. Even if the supermarket is willing to open that door, the federal government slams it shut.

Read more at: How the Minimum Wage Hurts Poor People}

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.

Say says, State Capitalism should supply a solution that involves, equal protection of the law regarding the supply concept of employment at will, in our at-will employment States, for unemployment compensation purposes; to ensure capital is supplied and circulates to conform to Adam Smith.

So what you're saying is "Herpa derp deperity derp derp derpity?"

Very deep doper boi..