Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Markle]

13 states + DC raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. So either that means 2014 is a pretty big exception to your rule[...]

Please show us your source and link proving your allegation. That the 13 states + DC which raised their minimum wage are the 14 locations leading the nation in job growth.

I'm glad you pointed out so emphatically that there is no reason for the Federal Government to do anything since, properly, the states are doing it themselves.

Problem solved.

 

[danielpalos]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. Fifteen dollars an hour makes rational choice theory sense.

If the national minimum wage was raised to fifteen dollars per hour, specifically what would happen to the worker earning $15.00 per hour today?

What about the worker earning $25.00 per hour today. Since the worker formerly earning $7.50 per hour, is now being given $15.00, a 100% increase, should the worker earning $25.00 per hour not be entitled to 100% increase as well?

And so on and so forth. At the end of the day, we are back in exactly the same position.

I doubt there are any such details available but I'd be curious to know how many employees it required on an assembly line to build a car 50 years ago and how many it takes today.

When I teach for our state association, my fee is limited to $250.00 per hour plus expenses, which makes that my fee exactly. Since hourly wages are doubling, why would I not be entitled to $500.00 per hour and the engagements I book at $1,000. or $2,000 per hour, don't they double as well?

The price inflation canard from the right wing? How literally, incredible.

The dollar menu won't even double.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.

Which increases revenues, as you well know.

The Laffer Curve

Dude; we are on the Wrong Side of the Curve; our massive debt, Proves it.

 

[danielpalos]

13 states + DC raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. So either that means 2014 is a pretty big exception to your rule[...]

Please show us your source and link proving your allegation. That the 13 states + DC which raised their minimum wage are the 14 locations leading the nation in job growth.

I'm glad you pointed out so emphatically that there is no reason for the Federal Government to do anything since, properly, the states are doing it themselves.

Problem solved.

He provided links earlier; all you have is diversion.

 

[The Derp]

The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP. By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP.

So, just curious, what was the National Debt in 2009, after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, and what was the % of GDP when Bush left office? Why did you just skip over the Bush years? Pretending they didn't happen?

As to any surplus, I'm curious, how can that be when our debt has NEVER decreased?

Well, if you look at Treasury Statements on Public Debt you can see that some months the debt was reduced and other months it wasn't. That's because government doesn't collect revenues all at once.

 

[JonKoch]

13 states + DC raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. So either that means 2014 is a pretty big exception to your rule[...]

Please show us your source and link proving your allegation. That the 13 states + DC which raised their minimum wage are the 14 locations leading the nation in job growth.

I'm glad you pointed out so emphatically that there is no reason for the Federal Government to do anything since, properly, the states are doing it themselves.

Problem solved.

States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says


California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump
Whatever the president says, this state does the opposite. It's working.

California is the chief reason America is the only developed economy to achieve record GDP growth since the financial crisis of 2008 and ensuing global recession, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Much of the U.S. growth can be traced to California laws promoting clean energy, government accountability and protections for undocumented people. Governor Jerry Brown, now in his fourth term, considers immigrants a major reason for the state's success: "39 percent of us are Latino and the majority are from Mexico,"

California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump

 

[JonKoch]

So where was all this debt concern back in 2001 when you all erased a surplus and produced record deficits by cutting taxes? We only have the debt today because you fucking assholes cut taxes in 2001, erasing a surplus and producing record deficits.

The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP. By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP.

As to any surplus, I'm curious, how can that be when our debt has NEVER decreased?

 

[JonKoch]

Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.

Which increases revenues, as you well know.

The Laffer Curve

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

 

[JonKoch]

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}

I swear to God that this virus of conservatives not believing the facts right there in front of them is contagious-- and you have caught it big time. Just because you say something it doesn't change FACTS and make it so--that is how three year olds (or the Cheeto) expect life to be.

 

[JonKoch]

 

[The Derp]

I swear to God that this virus of conservatives not believing the facts right there in front of them is contagious-- and you have caught it big time. Just because you say something it doesn't change FACTS and make it so--that is how three year olds (or the Cheeto) expect life to be.

Thing is, I believe they know the facts. I believe they even accept those facts. But they are caught between the facts and their own egos, and that's why they have to exercise sophistry in this, and pretty much every other debate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
only to dopeless wonders.

State Capitalism can supply equal protection of the law to ensure full employment of capital resources in our economy; it really is that simple.

With Labor having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; the laws of demand and supply will function more as described by Adam Smith.

State Capitalism? Is that made from "dry water?"

And you have not a clue what Adam Smith described.

It happens via a public sector not a private sector.

Full employment of resources via an Capital, hard working hand.

You are one ignorant troll, that's for sure.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

You don't make $70K a year slinging dope to kids, Danny?

You're not very good at what you do.

How can Labor ascertain if management is any good or not; management compensation?

Read the company financials. It's real clear whether management is any good or not based on EBIT.

That didn't work. Whence any need for bailouts.

What didn't work? And what bailouts are you referring to? Only well connected organizations that buy government officials get bailouts.

 

[danielpalos]

[
only to dopeless wonders.

State Capitalism can supply equal protection of the law to ensure full employment of capital resources in our economy; it really is that simple.

With Labor having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; the laws of demand and supply will function more as described by Adam Smith.

State Capitalism? Is that made from "dry water?"

And you have not a clue what Adam Smith described.

It happens via a public sector not a private sector.

Full employment of resources via an Capital, hard working hand.

You are one ignorant troll, that's for sure.

ignorant about what? you lost our drug war debate on AWE, for having nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I finally started going through your, "wall of text".

No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way.

Solving a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, will do, just that.

Poverty of money?

 

[danielpalos]

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

You don't make $70K a year slinging dope to kids, Danny?

You're not very good at what you do.

How can Labor ascertain if management is any good or not; management compensation?

Read the company financials. It's real clear whether management is any good or not based on EBIT.

That didn't work. Whence any need for bailouts.

What didn't work? And what bailouts are you referring to? Only well connected organizations that buy government officials get bailouts.

the one where supply side managers had to lie to their stock holders to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare.

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves simple poverty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not the right place to tell lies, hack boi.

Andrew Jackson was the last president to leave a surplus.

 

[danielpalos]

I finally started going through your, "wall of text".

No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way.

Solving a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, will do, just that.

Poverty of money?

Yes, under Any form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Not the right place to tell lies, hack boi.

Andrew Jackson was the last president to leave a surplus.

know the difference between a budget surplus and debt?

 

[The Derp]

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

So they knew what the tax cut was going to be in 2001, and re-forecast based on that in 2001. That's what you're saying. So, wondering why Bush and the Conservatives had to phase in the tax cuts, and why they didn't make them permanent? Why was that? Why did they have a sunset provision? That doesn't make any sense unless they knew the Bush Tax Cuts were going to spike the deficit and skyrocket the debt. So they had to have passed the tax cuts knowing the negative effects those cuts would have on the budget, so they set a sunset provision in them. So the premise that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is a false premise, isn't it?

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

No, what I said was the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble. You need to do a better job reading posts. You do a lot of sloppy work here.

Job growth attributed to the mortgage bubble,
Not in the 60s or the 80s.

First of all, there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981. In fact, unemployment skyrocketed starting the month the Reagan Tax Cuts were passed, and continued growing throughout 1982, bringing the unemployment rate up by more than 3% to 10.8% by December 1982. And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate, I'm fine with that. But also keep in mind that government spending grew by 25% from 1961 to 1964 and then 50% from 1964 to 1968.

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?

Nope. The Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble, according to you. You say the Bush Tax Cuts created jobs, but those jobs were created by the mortgage bubble. So that means the Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble. Bush even said so himself while campaigning in 2004. Ouch.

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.

Why would the increase be $100K? And most likely, yes, revenues would increase for that McDonald's because it's not just McDonald's employees who see wage growth. It's everyone who works up to whatever the new minimum wage is. What's sad about your posts is that they seem to get dumber and dumber the more we get into this subject. That's usually an indication that you aren't as versed on this topic as you think you are. So you have to exercise sophistry and such in order toi stay relevant in a debate. I mean at this point, you're pretty much just flaming out here like a troll.

BMW workers won't lose their jobs.
How do you know?

Because they didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages just three years ago. Back then, you all said that they would lose jobs. They didn't, which means you were wrong. So if you were wrong just three years ago, why would you be right about the same subject today?

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!

So again, we saw that 13 states raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states then saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. If your premise is true, then the facts wouldn't be what they are. So in your attempt to defend your position, you are deliberately ignoring the empirical evidence that exists that proves your argument wrong. So the question now is; why do you keep making an argument you know is disproved by facts?

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?

As I said, we can debate whether or not raising the MW creates jobs...and that's a debate I don't mind having. We cannot, however, debate that raising the MW kills jobs because we have empirical evidence showing it doesn't. Your premise with regard to taxation is that if taxes are cut, consumption increases. Well, how could that increase consumption, but paying people higher wages doesn't? Your argument falls flat on its face when subject to even the slightest scrutiny.

I never talked about raising the MW to $100/hr.
You admitted it made no sense. Were you lying?

Why did you call for raising it to $100/hr? We know why...because exercising hysterics is all you drama queens can do. Every time there is discussion about raising the MW, you all insist that doing so will kill jobs. That hasn't happened. Instead, job growth was faster than if the MW wasn't raised. At least, that's what the data tells us. So how could states that raised their minimum wage have faster growth than states that didn't? Do you have an answer for that question? No, of course not.

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.

And you base that on what? Certainly not on the jobs numbers from 2014. So how do you reach that conclusion using facts and evidence? You can't. Which is why the conclusion you have is bullshit and why it was so easy to take it apart on this thread.

Nope. If thy did, then job growth wouldn't have happened.
You showed that job growth happened for minimum wage workers? Link?

All I showed was that job growth happened. So it seems like those minimum wage workers graduated up to better paying jobs. What didn't happen was that jobs were lost, despite you insisting they would. So if you were wrong about that just three years ago, why would you be right about the same subject today?