Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you think Koch or Palios "know the facts?" Do you think either has read the "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?" They or you can read it here, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes
So this is just a distraction from the facts that show 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages, and those states + DC saw faster job growth than states that didn't. Whether that job growth is attributed to the wage increases, we can debate. But we can't debate that wage increases lead to job loss. The empirical evidence from 2014 proves it doesn't.
So let's talk about the merits of your belief system; it's not based in fact (because the numbers from 2014 prove it isn't), it relies on flawed premises and magical thinking, and it has no evidence to support it. All it has is a very devoted group of ideologues who are determined to be willfully ignorant of the facts.
So because of that, it's hard for anyone to take anything you say seriously.
I grasp that you have a talking point to recite, but your bullshit has been defeated by both Todd and I numerous times. The number of minimum wage earners is too low to have an impact on the economies of American states.
When you raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour, the impact that has on a worker already making $18 an hour is to degrade there purchasing power. Remember, in any market economy, equilibrium will be found. Changing the volume of fiat currency can never alter the value of goods and services, it will merely alter the value of the currency. When more dollars chase a finite pool of goods and services, the dollars will have value by the increase quantity.
If there are 12 eggs and 12 dollars in a market, each egg cost $1 dollar. But the government boss comes along and dictates that there be 24 dollars. Are there suddenly 24 eggs? Of course not, the only effect is that purchasing power of each dollar declines. Further, since the boss keeps most of added dollars for himself, after all that's why he added them., the purchasing power of the public is greatly reduced. The value of the egg doesn't change, it still has the same number of calories and protein, only how many dollars an egg can buy is changed.
The same holds true with your minimum wage idiocy. Value is static. The value added to a process by a person pressing icons on a cash register while talking to a drive-through customer is static. If the government boss dictates that the dollars paid to that person increase, the only possible effect is to devalue the dollars. In a large and complex economy like ours, the impact of this hits primarily those making 10 to 20% over minimum wage, as they get no more dollars, but must survive in a market where their dollars have less worth due to arbitrary flooding by the government bosses.
[
The willfully ignorant liar calling out people spanking him
How does mindlessly posting memes from the Soros hate sites "spank" anyone?
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?
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?
Which increases revenues, as you well know.
Weird IF you could show ANYTIME CONservative economics EVER worked (except for the richest) you'd have something to stand on, you don't Buttercup
Do you think Koch or Palios "know the facts?" Do you think either has read the "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?" They or you can read it here, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes
So this is just a distraction from the facts that show 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages, and those states + DC saw faster job growth than states that didn't. Whether that job growth is attributed to the wage increases, we can debate. But we can't debate that wage increases lead to job loss. The empirical evidence from 2014 proves it doesn't.
So let's talk about the merits of your belief system; it's not based in fact (because the numbers from 2014 prove it isn't), it relies on flawed premises and magical thinking, and it has no evidence to support it. All it has is a very devoted group of ideologues who are determined to be willfully ignorant of the facts.
So because of that, it's hard for anyone to take anything you say seriously.
I grasp that you have a talking point to recite, but your bullshit has been defeated by both Todd and I numerous times. The number of minimum wage earners is too low to have an impact on the economies of American states.
When you raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour, the impact that has on a worker already making $18 an hour is to degrade there purchasing power. Remember, in any market economy, equilibrium will be found. Changing the volume of fiat currency can never alter the value of goods and services, it will merely alter the value of the currency. When more dollars chase a finite pool of goods and services, the dollars will have value by the increase quantity.
If there are 12 eggs and 12 dollars in a market, each egg cost $1 dollar. But the government boss comes along and dictates that there be 24 dollars. Are there suddenly 24 eggs? Of course not, the only effect is that purchasing power of each dollar declines. Further, since the boss keeps most of added dollars for himself, after all that's why he added them., the purchasing power of the public is greatly reduced. The value of the egg doesn't change, it still has the same number of calories and protein, only how many dollars an egg can buy is changed.
The same holds true with your minimum wage idiocy. Value is static. The value added to a process by a person pressing icons on a cash register while talking to a drive-through customer is static. If the government boss dictates that the dollars paid to that person increase, the only possible effect is to devalue the dollars. In a large and complex economy like ours, the impact of this hits primarily those making 10 to 20% over minimum wage, as they get no more dollars, but must survive in a market where their dollars have less worth due to arbitrary flooding by the government bosses.
"The number of minimum wage earners is too low to have an impact on the economies of American states."
Yet EVERY TIME a min wage hike is proposed the right wing screams it will KILL THE US ECONOMY *shaking head*
You are entirely ignorant of even the most basic aspects of macro economics. You don't know who the players are, what the major schools of thought are, what the words mean. You have never read the underlying texts that define the various systems. You've not read Keynes, Marx, Friedman, Von Mises, et al. You are the king of Malapropisms.
Oh wow, you posted another meme from a hate site.
You are impressive, RotCrotch!
[
The willfully ignorant liar calling out people spanking him
How does mindlessly posting memes from the Soros hate sites "spank" anyone?
Weird IF you could show ANYTIME CONservative economics EVER worked (except for the richest) you'd have something to stand on, you don't Buttercup
Soro's huh? Yep that guy who LOVES him some democracy is bad, but Putin is LOVED by the right wingers *shaking head*
[
Conservative economics are a joke because they are based on feelings, faith, and theory...not actual fact. Conservatives think "if you build it, they will come" is a viable guiding economic philosophy. It may have worked in the movies, but that's because it's fiction.
Fuhrer Soros loves him some fascism, as do you.
Do you honestly think that the slogans you spew are a valid retort to the mountains of facts you have been provided?
Fuhrer Soros loves him some fascism, as do you.
So calling a Holocaust survivor a fascist is antisemitism and flaming. It shows you're not really serious about this debate, and I think you know that we know that.
So that begs the question; if you're not serious, why are you here? Is it just a way for you to feel better about yourself? Is your ego really that fragile?
Do you honestly think that the slogans you spew are a valid retort to the mountains of facts you have been provided?
You haven't provided any facts. You are one confused person. Your personal theory is not fact. Your personal feelings are not fact. What is fact is the job growth numbers in 2014 that showed the states that raised their MW had faster job growth than those that didn't. You've been unable to reconcile that fact with your personal belief system. So that's probably why you flame out, exercise sophistry, and generally act like an asshole on the boards.
Well okay, you just go ahead and lie then.
Unsustainable bubbles are cool!
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?
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?
Then who would work in Walmart's stores? Why do you insist on making false questions and choices? How about we deal in reality. The reality is that we subsidize at least 1/3 of Walmart's profits every year by providing welfare benefits to their workers. If Walmart paid their workers enough that they didn't qualify for benefits, then Walmart would still make billions in profits, they just wouldn't make as much. Boo hoo. Someone call Puddles' Pity Party.
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!
The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants are people who have overstayed their visas. Is this yet another subject you know nothing about, but are pretending you do? 66% of undocumented immigrants are people who overstayed their visas. Visas like the ones Trump uses to import foreign workers to work at his domestic resorts.
So now it's the immigrants' fault?
Illegal aliens don't add to the labor supply? Are you sure?
You're not going to find many Americans who will work the jobs illegal immigrants do for the wages illegal immigrants get and the working conditions illegal immigrants work in. They tried in a couple states in the South and there were no takers. Produce was literally rotting on the vine because there was no one to pick it.
Walmart profits do not reduce welfare benefits.
WalMart payments to workers do.
Yes, if Walmart raised their wages for their workers. But they don't. So we continue having to subsidize their profits because...because...there's no good answer.
