The Dirty Little Truth About the Minimum Wage

Why, the Federal Government does these things better.

No, the Federal government CAN'T determine what is better for my state, your state and someone else's state. WE can determine what is best for our respective states MUCH better. It's the whole entire purpose of having states. When a bureaucrat in Washington decides what is best for my state, my freedom is taken away. Always.
 
Why, the Federal Government does these things better.

No, the Federal government CAN'T determine what is better for my state, your state and someone else's state. WE can determine what is best for our respective states MUCH better. It's the whole entire purpose of having states. When a bureaucrat in Washington decides what is best for my state, my freedom is taken away. Always.

Actually, there's no real purpose to having states. State governments are run by C-list clowns who can't win federal elections.

Your freedom to bend over for the rich is your own problem. I frankly like the fact that the air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink. But you keep living next to the biggest toxic waste dump in the country and think your state is looking out for you.

MEANWHILE...

Alabama one of the most corrupt states in the country, Harvard study says

It turns out those perceptions aren't always correct. A new study conducted by Harvard's Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics shows there are collection of states that are considered the most corrupt but it may not be the ones that immediately come to mind.

Can you guess which state showed up high on the list? That would be Alabama, of course.

The 2014 study looked at both illegal corruption, defined as private gains such as cash or gift in exchange for specific benefits, and legal corruption, that is, political gains through campaign contributions or endorsements by a government official in return to providing benefits for a private individual.
 
I support a minimum wage adjusted annually for inflation.

Again, you can't do that on national basis because every region is different and has different economy. I keep explaining why your plan doesn't work and hasn't worked for 82 years and you act like you have peanut butter in your ears.. or maybe between your ears? :dunno:

You don't seem to understand how the economy works. Cost of labor drives inflation. The more labor costs the more inflation you have. So you'd be setting up a system that would spiral wildly out of control in short order. Pretty soon, people make $1000/hr. and a gallon of milk costs $1000.
 
Pulling the thread back on topic....

On The Historically Racist Motivations Behind Minimum Wage

The business-friendly National Center for Policy Analysis points out “the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, requiring ‘prevailing’ wages on federally assisted construction projects, was supported by the idea that it would keep contractors from using ‘cheap colored labor’ to underbid contractors using white labor.”

African-American economist Thomas Sowell with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution gives an uncomfortable historical primer behind minimum wage laws:

“In 1925, a minimum-wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum-wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.”

In today’s South Africa, The New York Times reported on poor workers, many of them black, angry at government leaders enforcing labor laws the price them out of a job.

Thanks bear.
 
Actually, there's no real purpose to having states.

This is why you're a Commie Socialist.

Yawn, guy. The thing is, your side lost the national conversation a long time ago. So now you want some little corner where you can keep being bigots.

"This isn't about racism, it's about 'states rights'!" Where have we heard THAT one before?
 
Now here is a trivia question for you... When was the last time black unemployment was lower than white unemployment in the US? Progressives are good at feeding you the propaganda that blacks have always had historically higher unemployment than whites, but that's not true. Shlaes points out, according to the 1930 census data, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment.

That's not true, either. The fact you think a hack like Amity Shlaes is credible is part of your problem.

Now, here's the thing. In 1930, (besides the fact they weren't very good at keeping economic data) yes, most blacks worked in agriculture and most whites worked in Manufacturing... so of course Whites were going to get hit harder when the economy collapsed.

schlaes' degree was in english. everything she "knows" about economics is based on her political affiliations.
 
The problem with you is you're a racist who sees people as a skin color before anything and everything else. You can't help it, that's just who you are as a person.

The other thing you can't help is droning on and on, flooding the threads with your stupidity and then repeating the same things over and over, as if they weren't heard the first 50 times. I think that might be more annoying to me than your closeted racism and bigotry... but it's really close.

The thing I've noticed is that when I absolutely CRUSH you with logic, you start whining about me personally... which I always take as a sign I've won.

You using logic? That's funny. I heard you use it but you're the only one I hear it from. Smells like shit.
 
schlaes' degree was in english. everything she "knows" about economics is based on her political affiliations.

Yeah, there is always some little niggling detail you can nit pick... Saul Alinsky taught you well.

while i appreciate the righgtwingnut obsession with alinsky, i have never read alinsky.

again, she has an english degree. she is not an economist and no actual responsible economists buy the nonsense she tells you.

i can't help it if you're deluded.
 
So you are citing Uncle Tom Sowell as a source?

No, the OP cited Amity Schlaes. The poster bear offered support for the OP from Sowell and the Hoover Institute among others. All of the information is documented fact. It's not people's opinions. You cannot refute documented facts with your liberal biased opinions no matter how much you wish you can.
 
while i appreciate the righgtwingnut obsession with alinsky, i have never read alinsky.

again, she has an english degree. she is not an economist and no actual responsible economists buy the nonsense she tells you.

i can't help it if you're deluded.

The subject isn't about economics. It's about the racist intentions behind (and effects of) the minimum wage. You've not really defined what "nonsense" you think Schlaes is telling. But the fact you think we're discussing economics is telling us what a moron you are. Thomas Sowell is certainly an economist with a Ph.D. He is a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He confirms everything she is saying and then some.

It seems to me, YOU are the deluded one here. You have bought a narrative that is false. For years, you've believed that FDR created the MW to help the poor and downtrodden. You had no idea that you were supporting blatantly racist policy that created the condition of higher unemployment among blacks. You've been brainwashed and indoctrinated into a false belief that blacks have historically always had higher unemployment than whites.

And now that someone is challenging that narrative, you are going to try and smear them or marginalize them because you're so invested in your lie and have too much pride to admit you've been duped.
 

Forum List

Back
Top