What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[Rshermr]

That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees
.

.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
What expense. You provided an asset of $1M. The offset to that asset is to sh equity. There is no expense to offset.

You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
But you have no reason to believe they will. You are projecting how many people they will increase wages for, and you are projecting how much per person, on average, they will need to increase wages by. Kind of makes it obvious to rational people that your model is backwards. It is making your point rather than providing any rational understanding.

You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."
I have no way to calculate it. Nor do I care to spend the time to try to find it. Nor do you have that data. But you seem to have now admitted it is required to provide any realistic understanding of what is going to happen. In other words, your data is garbage, and so is your model. And you have admitted your wasting time just being dishonest

 

[Rshermr]

That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees
.

.

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
What expense. You provided an asset of $1M. The offset to that asset is to sh equity. There is no expense to offset.

You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
But you have no reason to believe they will. You are projecting how many people they will increase wages for, and you are projecting how much per person, on average, they will need to increase wages by. Kind of makes it obvious to rational people that your model is backwards. It is making your point rather than providing any rational understanding.

You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."
I have no way to calculate it. Nor do I care to spend the time to try to find it. Nor do you have that data. But you seem to have now admitted it is required to provide any realistic understanding of what is going to happen. In other words, your data is garbage, and so is your model. And you have admitted your wasting time just being dishonest.
So why were you wasting people's time with a financial model that did not have required components, and was therefor garbage?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees
.

.

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
What expense. You provided an asset of $1M. The offset to that asset is to sh equity. There is no expense to offset.

You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
But you have no reason to believe they will. You are projecting how many people they will increase wages for, and you are projecting how much per person, on average, they will need to increase wages by. Kind of makes it obvious to rational people that your model is backwards. It is making your point rather than providing any rational understanding.

You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."
I have no way to calculate it. Nor do I care to spend the time to try to find it. Nor do you have that data. But you seem to have now admitted it is required to provide any realistic understanding of what is going to happen. In other words, your data is garbage, and so is your model. And you have admitted your wasting time just being dishonest

What expense.

The extra $1,000,000 you paid the CEO.

You provided an asset of $1M.

No, paying the CEO is not an extra asset to the firm.

The offset to that asset is to sh equity.

No, it's a reduction in firm cash. That reduces equity.

There is no expense to offset.

The extra payment to the CEO is an expense.

If this is an example of your knowledge, you should close your account today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER, .

the beauty of capitalism is that is does not matter what A,B or C wants. Either the capitalist provides the best jobs and products possible or he is driven into bankruptcy. If you doubt it start a business with sub standard jobs and products and let us know how you do. This is Econ 101, class one, day one.

 

[Rshermr]

That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees
.

.

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
What expense. You provided an asset of $1M. The offset to that asset is to sh equity. There is no expense to offset.

You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
But you have no reason to believe they will. You are projecting how many people they will increase wages for, and you are projecting how much per person, on average, they will need to increase wages by. Kind of makes it obvious to rational people that your model is backwards. It is making your point rather than providing any rational understanding.

You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."
I have no way to calculate it. Nor do I care to spend the time to try to find it. Nor do you have that data. But you seem to have now admitted it is required to provide any realistic understanding of what is going to happen. In other words, your data is garbage, and so is your model. And you have admitted your wasting time just being dishonest

What expense.


You provided an asset of $1M.

No, paying the CEO is not an extra asset to the firm.
You did not make clear who was paying the ceo nor for what. "You" is ambiguous. If the company pays the ceo a bonus of $1M, such a payment would be a bonus and handled by debiting the bonus expense account and crediting the cash account, both for $1M. Period. End of transaction.

The offset to that asset is to sh equity.

No, it's a reduction in firm cash. That reduces equity.
Yes. I assumed you was me. If the company pays the ceo a bonus, see my response above.

There is no expense to offset.

The extra payment to the CEO is an expense.

If this is an example of your knowledge, you should close your account today
Next time you are discussing a company giving a ceo a bonus, try calling it what it is. As would anyone who has a clue. dipshit.
And, for your future knowledge, "you" would have been valid if you were talking to someone working for the company. But not to me.
If you said the company was paying the ceo a bonus, you would have had the correct response. You see, you is not the company. You is the person reading the post. And I thought you were talking about giving the ceo a payment for the company, not a bonus for the ceo as an extra payment. To make it simple, you need to use standard language. Like "what if the company pays the ceo a bonus of $1M". Simple standard language. And Bonus payments are simple. The give away that you were not talking about a bonus was that you did not mention accruals. Any large company, such as RR, pretty much always accrues payments for a bonus. Knee jerk bonuses just do not happen. In other words, it would already have been paid for, waiting to be paid BY THE COMPANY. One time incentives are usually done with stock options or stock outlays.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees
.

.

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
What expense. You provided an asset of $1M. The offset to that asset is to sh equity. There is no expense to offset.

You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
But you have no reason to believe they will. You are projecting how many people they will increase wages for, and you are projecting how much per person, on average, they will need to increase wages by. Kind of makes it obvious to rational people that your model is backwards. It is making your point rather than providing any rational understanding.

You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."
I have no way to calculate it. Nor do I care to spend the time to try to find it. Nor do you have that data. But you seem to have now admitted it is required to provide any realistic understanding of what is going to happen. In other words, your data is garbage, and so is your model. And you have admitted your wasting time just being dishonest

What expense.


You provided an asset of $1M.

No, paying the CEO is not an extra asset to the firm.
You did not make clear who was paying the ceo nor for what. "You" is ambiguous. If the company pays the ceo a bonus of $1M, such a payment would be a bonus and handled by debiting the bonus expense account and crediting the cash account, both for $1M. Period. End of transaction.

The offset to that asset is to sh equity.

No, it's a reduction in firm cash. That reduces equity.
Yes. I assumed you was me. If the company pays the ceo a bonus, see my response above.

There is no expense to offset.

The extra payment to the CEO is an expense.

If this is an example of your knowledge, you should close your account today
Next time you are discussing a company giving a ceo a bonus, try calling it what it is. As would anyone who has a clue. dipshit.
And, for your future knowledge, "you" would have been valid if you were talking to someone working for the company. But not to me.
If you said the company was paying the ceo a bonus, you would have had the correct response. You see, you is not the company. You is the person reading the post. And I thought you were talking about giving the ceo a payment for the company, not a bonus for the ceo as an extra payment. To make it simple, you need to use standard language. Like "what if the company pays the ceo a bonus of $1M". Simple standard language. And Bonus payments are simple. The give away that you were not talking about a bonus was that you did not mention accruals. Any large company, such as RR, pretty much always accrues payments for a bonus. Knee jerk bonuses just do not happen. In other words, it would already have been paid for, waiting to be paid BY THE COMPANY. One time incentives are usually done with stock options or stock outlays.

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.

Clearly talking about the company with the 5% profit margin.

 

[Oldstyle]

. It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER, .

the beauty of capitalism is that is does not matter what A,B or C wants. Either the capitalist provides the best jobs and products possible or he is driven into bankruptcy. If you doubt it start a business with sub standard jobs and products and let us know how you do. This is Econ 101, class one, day one.

That's a class that Rshermr obviously never took so it's a concept he can't grasp! When liberals start ranting about "Corporatists" (sic) then you know that they are clueless about the subject and are simply parroting something they read at Think Progress or saw on MSNBC.

 

[Rshermr]

That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees
.

.

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.
What expense. You provided an asset of $1M. The offset to that asset is to sh equity. There is no expense to offset.

You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.
But you have no reason to believe they will. You are projecting how many people they will increase wages for, and you are projecting how much per person, on average, they will need to increase wages by. Kind of makes it obvious to rational people that your model is backwards. It is making your point rather than providing any rational understanding.

You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."
I have no way to calculate it. Nor do I care to spend the time to try to find it. Nor do you have that data. But you seem to have now admitted it is required to provide any realistic understanding of what is going to happen. In other words, your data is garbage, and so is your model. And you have admitted your wasting time just being dishonest

What expense.


You provided an asset of $1M.

No, paying the CEO is not an extra asset to the firm.
You did not make clear who was paying the ceo nor for what. "You" is ambiguous. If the company pays the ceo a bonus of $1M, such a payment would be a bonus and handled by debiting the bonus expense account and crediting the cash account, both for $1M. Period. End of transaction.

The offset to that asset is to sh equity.

No, it's a reduction in firm cash. That reduces equity.
Yes. I assumed you was me. If the company pays the ceo a bonus, see my response above.

There is no expense to offset.

The extra payment to the CEO is an expense.

If this is an example of your knowledge, you should close your account today
Next time you are discussing a company giving a ceo a bonus, try calling it what it is. As would anyone who has a clue. dipshit.
And, for your future knowledge, "you" would have been valid if you were talking to someone working for the company. But not to me.
If you said the company was paying the ceo a bonus, you would have had the correct response. You see, you is not the company. You is the person reading the post. And I thought you were talking about giving the ceo a payment for the company, not a bonus for the ceo as an extra payment. To make it simple, you need to use standard language. Like "what if the company pays the ceo a bonus of $1M". Simple standard language. And Bonus payments are simple. The give away that you were not talking about a bonus was that you did not mention accruals. Any large company, such as RR, pretty much always accrues payments for a bonus. Knee jerk bonuses just do not happen. In other words, it would already have been paid for, waiting to be paid BY THE COMPANY. One time incentives are usually done with stock options or stock outlays.

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.

Clearly talking about the company with the 5% profit margin. WRONG. If you are talking about bonuse paid by the company, you do not say YOU gave the ceo anything. You would have said what if RR paid the ceo a bonus of $1M.
Stupid, stupid concept. You never just pull a million out to pay a bonus. It is always paid for in advance, over time, in the form of accruals. Dipshit. And saying you to me, as I have said, is not english for the company. Perhaps a remedial english class would help, me boy. Again, if you said what if the company paid a bonus of $1M it would have made sense. Though again, it would have been from an accrual account and already paid for. Or did you think that I had gone to work for RR. Really, the idea that rr or any other company would just arbitrarily pull out $1M for an arbitrary bonus shows you have no idea of how business happens. Perhaps you should start a thread about the evils of paying random bonuses to ceo's.

But the real issue is that we were talking about minimum wage. A ceo bonus is not a rational part of that discussion. OR PERHAPS, WITH YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT, YOU THINK RANDOM BONUSES ARE PAID TO MINIMUM WAGE EMPLOYEES.

 

[Rshermr]

. It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER, .

the beauty of capitalism is that is does not matter what A,B or C wants. Either the capitalist provides the best jobs and products possible or he is driven into bankruptcy. If you doubt it start a business with sub standard jobs and products and let us know how you do. This is Econ 101, class one, day one.

That's a class that Rshermr obviously never took so it's a concept he can't grasp! When liberals start ranting about "Corporatists" (sic) then you know that they are clueless about the subject and are simply parroting something they read at Think Progress or saw on MSNBC.

Wow. What a surprise. The history major makes a set of ignorant charges and attacks on me because I used the word corporatist. For your edification, a corporatist is a person who has corporate values and typically politically pushes those values.
If I were clueless about capitalism or corporatists, I would be like you and believe that the word has some nefarious meaning. It is, me boy, part of the english language and used to indicate a person who speaks from the corporations point of view, not that of the general population of the country involved.
And, if I had no econ classes, and no econ degree, maybe, like you, I would be reduced to making personal attacks and totally unable to discuss economics rationally at all. And, like you, I would want to make statements claiming someone had no such degree, but run like a frightened child when provided the opportunity to prove your unfounded claim, and make $500 simply, because you are a sniveling coward only capable of hurling insults and lies, and you know you have no chance of winning because you lied. And so Oldstyle just keeps running away from the opportunity to prove his claim, because he lied.

And, you know nothing about what sources I use. While you spend your time with bat shit crazy con web sites, I avoid any source I find to be irrational. Including your nut case conservative web sites and fox entertainment. I never follow left or right sources, and never remember even seeing think progress. MSNBC is part of the microsoft network, and NBC networks, combined. And like all major networks, is hated by the conservative sources as mainstream media.
MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political commentary from NBC News on current events. The network also carries a nightly 'opinion' programming block during prime time hours.
MSNBC - Wikipedia

You would, had you paid any attention, know that I never use msnbc or any other conservative hated source to prove points. That is simply because there are sources out there that are generally believed by all to be impartial. Except, of course, for con trolls like yourself who believe any media source is slanted.
Any other attacks on me you would like to make while you are at it??? Got that $500 together yet, or are you still running?
By the way, suggesting that I did not take an econ 101 class so did not know about capitalism is really stupid. Any econ 101 class you will find included in depth discussions of capitalism and communism as well as capitalism. Perhaps you and eddie are confusing econ texts with Wealth of Nations. But even that publication, and the econ texts, discuss the fact that capitalism does not function well at all with monopoly power.
Your welcome for the little lesson.

 

[Oldstyle]

. It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER, .

the beauty of capitalism is that is does not matter what A,B or C wants. Either the capitalist provides the best jobs and products possible or he is driven into bankruptcy. If you doubt it start a business with sub standard jobs and products and let us know how you do. This is Econ 101, class one, day one.

That's a class that Rshermr obviously never took so it's a concept he can't grasp! When liberals start ranting about "Corporatists" (sic) then you know that they are clueless about the subject and are simply parroting something they read at Think Progress or saw on MSNBC.

Wow. What a surprise. The history major makes a set of ignorant charges and attacks on me because I used the word corporatist. For your edification, a corporatist is a person who has corporate values and typically politically pushes those values.
If I were clueless about capitalism or corporatists, I would be like you and believe that the word has some nefarious meaning. It is, me boy, part of the english language and used to indicate a person who speaks from the corporations point of view, not that of the general population of the country involved.
And, if I had no econ classes, and no econ degree, maybe, like you, I would be reduced to making personal attacks and totally unable to discuss economics rationally at all. And, like you, I would want to make statements claiming someone had no such degree, but run like a frightened child when provided the opportunity to prove your unfounded claim, and make $500 simply, because you are a sniveling coward only capable of hurling insults and lies, and you know you have no chance of winning because you lied. And so Oldstyle just keeps running away from the opportunity to prove his claim, because he lied.

And, you know nothing about what sources I use. While you spend your time with bat shit crazy con web sites, I avoid any source I find to be irrational. Including your nut case conservative web sites and fox entertainment. I never follow left or right sources, and never remember even seeing think progress. MSNBC is part of the microsoft network, and NBC networks, combined. And like all major networks, is hated by the conservative sources as mainstream media.
MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political commentary from NBC News on current events. The network also carries a nightly 'opinion' programming block during prime time hours.
MSNBC - Wikipedia

You would, had you paid any attention, know that I never use msnbc or any other conservative hated source to prove points. That is simply because there are sources out there that are generally believed by all to be impartial. Except, of course, for con trolls like yourself who believe any media source is slanted.
Any other attacks on me you would like to make while you are at it??? Got that $500 together yet, or are you still running?
By the way, suggesting that I did not take an econ 101 class so did not know about capitalism is really stupid. Any econ 101 class you will find included in depth discussions of capitalism and communism as well as capitalism. Perhaps you and eddie are confusing econ texts with Wealth of Nations. But even that publication, and the econ texts, discuss the fact that capitalism does not function well at all with monopoly power.
Your welcome for the little lesson.

Pointing out that you don't know diddly about economics even while you claim to have taught the subject at the college level isn't making an "ignorant charge", Georgie...it's simply telling it like it is! I freely admit that I only took Macro and Micro Economics which gives someone the basics of the subject...but what's AMAZING (eye roll) is that I learned about things like the Chicago School...and you somehow didn't!

 

[Rshermr]

. It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER, .

the beauty of capitalism is that is does not matter what A,B or C wants. Either the capitalist provides the best jobs and products possible or he is driven into bankruptcy. If you doubt it start a business with sub standard jobs and products and let us know how you do. This is Econ 101, class one, day one.

That's a class that Rshermr obviously never took so it's a concept he can't grasp! When liberals start ranting about "Corporatists" (sic) then you know that they are clueless about the subject and are simply parroting something they read at Think Progress or saw on MSNBC.

Wow. What a surprise. The history major makes a set of ignorant charges and attacks on me because I used the word corporatist. For your edification, a corporatist is a person who has corporate values and typically politically pushes those values.
If I were clueless about capitalism or corporatists, I would be like you and believe that the word has some nefarious meaning. It is, me boy, part of the english language and used to indicate a person who speaks from the corporations point of view, not that of the general population of the country involved.
And, if I had no econ classes, and no econ degree, maybe, like you, I would be reduced to making personal attacks and totally unable to discuss economics rationally at all. And, like you, I would want to make statements claiming someone had no such degree, but run like a frightened child when provided the opportunity to prove your unfounded claim, and make $500 simply, because you are a sniveling coward only capable of hurling insults and lies, and you know you have no chance of winning because you lied. And so Oldstyle just keeps running away from the opportunity to prove his claim, because he lied.

And, you know nothing about what sources I use. While you spend your time with bat shit crazy con web sites, I avoid any source I find to be irrational. Including your nut case conservative web sites and fox entertainment. I never follow left or right sources, and never remember even seeing think progress. MSNBC is part of the microsoft network, and NBC networks, combined. And like all major networks, is hated by the conservative sources as mainstream media.
MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political commentary from NBC News on current events. The network also carries a nightly 'opinion' programming block during prime time hours.
MSNBC - Wikipedia

You would, had you paid any attention, know that I never use msnbc or any other conservative hated source to prove points. That is simply because there are sources out there that are generally believed by all to be impartial. Except, of course, for con trolls like yourself who believe any media source is slanted.
Any other attacks on me you would like to make while you are at it??? Got that $500 together yet, or are you still running?
By the way, suggesting that I did not take an econ 101 class so did not know about capitalism is really stupid. Any econ 101 class you will find included in depth discussions of capitalism and communism as well as capitalism. Perhaps you and eddie are confusing econ texts with Wealth of Nations. But even that publication, and the econ texts, discuss the fact that capitalism does not function well at all with monopoly power.
Your welcome for the little lesson.

Pointing out You are a history major with two classes in econ. You have no stones to "point out" anything that you don't know diddly about economics even while you claim to have taught the subject at the college level isn't making an "ignorant charge" Your lying again. What I claimed was that I assisted an econ professor, not that I took over or taught my own econ class. As you well know. Your charge is indeed ignorant. Highly ignorant. What I know about economics is proven by the fact that you do not make economic arguments often. About once a month, at best. And in every single case, you are proven wrong. And like here, you simply go on with stupid personal attacks which are lies. , Georgie...And insults, like using the moniker Georgie. What, me boy, are you about 10 years old. Just a child. it's simply telling it like it is! You pretty much never 'tell it like it is." Like in this post you lie. Over and over. Then you lie about your lies. I freely admit that I only took Macro and Micro Economics which gives someone the basics of the subject...but what's AMAZING (eye roll) is that I learned about things like the Chicago School...and you somehow didn't!
And another lie, and another attack. I have known about the various schools of economics, including the Chicago School, since most were formed. Over 45 years now. As I did at the time. And you have made this charge multiple times, though it has been proven a lie several times. Because you are a con troll and have no integrity. But the truth is, you are simply looking for ways to attack. And always with lies.
Your attacks, all based on nothing, include:
1. That I said I taught a college economic class in college. You have made that attack at least 30 times. And you have known the truth always. Which is I only said I helped a college professor, who had responsibility for the class and taught it. You knew the name of the college, the name of the class, and the name of the professor. You simply like to make the attack, because you are a piece of shit.
2. You said over and over, again over 30 times, that I have no degree in economics. Again, with no evidence. Even though you could make a call to the school admin office, and they would tell you if I did or did not. And I offered to put $500 dollars in escrow that you could win if you were correct, or I would get if you are wrong. And you ran like the coward you are. You know you are lying, but you have no integrity. Because you are a piece of shit.
3. You said that I claimed to be an executive at British Petrolium. Several times. When all I said was that I worked with some BP executives, as a sales manager with a Software company. Just another trumped up charge, with nothing to back you up. And again I brought forward the posts to prove you were lying. As I did with the first two charges.
4. You said I did not know what the Chicago School was, when that was never true. Just another lie. Because you have no integrity. I again proved that charge to be a lie by bringing forward from what was actually said. But you simply go on saying the same thing, over and over.
5, Another really stupid attack was that I lied when I said I had a personal secretary. Which was again totally unsupported. Truth was, I worked for over 8 years for a company as a VP of Sales and Marketing. During that time, I had a personal secretary that helped out with admin and support for the sales force. Those salesmen were all high level guys, all degreed, across the nation. We worked with large organizations, primarily banks, with IBM mainframes. They expected professionalism. You could and would not ever lie to them. And my secretary was indispensable. Totally. I offered for him to talk to her, but he simply turned and ran.
I am 70 years old. I spend my 48 years of work it was in a very reputable field. Anyone who lied like Oldstyle would have been looking for a new job. Integrity was expected by the companies I worked with and my management. So, running into a liar like oldstyle is a real interesting thing. Apparently, in his world, lying is just fine.
That is just a few of your personal attacks, I could have given you many more.

I have a Bachelors degree in economics, which I can prove easily enough. But then, you know that, Oldstyle. Otherwise you would take the bet. Or, simply call the college admin office. But you prefer to simply post untrue attacks, and avoid discussing economics. And you get things wrong. We could discuss your post of a couple of days ago, where you had both history, and economics wrong, when you stated that the Davis Bacon act that was passed by Republican President Hoover was passed by FDR with the purpose of hurting blacks. That Is an attack on your veracity, but it is based on truth, which you can not argue. And I proved. Funny thing was, it was your post with no source and no link, and you defended it by suggesting you were so smart that you did not need sources to prove you statements. And also funny was the fact that multiple charges you made in that post were not just untrue, but stupid.
I have watched you lie, time after time, for about 3 years now. Same lies, over and over. Once, you posted over 30 times to a thread without ever once addressing the subject of that thread, or without once posting an economic argument. None. Just straight personal attacks. You got caught lying. And those of us dealing with you noticed you dropped out for several months. I see, now that you are back, there are no changes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Dude, you didn't have a CLUE what I was talking about when I asked you what school you were basing your economic argument on! I had to explain to you what the Chicago School referred to!!! How do you have a degree in economics and not know basic information like that? It would be like someone claiming to be a licensed electrician and not knowing what an amp was!

You're an internet poser who makes up shit about yourself because you obviously have issues about your self worth.

I dropped out for several months? When? I post here regularly. Yet another thing you can't get right.

 

[Rshermr]

So, in red is what Oldstyle starts out with. A charge of incompetence against me, which is funny in itselfI put his comment in red, to make it obvious)
Dude, you didn't have a CLUE what I was talking about when I asked you what school you were basing your economic argument on! I had to explain to you what the Chicago School referred to!!! How do you have a degree in economics and not know basic information like that? It would be like someone claiming to be a licensed electrician and not knowing what an amp was! [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
So, you say I did not know what the Chicago School referred to. Lets see what was actually said, me boy. You should know what is coming. We already did this before. This is again going to prove you lied and are lying. And below is an exact copy of the post in question, which I posted here for your education:
"LETS TALK FOR JUST A MINUTE ABOUT INTEGRITY, OLDSTYLE. Remember your posts saying that you mentioned the Chicago School of Economics to me, and me not knowing what it was? Remember that claim, time after time, over 100 times, saying that I was ignorant of economics because I did not know the Chicago School of Economics was not brick and mortar. You should remember, me boy. Because you made that claim over 100 times. Problem is, here is your post:
So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

"Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one,"
That is Post 398. December of 2012. Thread: How is Austerity Doing in Europe

You asked about any school of economics that advocates...... No mention, me boy, of the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, your post was in DECEMBER OF 2012. OVER THREE YEARS AGO. You know that because you have tried this lie over 100 times. You know you did not ask about the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, you were talking about a school of economics that ADVOCATES. In my educational schooling, we referred to what you call a school of economics as an economic theory. And, me poor ignorant tool, neither schools, nor economic theories advocate for anything. That is still the proper name.
So, here again is proof that you are a liar. If you had said Chicago School of Economics, I would have recognized that you were talking about an economic theory. You did not. You lied about that as you so often do. At least a hundred times over the past 3 years. And to make the point further, you changed what you said, and what I said, to fit your plan to attack me. Really, do you even know what integrity is?"
That post was #1451 from January 13 of this year.
So, I have already proven you lied relative to this little attack of yours. And now I have proven it again. You did not mention the Chicago school of economics, me boy. Just another lie which you continue to make. Over and over and over.
Then, Oldstyle having been shown to be an outright liar, says of me:
You're an internet poser who makes up shit about yourself because you obviously have issues about your self worth.
So now you are trying to indicate you are a psychologist. Even though you were shown to be an outright liar. You are therefor saying you are a lying psychologist. Funny.
Never, me boy, do I lie. Nor do I pose. . You lie, which I have proven many times and continue to prove. Some people, like yourself, just have no integrity. Or class.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, in red is what Oldstyle starts out with. A charge of incompetence against me, which is funny in itselfI put his comment in red, to make it obvious)
Dude, you didn't have a CLUE what I was talking about when I asked you what school you were basing your economic argument on! I had to explain to you what the Chicago School referred to!!! How do you have a degree in economics and not know basic information like that? It would be like someone claiming to be a licensed electrician and not knowing what an amp was!

[/QUOTE]
So, you say I did not know what the Chicago School referred to. Lets see what was actually said, me boy. You should know what is coming. We already did this before. This is again going to prove you lied and are lying. And below is an exact copy of the post in question, which I posted here for your education:
"LETS TALK FOR JUST A MINUTE ABOUT INTEGRITY, OLDSTYLE. Remember your posts saying that you mentioned the Chicago School of Economics to me, and me not knowing what it was? Remember that claim, time after time, over 100 times, saying that I was ignorant of economics because I did not know the Chicago School of Economics was not brick and mortar. You should remember, me boy. Because you made that claim over 100 times. Problem is, here is your post:
So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

"Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one,"
That is Post 398. December of 2012. Thread: How is Austerity Doing in Europe

You asked about any school of economics that advocates...... No mention, me boy, of the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, your post was in DECEMBER OF 2012. OVER THREE YEARS AGO. You know that because you have tried this lie over 100 times. You know you did not ask about the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, you were talking about a school of economics that ADVOCATES. In my educational schooling, we referred to what you call a school of economics as an economic theory. And, me poor ignorant tool, neither schools, nor economic theories advocate for anything. That is still the proper name.
So, here again is proof that you are a liar. If you had said Chicago School of Economics, I would have recognized that you were talking about an economic theory. You did not. You lied about that as you so often do. At least a hundred times over the past 3 years. And to make the point further, you changed what you said, and what I said, to fit your plan to attack me. Really, do you even know what integrity is?"
That post was #1451 from January 13 of this year.
So, I have already proven you lied relative to this little attack of yours. And now I have proven it again. You did not mention the Chicago school of economics, me boy. Just another lie which you continue to make. Over and over and over.
Then, Oldstyle having been shown to be an outright liar, says of me:
You're an internet poser who makes up shit about yourself because you obviously have issues about your self worth.
So now you are trying to indicate you are a psychologist. Even though you were shown to be an outright liar. You are therefor saying you are a lying psychologist. Funny.
Never, me boy, do I lie. Nor do I pose. . You lie, which I have proven many times and continue to prove. Some people, like yourself, just have no integrity. Or class. [/QUOTE]

You didn't have a clue what I meant by a "school of economics"...you thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college that taught the subject! Nobody would have to EXPLAIN to a real economics major what they were referring to when they asked what economic school they were basing a premise on! You're a moron, Georgie. You constantly try to pass yourself as someone who's smart and you constantly fail to pull it off!

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle, caught lying, tries new lies and personal attacks:
You didn't have a clue what I meant by a "school of economics"...you thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college that taught the subject! What is funny, me boy, is you just go on attacking. I did not lie to you, ever. And you just keep attacking. You said, over and over and over, that you said the Chicago School of Economics. Well over 50 times you made that lie. But as I proved, you did not ever use the words. Chicago School of Economics. Ever. . So, you say, providing your word of a liar, that I do not know what a school of economics is. Apparently you are having problem with the definition of a school of economics. That is because you are ignorant of economics terminology. What you have been trying to refer to is a school of economic thought. A school of economics is generally a physical school, or more often, a department of economics. You might use school of economics for a school of economic thought, but only if you are ignorant, or have been talking about schools of economic thought in a current conversation. The proper term has been, and still is, economic theory. The other often used term is School of Economic thought. Or you could actually use a name of the economic theory. like "Keynesian school of economics" thought, or "Chicago School", etc.
Here, me poor ignorant con troll, are examples meant to educate you.

DEFINITION of 'Chicago School'
An economic school of thought that originated at the University of Chicago in the 1940s.
Read more: Chicago School Definition

Chicago school of economics
The Chicago school of economics is a neoclassical school of economic thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economic thought

Mainstream modern economics can be broken down into four schools of economic thought: classical, Marxian, Keynesian, and the Chicago School.
Fours Schools of Economic Thought: Classical, Marxian, Keynesian, and the Chicago School.

“Fours Schools of Economic Thought: Classical, Marxian, Keynesian, and the Chicago ..” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 31 Oct. 2016 from Fours Schools of Economic Thought: Classical, Marxian, Keynesian, and the Chicago School.

Nobody would have to EXPLAIN to a real economics major what they were referring to when they asked what economic school they were basing a premise on! You just made three mistakes. First, you do not ask someone what school of economics does anything, me boy. What you are trying to say is school of economic thought. Or economic theory. Second, you just been proven a liar, by me, again. And no one believes liars. And lastly, when you suggest you were asking me what economic school they were basing a premise on you lied again. You said no such thing. Your sentence, in 2012, was precisely; "Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one," Your sentence was ignorant, and ambiguous. But primarily stupid. And you have been pushing that same lie, and attacking me falsely, for nearly Four Years, me ignorant con.

You're a moron, Georgie. Ah, another baseless attack. I suspect you are simply angry that I showed you to be lying again. And, if someone is a moron, it is you. Though I believe you are simply ignorant. And driven by the con agenda. Or perhaps you are a drunk. Or have substance abuse problems.

You constantly try to pass yourself as someone who's smart. I simply tell the truth. I never ever try to pass myself off as anyone. But thanks again for the baseless attack. It show what you are. Most ignorant people are glad when they get the truth about their mistakes. Only dipshits make baseless attacks. Dipshit.

So, I just proved you a liar again. Then, when attacked I proved you were wrong, and ignorant. So, maybe you should simply give up on economic conversation. You are really bad at it.

 

[KissMy]

Bush cost US over 16 million Jobs!!!
Job creation was best under Clinton & Democratic Congress! It Slowed when Republicans took Congress in 1995. Then Bush Brothers had 58,000 Florida Democrat Voters purged from rolls in 2000 to steal the election. They caused damaging economic confusion, massive protest, riots & the recession 6 months after they stole the election. Then Bush caused a Depression that was 3 times larger in 2008 & left it ablaze for Obama.
Obama created over 8 million Jobs!

 

[Oldstyle]

Bush cost US over 16 million Jobs!!!
Job creation was best under Clinton & Democratic Congress! It Slowed when Republicans took Congress in 1995. Then Bush Brothers had 58,000 Florida Democrat Voters purged from rolls in 2000 to steal the election. They caused damaging economic confusion, massive protest, riots & the recession 6 months after they stole the election. Then Bush caused a Depression that was 3 times larger in 2008 & left it ablaze for Obama.
Obama created over 8 million Jobs!

So tell me, Kiss...how ARE things in that alternate universe you live in?

 

[SAYIT]

I am stunned (but not surprised) to find some posters still trying to pass off this (not so) new-and-improved version of the "Worker's Paradise" which failed so miserably in the 20th Century and continues to disincentivize ambition, creativity and productivity while destroying people's lives and even whole countries (see: USSR).

One of those posters earlier quoted "facts" from epi.org (a union propaganda stink tank) to support his promotion of more federal gov't meddling in our labor market which brings us, once again, to the underlying agenda of the min wage movement ... its impact on min wage plus based union contracts.

Any increase in the min wage automatically triggers a wage increase in the entire pay scale for those union workers (which in turn justifies higher union dues). This isn't rocket science. There is nothing noble about those who promote gov't induced economic dislocation and instability but rather plain old self-interest.

We know that artificially induced product price increases - such as those occasionally precipitated by OPEC or the devaluation of currency - cause inflation and the cost of labor to rise (see: Greece). Conversely, an artificially induced rise in wages causes product and service industry prices to rise. Again, this isn't rocket science.

Unless those earning above the min wage are just happy to see a few million Americans get a (gov't required) raise, they too will demand more and unless those who profit from their biz are willing to get less, the unintended consequence will be rampant inflation (see: Venezuela) leaving those at the bottom still unable to afford what they currently can't afford.

The bottom line? Gov't meddling in our labor/employer market will almost certainly blow-up in our face.

 

[Rshermr]

I am stunned (but not surprised) to find some posters still trying to pass off this (not so) new-and-improved version of the "Worker's Paradise" which failed so miserably in the 20th Century and continues to disincentivize ambition, creativity and productivity while destroying people's lives and even whole countries (see: USSR).

[/QUOTE]
Funny. You think a raise in the minimum wage is the same as a communist nation. Or are you simply proving yourself to be an idiot so all can understand what you are.

One of those posters earlier quoted "facts" from epi.org (a union propaganda stink tank) to support his promotion of more federal gov't meddling in our labor market which brings us, once again, to the underlying agenda of the min wage movement ... its impact on min wage plus based union contracts. Sure.

Any increase in the min wage automatically triggers a wage increase in the entire pay scale for those union workers (which in turn justifies higher union dues). This isn't rocket science. There is nothing noble about those who promote gov't induced economic dislocation and instability but rather plain old self-interest.
Right out of the bat shit crazy con web sites, but unprovable. Cause, of course, it is bull shit. And, it seems to be rocket science for you.

We know that artificially induced product price increases - such as those occasionally precipitated by OPEC or the devaluation of currency - cause inflation and the cost of labor to rise (see: Greece). Conversely, an artificially induced rise in wages causes product and service industry prices to rise. Again, this isn't rocket science.
Brilliant. Now you are equating opec with the us government.

Unless those earning above the min wage are just happy to see a few million Americans get a (gov't required) raise, they too will demand more and unless those who profit from their biz are willing to get less, the unintended consequence will be rampant inflation (see: Venezuela) leaving those at the bottom still unable to afford what they currently can't afford. Again, you have no proof because it is simply a talking point, and talking points are almost always nonsense. As are those who push them.

The bottom line? Gov't meddling in our labor/employer market will almost certainly blow-up in our face.
Just like before, eh. Thing is, being a con troll like yourself is simple. All you need to do is to do is believe what you are told, and cut and paste.

Right. Just like every other raise of the minimum wage. It will be a disaster. Problem is, it has never worked out the way you suggest. Never. Maybe you should go check out the impartial studies of all those raises in the MW, and show when your projections ever happened. Instead, that is, of quoting conservative talking points. But then, you never worry about the truth, eh

Minimum Wage
Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour — before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015.

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.

Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage.

Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.

Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips.

Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.

Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase.

Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices.

Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office.

Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support.

Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it.

Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.

 

[Rshermr]

Bush cost US over 16 million Jobs!!!
Job creation was best under Clinton & Democratic Congress! It Slowed when Republicans took Congress in 1995. Then Bush Brothers had 58,000 Florida Democrat Voters purged from rolls in 2000 to steal the election. They caused damaging economic confusion, massive protest, riots & the recession 6 months after they stole the election. Then Bush caused a Depression that was 3 times larger in 2008 & left it ablaze for Obama.
Obama created over 8 million Jobs!

So tell me, Kiss...how ARE things in that alternate universe you live in?

So, lets see what the BLS says about job creation. I suspect con trolls will not like it, cause the highest three are democrats. And Carter is number two, after Clinton. Then, Obama is over a million per year, or something over 9 million during his administration. Just like Kiss My said. And exactly what Oldstyle tried to discredit.

Jimmy Carter and Lyndon B. Johnson aren't very far behind Bill Clinton in terms of average monthly job gains during their respective tenures as commander-in-chief.
ANDREW SOERGEL FOR USN≀ SOURCE: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/da...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy