Why Is The Latino Poverty Rate So High?

Lmao!

I have far more of a grasp on economics than you do. You can pretend that doubling the min wage will solve all our problems, that's find with me. I'm just grateful that no one in congress, with a degree in economics, or business, or with a lick of common sense agrees with you.:)

Then why hide it? Please, do add to the conversation, and fear not using econ-terminology, since I'll know of which you're speaking.

Great news and I'm so looking forward to an actual conversation on economics.

Postscript: since we're going to get into actual specifics on econ stuff, here's a spread sheet I did a while back, in re: unemployment vs. the FMW (1950 to 2011.1): http://www.koios.us/ph/ue_fmw_compare_1950_to_2012.html

And while it's incomplete, no doubt you can quickly paste it into Excel and add inflation trends, from historical data. Or shall I?

What's your preferred?
 
Lmao!

I have far more of a grasp on economics than you do. You can pretend that doubling the min wage will solve all our problems, that's find with me. I'm just grateful that no one in congress, with a degree in economics, or business, or with a lick of common sense agrees with you.:)

And while you're gathering up published (easy to find at Google.com) data, I should point out that our elected reps tend not to be economists, for the most part. Thus we spend a little over $100 million a year for folks who are to publish papers on it, making our elected reps better informed, albeit, not all for public consumption, and thus some that contradicts certain dogma that's beneficial to campaigns is largely ignored. (example: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109509/gop-crs-drop-dead#) Reference: CBO, CRS, etc.
 
Last edited:
Latinos prefer government entitlement programs,"AKA-Free Shit", refuse to assimilate and few at all will learn English,they have to have there kids as interpretors.Most are illegal ,working under the table.

$article-1388125-0C1F02B600000578-848_634x546.jpg

$obama-sombrerofest.jpg
 
I tell you what, if youd like to debate me about doubling the min wage, start a thread about it, and I will engage you in it. A thread in the race forum about how Latinos are inferior isnt the place for the debate.

Nah; let's just stick with the 80% increase we were discussing. Please then, since your grasp of economics (in this case "political economics") is far in excess of mine, as you contend, explain to me in economics terms, and generally-accepted causal relationships and/or historical precedent, what the effect might be.

I'm all ears and welcome the new knowledge.
 
I tell you what, if youd like to debate me about doubling the min wage, start a thread about it, and I will engage you in it. A thread in the race forum about how Latinos are inferior isnt the place for the debate.

Nah; let's just stick with the 80% increase we were discussing. Please then, since your grasp of economics (in this case "political economics") is far in excess of mine, as you contend, explain to me in economics terms, and generally-accepted causal relationships and/or historical precedent, what the effect might be.

I'm all ears and welcome the new knowledge.

No, what you are is condescending.

You have already decided that an 80% increase in min wage can have all these positive effects you've extolled, while ignoring the real negative impact such a massive increase will cost us. Such a massive increase will close small businesses who can't afford the cost and will simply lead to the same place we are now. Min wage rises, costs rise, prices rise and min wage earners end up with no more extra money than they had beforehand.

Why not give them $50 an hour, or $100? The dollar value is meanless, because if the guy who flips the burgers makes $20 an hour, then everyone above him will demand a raise.

That's what youre leaving out, you are focused on giving the little guy more money and you have turned a blind eye on the fact that there will always be a little guy, that shit jobs will always pay shit relative to skilled jobs pay. You can't eliminate the poor by demanding busniess pay them more than their labor is worth.
 
I tell you what, if youd like to debate me about doubling the min wage, start a thread about it, and I will engage you in it. A thread in the race forum about how Latinos are inferior isnt the place for the debate.

Nah; let's just stick with the 80% increase we were discussing. Please then, since your grasp of economics (in this case "political economics") is far in excess of mine, as you contend, explain to me in economics terms, and generally-accepted causal relationships and/or historical precedent, what the effect might be.

I'm all ears and welcome the new knowledge.

No, what you are is condescending.

You have already decided that an 80% increase in min wage can have all these positive effects you've extolled, while ignoring the real negative impact such a massive increase will cost us. Such a massive increase will close small businesses who can't afford the cost and will simply lead to the same place we are now. Min wage rises, costs rise, prices rise and min wage earners end up with no more extra money than they had beforehand.

Why not give them $50 an hour, or $100? The dollar value is meanless, because if the guy who flips the burgers makes $20 an hour, then everyone above him will demand a raise.

That's what youre leaving out, you are focused on giving the little guy more money and you have turned a blind eye on the fact that there will always be a little guy, that shit jobs will always pay shit relative to skilled jobs pay. You can't eliminate the poor by demanding busniess pay them more than their labor is worth.

Hard not to be, under the circumstances. But if you feel able to turn the tables on me, please don't hesistate to do so.
 
I tell you what, if youd like to debate me about doubling the min wage, start a thread about it, and I will engage you in it. A thread in the race forum about how Latinos are inferior isnt the place for the debate.

Nah; let's just stick with the 80% increase we were discussing. Please then, since your grasp of economics (in this case "political economics") is far in excess of mine, as you contend, explain to me in economics terms, and generally-accepted causal relationships and/or historical precedent, what the effect might be.

I'm all ears and welcome the new knowledge.

No, what you are is condescending.

You have already decided that an 80% increase in min wage can have all these positive effects you've extolled, while ignoring the real negative impact such a massive increase will cost us. Such a massive increase will close small businesses who can't afford the cost and will simply lead to the same place we are now. Min wage rises, costs rise, prices rise and min wage earners end up with no more extra money than they had beforehand.

Why not give them $50 an hour, or $100? The dollar value is meanless, because if the guy who flips the burgers makes $20 an hour, then everyone above him will demand a raise.

That's what youre leaving out, you are focused on giving the little guy more money and you have turned a blind eye on the fact that there will always be a little guy, that shit jobs will always pay shit relative to skilled jobs pay. You can't eliminate the poor by demanding busniess pay them more than their labor is worth.

Mind explaining what the unit labor cost impact would be if $7.25 FMW went up to $12 per hour. Simply saying it will have a "massive increase" without supporting the contention, is the epitome of an unsubstantiated claim.
 
I tell you what, if youd like to debate me about doubling the min wage, start a thread about it, and I will engage you in it. A thread in the race forum about how Latinos are inferior isnt the place for the debate.

Nah; let's just stick with the 80% increase we were discussing. Please then, since your grasp of economics (in this case "political economics") is far in excess of mine, as you contend, explain to me in economics terms, and generally-accepted causal relationships and/or historical precedent, what the effect might be.

I'm all ears and welcome the new knowledge.

No, what you are is condescending.

You have already decided that an 80% increase in min wage can have all these positive effects you've extolled, while ignoring the real negative impact such a massive increase will cost us. Such a massive increase will close small businesses who can't afford the cost and will simply lead to the same place we are now. Min wage rises, costs rise, prices rise and min wage earners end up with no more extra money than they had beforehand.

Why not give them $50 an hour, or $100? The dollar value is meanless, because if the guy who flips the burgers makes $20 an hour, then everyone above him will demand a raise.

That's what youre leaving out, you are focused on giving the little guy more money and you have turned a blind eye on the fact that there will always be a little guy, that shit jobs will always pay shit relative to skilled jobs pay. You can't eliminate the poor by demanding busniess pay them more than their labor is worth.

Obviously it would be many multiples and far in excess of anything we've ever done, not to mention I could make what I do now by simply getting a job at the counter of a convenience store. Thus it could very likely result in being a disincentive to more beneficial pursuits.

And it begs the question: why must you counter with an absurd extreme? Are you incapable of countering it when it's within the realm of what we've done previously, to remarkable positive effect?
 
I don't have much respect for Europe, in matters economic they invariably get it wrong. But, in the area of minimum wage, Europe did get it right. They don't have a minimum wage applied to everyone, but minimum wages for catetgories of employment. The minimum wage could be as low as $3.00 an hour or as much as $100.00 an hour. Our minimum wage laws guarantee one thing and one thing only, a ready supply of people who are willing to work under the table for less than minimum wage and creative ways to circumvent minimum wage laws.
 
Attempting to pretend that an 80% increase in min wage isn't massive?

Try to stay with me, and yourself for that matter. You said it would result in a massive increase in the price of the goods you buy.
 
Attempting to pretend that an 80% increase in min wage isn't massive?

And as an aside, no, it's not a massive increase in unit productivity cost, factoring in the commensurate increased unit sales. There's history on that as well, which you should know, given your superior knowledge on the subject, so-contended.
 
Attempting to pretend that an 80% increase in min wage isn't massive?

Try to stay with me, and yourself for that matter. You said it would result in a massive increase in the price of the goods you buy.

If it nearly double labor costs, you've added that to the cost to produce an item/service. Will it double the cost of sed item? No. However it will cause a large increase in the price and result in a shrinking of the work force.
 
Nah; let's just stick with the 80% increase we were discussing. Please then, since your grasp of economics (in this case "political economics") is far in excess of mine, as you contend, explain to me in economics terms, and generally-accepted causal relationships and/or historical precedent, what the effect might be.

I'm all ears and welcome the new knowledge.

No, what you are is condescending.

You have already decided that an 80% increase in min wage can have all these positive effects you've extolled, while ignoring the real negative impact such a massive increase will cost us. Such a massive increase will close small businesses who can't afford the cost and will simply lead to the same place we are now. Min wage rises, costs rise, prices rise and min wage earners end up with no more extra money than they had beforehand.

Why not give them $50 an hour, or $100? The dollar value is meanless, because if the guy who flips the burgers makes $20 an hour, then everyone above him will demand a raise.

That's what youre leaving out, you are focused on giving the little guy more money and you have turned a blind eye on the fact that there will always be a little guy, that shit jobs will always pay shit relative to skilled jobs pay. You can't eliminate the poor by demanding busniess pay them more than their labor is worth.

Obviously it would be many multiples and far in excess of anything we've ever done, not to mention I could make what I do now by simply getting a job at the counter of a convenience store. Thus it could very likely result in being a disincentive to more beneficial pursuits.

And it begs the question: why must you counter with an absurd extreme? Are you incapable of countering it when it's within the realm of what we've done previously, to remarkable positive effect?

It's not absurd. Money is merely a piece of paper we have assigned value to. $20 , 20 years ago has an entirely different value than $20 today.

If you give min wage earners $20 an hour, it doesn't change the value of their job, it doesn't make them worth $20 an hour. It changes the value of the $20. Everyone gets a raise to adjust, prices go up, and in the end, they make nothing more than they made before.
 
Attempting to pretend that an 80% increase in min wage isn't massive?

Try to stay with me, and yourself for that matter. You said it would result in a massive increase in the price of the goods you buy.

If it nearly double labor costs, you've added that to the cost to produce an item/service. Will it double the cost of sed item? No. However it will cause a large increase in the price and result in a shrinking of the work force.

You're showing your ignorance again, Amy. So again I must condescend:

As I pointed out previously, it ignores unit labor cost within the context of increased unit sales.

Also it ignores the current state of labor. Bear in mind, the FMW is so ridiculously low now (half of what it was at its peak, inflation-adjusted) that most low-paid workers are already being paid above the $7.25 per hour level. And MW workers are not the only labor in the value-chain of the goods and services we buy. So while the wage minimum rises 80%, the aggregate impact on labor costs in the US, is far less, and in the range of a single digit percentage increase, on labor alone. Neither occupancy costs, utilities, nor some raw materials are affected, and sub-assemblies, etc, might only be effected marginally. In the end, it might have less than 1% effect on inflation, which the Fed is already trying to keep in the 2 - 3% range, annually.
 
Amy is right. Kolos is wrong.

That is exactly how it works. When costs go up, the price goes up OR the service goes down.
 
Try to stay with me, and yourself for that matter. You said it would result in a massive increase in the price of the goods you buy.

If it nearly double labor costs, you've added that to the cost to produce an item/service. Will it double the cost of sed item? No. However it will cause a large increase in the price and result in a shrinking of the work force.

You're showing your ignorance again, Amy. So again I must condescend:

As I pointed out previously, it ignores unit labor cost within the context of increased unit sales.

Also it ignores the current state of labor. Bear in mind, the FMW is so ridiculously low now (half of what it was at its peak, inflation-adjusted) that most low-paid workers are already being paid above the $7.25 per hour level. And MW workers are not the only labor in the value-chain of the goods and services we buy. So while the wage minimum rises 80%, the aggregate impact on labor costs in the US, is far less, and in the range of a single digit percentage increase, on labor alone. Neither occupancy costs, utilities, nor some raw materials are affected, and sub-assemblies, etc, might only be effected marginally. In the end, it might have less than 1% effect on inflation, which the Fed is already trying to keep in the 2 - 3% range, annually.

And your ignoring that an 80% increase in min. wage effects everyone, not just min wage earners.

Assigning a value to someone rather than the job they do, doesn't suddenly make them worth more. It causes businesses to eliminate luxury positions and hire less.
 
Amy is right. Kolos is wrong.

That is exactly how it works. When costs go up, the price goes up OR the service goes down.

Amy is feeding your dogma, which in your view makes her right. But here's what's wrong about it, using a small business as a micro-example:

Happy Meal (McDonald's franchises are small businesses)
What are you buying, and thus what are the cost components? Labor certainly, albeit not much in unit labor cost, since time to assemble and serve you at the counter might be 3 minutes, at most. $12 / hr ($14 with payroll and other costs) is about 69 cents for 3 minutes, worst case. Currently, it's maybe 45 cents, about, for 3 minutes of labor at a typical McDonalds. So a labor cost delta of about 24 cents, on your happy meal, which includes other things: wear on a tray; box and wrappers; something resembling food; franchise fees; profit for the owner. And it's in heated building, with free parking, which are other unaffected costs.

And the cost may not be passed onto you. With every other person in town earning $12 / hr or more, some extra Happy Meals are sold. Thus the owner might take a margin-hit to sustain and even increase volume. They still profit, the same or even more, or maybe take less, but still have plenty and love owning the business.
 

Forum List

Back
Top